George,

Rhodes Cook’s analysis of the recent election in Massachusetts is badly flawed. Most of it compares the Obama vote in 2008 with Martha Coakley’s vote in the recent senate race. There is no way that these two races can be compared. Barack Obama was a unique individual who was running for President. Martha Coakley was a unique individual who was running for Senate. By far the most important influence on voters’ decisions in races for high office is the candidate. Very different candidates are going to produce very different results. Coakley was a terrible candidate; Barack Obama, quite the opposite. As in most races for high office, party preference has relatively little to do with it.

Furthermore, the voters in Massachusetts were aware that they were voting for a Senator to represent Massachusetts and its unique needs. They also knew that they were NOT voting in a referendum on Barack Obama’s presidency.

Cook’s analysis also makes the common mistake of comparing two moving points – the November 2008 presidential election and the January 2010 Massachusetts election. The results of the 2008 election did not establish a new baseline or stable state of the electorate. They were a result of short term forces at the time of the 2008 election and these short term forces are constantly shifting. Commentators who look at the results of an election that took place when the political winds were blowing in one direction and try to compare that moving point with a current moving point where the winds are blowing in another direct are engaged in a task that would make Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity theory look easy.

The result of the November 2008 presidential election was a combination of what people thought of the candidates and what the national issues were at that time. Recall that the financial crash had just occurred and that its consequences in terms of unemployment, etc. had not yet been felt. Obama also had the anti-Bush sentiment in his favor. So the result of these factors in November 2008, plus many others, brought about a rather large margin of victory for Obama. Many voters, especially independents, swung (at that moment) to the Democratic side. That moving point was temporary and was a result of the unique candidates and issues at the time of the election.

Now we shift to an entirely different election in Massachusetts in the winter of 2010. I have already discussed the candidate factor. Other factors were at play that were also unique to Massachusetts. For example, these voters had already had firsthand experience with mandatory health care (similar to what was being proposed by the Democrats in Washington). What the Massachusetts voters felt about that experience and how much that effected their vote is hard to say, but it must have been a factor. In addition, many commentators had the absurd notion that, just because the voters of Massachusetts were accustomed to voting for a Kennedy for that Senate seat, they would vote for any Democrat who happened to run for that seat. Voters were quite aware that no Kennedy was on the ballot, even if commentators were not. In sum, there were many unique SHORT TERM factors that brought about the momentary swing to an excellent Republican candidate. This is another example of a moving point that cannot be generalized about nor compared with other, totally different, elections.

It so happens that in the two other major elections recently – in New Jersey and Virginia – the Democrats ran candidates who were not seen favorably by a great many voters. Again, unique individual Democratic candidates, each of whom had major flaws, largely affected the outcomes of these elections. No generalization can be drawn from these races where unique candidates were such an important factor.

Cook writes that “President Obama has been unable to stem the tide, even with the investment of his political capital into each losing campaign.” We have seen that there is no “tide” – only a series of unique elections that happen to have gone in the Republican direction mostly because they had strong candidates and Democrats did not. And Cook should know that there is little or no historic evidence that any president, not matter how popular, can influence voters in a state and or local election by simply making a campaign visit. Voters make up their own minds.

November 2010 is quite far away and much can happen between now and then. What the issues will be at that time cannot be foretold. High caliber Democratic candidates with a clear message and who run an effective campaign – candidates like Tom Perriello – can win. Each race is unique. I should add that in congressional races, incumbency is a major factor in favor of the incumbent (mainly due to constituency service).

David RePass (Electronic mail, January 30, 2010)