The
title “midterm election” is reasonably straightforward; a midterm election is an
election that takes place midway through a president’s four year term. Select
senators and every member of the House of Representatives stand for election or
re-election during midterms. Historical data shows significant differences
between midterm and presidential elections, including: differences in campaign
issues and voter turnout. For example, campaign issues for presidential
elections tend to be much broader (i.e. international affairs) because the
president not only represents Americans, they become a global figure and
leader. While midterm campaign issues are more targeted at the current concerns
of the state and district the candidates desire to represent. Alongside the
differences in campaign issues is the difference of voter turnout. Typical
voter turnout is about 40% in midterm elections while voter turnout trends for
presidential elections range from 50-60%. There are a few speculations as to
why voter turnout is repeatedly lower: spending is significantly lower in
midterm elections and in turn election coverage throughout the media is
typically less. With less hype and focus surrounding midterm elections, fewer
people value midterm officials and issues as a top priority; resulting in
shorter lines at the polls.
The 2014 North Carolina Senate race
was one of the most unpredictable Congressional competitions the United States
has seen in years. In the months leading up to last week’s midterm election
both candidates were running neck and neck with Democratic incumbent, Kay
Hagan, 1-4 percentage points ahead in the polls. Nothing could be conclusive
though, because the margin of error is +/-2. Based on her support from
minorities, incumbency advantage, and campaign finances, I, along with many
sources, was convinced that Kay Hagan would ultimately win the Senate seat.
In 2008, Kay Hagan marginally beat
Republican incumbent, Elizabeth Dole, in her race for the Senate mainly due to
minority support. Many attribute Hagan’s tight win to President Obama’s
election as the first African American U.S. President. Obama’s popularity
brought many Democrat supporters to the polls that year and an unprecedented
amount of African American voters. The Democratic Party is very familiar with
support from minorities because of its stance on immigration, gay marriage, and
women’s rights. In the North Carolina debates during this election, all three
of these controversial topics were presented for discussion between Kay Hagan
and Thom Tillis. Hagan maintained her position and Democratic Party values by
supporting all three making her competitive and a prime candidate to represent
minorities. Kay not only pronounced her views, but accused Thom Tillis of “not
understanding women” as it pertains to the contraceptive controversy. Many ads
and debates show an outspoken Hagan zealously supporting minorities and their
“best interests.”
Gaining support from minorities does
not guarantee a win in North Carolina, but incumbency also plays a significant
role in this election and many others historically and recently. The most important
advantages of the incumbent title are: name recognition and government
resources. Name recognition is important for incumbents because voters are
familiar with the name on the ballot after years of previous work in office.
Name recognition is said to be one of the major obstacles that challengers face
in elections, but this race was different in the aspect of Thom Tillis’ name
also being familiar. Tillis is known in North Carolina as the former Speaker of
the House; and although running for a Senate seat is different, his name is
more popular than other challengers can claim when competing against an
incumbent. Hagan also had the incumbent advantage of government resources. The
biggest factor of this advantage is money; but aside from financials, support
from well-known political figures is definitely a plus for any candidate
seeking office. Bill Clinton is in fact the political figure who openly
supported Hagan’s re-election campaign. Incumbency is a crucial advantage in
Congressional races and may have been a factor in the initial pre-election
polls.
Campaign finances always carry a lot
of weight in elections because the more money a candidate receives the more
advertising is credited to their campaign, boosting their name and picture
recognition. The 2014 North Carolina Senate race was so expensive no other
races from this year can compare. In fact the final numbers still haven’t been
reported, but many sources are claiming this race to be one of the most
expensive in Senate history. How many millions of dollars are estimated in the
funding of these two candidates? Over 100 million. Colorado’s race was second,
but trailed by almost 20 million dollars. Why was this money spent in such
large amounts? North Carolina was known to be a close race long before November
4th, making it a key factor in the GOP reclaiming control of the
Senate and Congress as a whole. With this in mind, the majority of this money
was provided by Super PACs and nonprofits belonging to both major parties.
Hagan used a significant amount of this money to run negative ads (i.e. Thom
Tillis-Terrible for Education) though, and many speculate whether these ads
hurt her more than helped. Thom Tillis put his money to good use and can be
seen as an NRA affiliate in one of his major ads. This is significant because
North Carolina is heavily populated by military and gun activists. His other
ads primarily focus on linking Hagan to Obama and many North Carolina voters,
and voters in general, currently view Obama in a negative light.
In the end, the support from
minorities, incumbency advantage, and campaign finances did not prove to be
enough for Hagan to be re-elected to the Senate. It is difficult to pinpoint
the exact tactic that Tillis used to one up Hagan, but most venture to say that
when it all came down to it the independent voters supported Tillis rather than
their own third party candidate (Sean Haugh) or Hagan. Tillis also got a
surprisingly high amount of women voters, for a Republican candidate, this
could be due to the fact that he is a former PTA President and isn’t terrible
for education after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment