Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 471–491 | Cite as

Blame, Responsibility, and the Tea Party in the 2010 Midterm Elections

  • John H. Aldrich
  • Bradford H. Bishop
  • Rebecca S. Hatch
  • D. Sunshine Hillygus
  • David W. Rohde
Original Paper

Abstract

There is a general consensus both in the news media and scholarly research that 2010 was a highly nationalized election year. Reports have indicated that anti-Obama sentiment, the Democrats’ legislative agenda, the economy, and the Tea Party were all factors contributing to Democratic losses in the congressional elections. In this paper, we use data from 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to examine the individual-level dynamics that contributed to the heightened nationalization of the 2010 congressional elections. Our analysis shows that Tea Party support and the attribution of blame and responsibility by voters are essential to understanding the 2010 election outcome, beyond what we would expect from a simple referendum model of midterm elections. Not surprisingly, Tea Party supporters blamed Democrats for the state of national affairs, disapproved of the Democrats’ policy agenda, and overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates in the congressional elections. However, our analysis shows that not all voters who supported Republican candidates were driven by high levels of opposition to President Obama and the Democrats. Another key group of voters blamed both Democrats and Republicans for the nation’s problems but ultimately held Democrats responsible in the voting booth by supporting Republican congressional candidates.

Keywords

2010 Congressional elections Midterm elections Voting behavior Tea Party movement 

References

  1. AAPOR, Opt-In Online Panel Task Force. (2010). AAPOR report on online panels. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Releases_Report_on_Online_Survey_Panes/2263.htm.
  2. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (1995). Change and continuity in the 1992 elections (revised edition). Washington, D.C: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, M. A., Mummolo, J., & Noel, H. (2012). Tea Party influence: A story of activists and elites. American Politics Research, 40(5), 769–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, J. R., Fleisher, R., & Ilderton, N. A. (2011). Was the Tea Party responsible for the Republican victory in the 2010 House elections? Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, D. W., Fiorina, M. P., & Wilkins, A. S. (2011). The 2010 elections: Why did political science forecasts go awry? Political Science & Politics, 44(02), 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. E. (2010). The midterm landslide of 2010: A triple wave election. The Forum, 8(4), Article 3.Google Scholar
  7. Courser, Z. (2010). The Tea Party at the election. The Forum, 8(4), Article 5.Google Scholar
  8. Fiorina, M. P. (1978). Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: A micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2003). Causal attribution and economic voting in American congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herszenhorn, D. M., & Hulse, C. (2009). Deal reached in Congress on $789 billion stimulus plan. New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/us/politics/12stimulus.html?_r=1&ref=us.
  12. Jacobson, G. C. (2011a). Legislative success and political failure: The public’s reaction to Barack Obama’s early presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobson, G. C. (2011b). The republican resurgence in 2010. Political Science Quarterly, 126(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobson, G. C. (2011c). The President, the Tea Party, and voting behavior in 2010: Insights from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, D. R., & McDermott, M. L. (2011). The salience of the Democratic Congress and the 2010 elections. Political Science & Politics, 44(02), 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karpowitz, C. F., Monson, J. Q., Patterson, K. D., & Pope, J. C. (2011). Tea time in America? The impact of the Tea Party movement on the 2010 midterm elections. Political Science & Politics, 44(02), 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kernell, S. (1977). Presidential popularity and negative voting: An alternative explanation of the midterm congressional decline of the president’s party. The American Political Science Review, 71(1), 44–66.Google Scholar
  18. Key, V. O., Jr. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality and presidential elections, 1936–1960. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, E. (2010). The 1982 election and pundit fallability. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_1982_election_and_pundit_f.html.
  21. Koger, G., & Lebo, M. J. (2012). Strategic party government and the 2010 elections. American Politics Research, 40(5), 927–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konisky, D. M., & Richardson, L. E., Jr. (2012). Penalizing the party: Health care reform issue voting in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 903–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kramer, G. H. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in US voting behavior, 1896–1964. The American Political Science Review, 65(1), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krugman, P. (2009). Behind the curve. New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html.
  25. Krugman, P. (2011). On the inadequacy of the stimulus. New York Times. Retrieved September 5, 2011 from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/on-the-inadequacy-of-the-stimulus/.
  26. Nyhan, B., McGhee, E., Sides, J., Masket, S., & Greene, S. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pasek, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Measuring intent to participate and participation in the 2010 census and their correlates and trends: Comparisons of RDD telephone and non-probability sample internet survey data. Washington, D.C.: Statistical Research Division of the U.S. Census Bureau (#2010-15).Google Scholar
  28. Peffley, M. (1984). The voter as juror: Attributing responsibility for economic conditions. Political Behavior, 6(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrocik, J. R., & Steeper, F. T. (1986). The midterm referendum: The importance of attributions of responsibility. Political Behavior, 8(3), 206–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roberts, C. (2010). November’s elections reminiscent of 1982 elections. Morning Edition. Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129676128.
  31. Rudolph, T. J. (2003). Who’s responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salvanto, A., & Gersh, M. (2009). For Republicans, could 2010 be like 1994. Retrieved 24 September, 2009 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5335263-503544.html.
  33. Stonecash, J. M. (2010). The 2010 elections: Party Pursuits, voter perceptions, and the chancy game of politics. The Forum, 8(4), Article 11.Google Scholar
  34. Tufte, E. R. (1975). Determinants of the outcomes of midterm Congressional elections. The American Political Science Review, 69(3), 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weatherford, M. S. (2012). The wages of competence: Obama, the economy, and the 2010 midterm elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 42(1), 8–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., et al. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(4), 709–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Aldrich
    • 1
  • Bradford H. Bishop
    • 2
  • Rebecca S. Hatch
    • 1
  • D. Sunshine Hillygus
    • 1
  • David W. Rohde
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and the Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability, and EnergyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations