How will Democrats interpret Brown's win?

The question of the moment is what effect Scott Brown's victory will have on national politics.

It's important to note that his election to the Senate does relatively little to change the overall balance of power in the country. See, for instance, Joshua Tucker's helpful chart:

The loss of Democrats' filibuster-proof majority seems to eliminate the prospect of passing the health care bill through conference committee, but for other legislation, the shift of the pivotal voter from Ben Nelson to Olympia Snowe in the Senate is likely to have a relatively small direct effect. Nelson is currently paying a heavy political price in Nebraska for his support of the health care bill and is unlikely to take a similar risk on future legislation. (On a more technical level, Tucker also notes that the gap between Nelson and Snowe's ideal points is probably relatively small -- see, for instance, Simon Jackman's estimates [PDF].)

Similarly, we knew Democrats faced an unfavorable environment two weeks ago and that the health care reform plan was relatively unpopular in national polls. Not much has changed on either front.

What matters, however, is the collective interpretation of the election. Even though Brown's victory was an ambiguous amalgam of national and local factors, including Coakley's hapless campaign and poor economic conditions, the media is already portraying the outcome as a referendum on President Obama (though a majority of Massachusetts voters approve of his performance) and health care (even though Brown supports a very similar state-run plan in Massachusetts). Debatable as they may be, these interpretations may quickly become conventional wisdom -- indeed, many Democrats have already endorsed them.

The most relevant comparison to the current situation might be electoral mandates. The seminal political science research on the subject shows that opposition party legislators tend to deviate from their typical voting patterns in the direction of a perceived mandate for some period of time before returning to normal.

Given the Democratic tendency to panic in these types of situations, we may see a similar shift in voting patterns or a change in the party's legislative agenda. Pundits will likely claim that Democrats should yield to public opinion as expressed by Massachusetts voters. But it's not at all clear that such moves will prevent significant losses in the November midterms, nor that there is a "message" from Brown's victory as such.

Update 1/20 1:50 PM: Based on Brown's voting record as a state legislator, political scientist Boris Shor estimates that he will become the Senate filibuster pivot rather than Snowe. As I've previously argued, I think Brown moved right to motivate the GOP base in a low-turnout special election, so I'm skeptical he'll pursue such a moderate course (at least right away). But if Shor is correct and Brown is between Nelson and Snowe, it reduces the rightward shift in the filibuster pivot, meaning that Brown's win would have an even smaller effect than we might have otherwise thought.

Update 1/21 9:36 AM: See also John Sides on the need to admit what we don't know about the MA results and Greg Marx on the media's misguided attempts to distill a "message" from the election.

Update 1/22 9:44 AM: Via Matthew Yglesias, Alec MacGillis reports in the Washington Post that "Brown's victory in Mass. senate race hardly a repudiation of health reform."

[Cross-posted to Pollster.com]

Comments

[David]

No doubt each Dem will interpret Brown's victory in his/her own way. Democrat Mort Zuckerman takes an extreme view, which I tend to agree with.

He's Done Everything Wrong

.........
This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery....

[Howard Craft]

Increased coverage can be cost effective. Increased coverage, reduced costs and insurance reform are interrelated.

http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e00982269188330120a7a46406970b-popup

Democrats have done a poor job of is explaining and promoting the benefits of reform in the face of nebulous and inflammatory rhetoric.

[Rob]

The chart embedded by Brendan is indeed very helpful. Here's another helpful graph.

[David]

I forget to include a link to the article I quoted. It's http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/?cid=bs:archive3

[Rob]

Brendan refers to the collective interpretation of the election. I wonder if people will adopt President Obama's interpretation:

Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

In other words, Brown's election is George Bush's fault!

[Boris Shor]

Brendan, of course you're right about the reduction in the rightward shift of the pivot. BUT: the pivot is now a Republican, not a Democrat (which increases the conservative bias) AND/OR the pivot is susceptible to deals (which increases the liberal bias if Obama and Democrats are smart about how to pay off Brown). Very interesting!

About Brown's policy commitments: where there's elections in the balance, somehow politicians always find a way to finesse moving away from campaign promises, no?

For example, given his support for RomneyCare in MA, and pretty substantial policy changes in health care reform, isn't there some package that Brown would approve of?

[David]

Even though Brown's victory was an...amalgam of...factors, including...poor economic conditions, the media is already portraying the outcome as a referendum on President Obama...

Brendan's "even though" implies that poor economic conditions should nt be regarded as a reflection on President Obama. First of all, Presidents are always blamed or credited for prevailing economic conditions. In this case, Obama championed an enormous stimulus bill, he took over of auto companies and banks, huge amounts of money was money thrown at financial institutions, the government is in the process of taking over the student loan business, and there have been other acts with economic implications. If Obama's extravagant steps have made the job situation worse instead of better, then it's appropriate to regard the failure of the economy as a failure of the President IMHO.

However, Brendan is closer to reality than the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21thur1.html?ref=opinion This editorial comes close to self-parody. E.g., it complains that the President "spent too much time talking to reluctant Democrats and Republicans," on a health bill that was crafted with no input at all from Repubicans.