Here is Seth Masket:
bq. Here’s what Owens’ victory doesn’t mean. It’s not a sign of major national affirmation of Obama’s agenda or foreshadowing of Democratic victories in 2010. Yes, it’s pretty fascinating that this area will be represented by a Democrat in the House for the first time since the 1800s, but that has a lot to do with the unusual circumstances surrounding the race, like, say, the fact that the Republican dropped out last week and urged support for the Democrat.
Yes. The same is true of the gubernatorial races in NJ and VA: absent more evidence, we simply don’t know if they were referenda on Obama, on Corzine and Kaine, or on none of the above. Interpretations of elections depend on the reasons for voters’ choices. You can’t simply ask voters why they chose a candidate, or whether a particular factor mattered. People do not accurately report on their own mental processes. You can’t simply look at the at overall levels of opinions — what percentage approves of Obama or is dissatisfied with Corzine, etc. This is why, contra NPR this morning, there is no “contradiction” in the fact that a majority of New Jersey voters approve of Obama but voted for Christie. The key is the _relationship_ of these opinions to candidate preferences. And those relationships cannot be accurately estimated without controlling for other relevant factors, such as voters’ party identification. There is absolutely no evidence on this score — unless someone wants to send me the raw exit poll data — and any interpretations being provided by pundits and media outlets are pure speculation.
(Especially when these interpretations are contradictory mush like this from Dan Balz:
bq. Off-year elections can be notoriously unreliable as predictors of the future, but as a window on how the political landscape may have changed in the year since President Obama won the White House, Tuesday’s Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey delivered clear warnings for the Democrats.
Unreliable, yet clear!)
Seth goes on to say this of NY-23:
bq. So what does it mean?…But in general, the coalition of opinion leaders who were initially resistant to moderate Republican nominee Dede Scozzofava — including Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, and a number of Tea Party spokespeople — needed to do two things to prove that they were the future of the party. They needed to push the moderate out of the race (check) and still get their chosen candidate, Doug Hoffman, elected (whoops). It was a somewhat risky strategy in that it sent a message that moderate politicians had no place in the party, but if they could win elections and remain ideologically pure, that’s an ideal position for the conservative activists.
bq. So now what they’ve done is proven the importance of ideological positioning — if you nominate too extreme a candidate, you lose the election. So the folks in the Republican Party who sabotaged Scozzofava and rallied around Hoffman now look silly and more than a tad disloyal. They cost their party a seat in Congress.
Jon Bernstein disagrees:
bq. I’m very skeptical about that. To outsiders, sure, the conservatives “look silly and more than a tad disloyal.” But I really don’t think that’s how most Republicans are going to interpret NY-23. I think they are going to consider the formal party officials of NY-23 the villains of the piece. For them, this will be the story of a near-outrage that was foiled by a determined group of conservatives, and despite all disadvantages the conservative candidate nearly won. From that point of view, it was the party officials of NY-23 who were the disloyal ones, and it was their mistake in nominating an unacceptable candidate that cost Republicans this seat.
bq. I think most Republican elites will either believe that version of events, or act as if they believe it.
I think that Republican elites’ interpretation of this will depend on their preexisting opinions. The moderates will see it as further evidence that conservatives want ideological purity even if it risks defeat. Conservatives will probably think something along the lines Jon proposes. People interpret new information in light of what they already think, and I don’t see any reason to suppose that Republican party leaders are different.