WSJ vs. WSJ on 2009 elections

Wall Street Journal, 11/3/09:

Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Outcomes in New York, New Jersey and Virginia Are Unlikely to Forecast Much About National Races in 2010, History Shows

Republicans appear positioned for strong results in three hard-fought elections Tuesday. But isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years.

Wall Street Journal, 11/4/09:

Republicans Win in Key States

A Republican sweep in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday shifted the political terrain against President Barack Obama only a year after his historic election.

PS For the record, the WSJ was right the first time. Despite what the press will tell you, a handful of off-year elections don't tell us much about the "political terrain" facing Obama and the Democrats. As Matthew Yglesias points out, we have these things called "polls" that we can use to measure people's political beliefs and opinions. Perhaps we should consider using those instead.

Update 11/4 11:41 AM: Dave notes in comments that the first story includes a similar passage about the election potentially revealing "much tougher political terrain," which I missed:

A Republican sweep in Tuesday's key contests would at minimum show that Democrats face much tougher political terrain than they did a year ago.

I'm not sure what that means (the metaphor of "political terrain" is not well-defined) but it seems to contradict the lede of the story, which states that off-year elections are not reliable indicators. The point remains that the ledes of the two stories are in tension (if not in direct contradiction).

It's also worth noting note the contradiction between the election "show[ing]... political terrain" (11/3) and the results actually "shift[ing] the political terrain" (11/4). Maybe it's time to retire the metaphor, which lets reporters vaguely suggest that things have changed without specifying how.

Update 11/4 8:49 PM -- Eric Boehlert at Media Matters has a virtually identical item on the AP's election coverage:

The AP on Tuesday:

To be sure, it's easy to overanalyze the results of such a small number of elections in a few places. The results will only offer hints about the national political landscape and clues to the public's attitudes. And the races certainly won't predict what will happen in the 2010 midterm elections.

The AP on Wednesday:

To be sure, each race was as much about local issues as about firing warning shots at the politically powerful. But taken together, the results of the 2009 off-year elections could imperil Obama's ambitious legislative agenda and point to a challenging environment in midterm elections next year.

(Cross-posted to Pollster.com)

Comments

[Lester Hunt]

There is one important bit of information that elections give you with certainty and polls don't: who bothers to walk/ride/drive/crawl to the polling place on election day and who does not. There is a difference between saying something to a pollster and actually doing something.

[David]

Those two WSJ quotes aren't contradictory. In fact, the earlier quote also says the election will shift the "poltical terrain".

A Republican sweep in Tuesday's key contests would at minimum show that Democrats face much tougher political terrain than they did a year ago. GOP victories would also help the party's fundraising and candidate recruitment for 2010, providing backing for arguments that Republicans have the momentum, and that voters are turning against the Obama agenda.

It's not a contradiction to assert that these changes will take place even though yesterday's elections are less-than-certain indicators of 2010.

Brendan mentions polls, but I think they all have specific limitations. Polls on health care reform are all over the place, depending on the precise wording of the question. Polls on 2010 elections aren't terribly certain, because the election is a year off. Polls on Obama's popularity don't necessarily show how much he can help other candidates.

One thing this election told us that could not have been learned from polls is that President Obama lacks clout. Even though he is personally popular, he failed in his effort to transfer his popularity to Dems in VA and NJ. His heavy involvement didn't move many voters.

[David]

Maybe it's time to retire the metaphor, which lets reporters vaguely suggest that things have changed without specifying how.

Amen.

[Jinchi]

One thing this election told us that could not have been learned from polls is that President Obama lacks clout.

I think that was the point of Brendan's post. Presidents never have the level of clout that the press assigns to them. This isn't unique to Obama.

In any case, this year's elections don't predict next years midterms any more than last year's elections predicted the results of this race.

[David]

Aside from the meaninglessness of the WSJ's metaphor, there the vagueness of the phrase "...isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators..."

Are off year contests sometimes a reliable indicator? How often are they reliable? What characteristics make them more or less reliable? Has their reliabillity changed over time?

I've read similar comments to the WSJ's in other places. My impression is that the writers are puposely vague, because they don't know much about the meaning of off year contests. This might be an opportunity for Brendan or one of his students to research the matter. It might lead to a publication.