In less than a month, voters across the nation will be going to the polls to elect governors, senators, members of congress, and a host of local officers.
Yet, if you are like most Americans, you are not really paying attention to the races.
A recent Pew Research poll showed that only 15 percent of Americans were closely following the news concerning the 2014 midterm elections.
If you are part of the majority of voters not plugged into Politico or tied into the New York Times this election season, you may not be aware of some of the races to watch 2014 going on this term.
To help you get up to speed, several College of Charleston political experts have come up three of “the most intriguing national races” this cycle.
Kansas Senate Race
Kendra Stewart
Reviewed by Kendra Stewart
I think of all places, Kansas has the most interesting race this election year. Kansas is a state that is so red, Democrats have almost written it off entirely. The Republican party holds the majority in both the state House and Senate. All four members of Congress and both U.S. Senators are Republicans and the state hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President since LBJ.
But something strange is happening in Kansas this year – an independent by the name of Greg Orman is running against incumbent Senator Pat Roberts and is currently leading in all the polls by 5-15 points.
The Democrat who had been in the race had to go to court to have his name removed from ballot so he could step aside in hope that Democrats would get behind the independent and defeat Senator Roberts. Mr. Orman, a self-made millionaire, is now the target of the national GOP’s fundraising effort in order to maintain that Republican seat.
Orman has caught the attention of Kansans (as well as the national media) in his campaign against Washington and the political elite.
This very unexpected turn of events in Kansas has the Republican party trying to figure out what to do in a state that is considered a stronghold and where the majority of voters identify as Republicans.
It has left many asking “What’s the matter with Kansas?”
North Carolina Senate Race
Reviewed by Gibbs Knotts and Mike Lee
Gibbs Kotts
Knotts: One-term Democrat, Kay Hagan, was elected on the coattails of Barack Obama in the historical 2008 contest. Hagan is facing a strong challenge from Republican speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Thom Tillis.
The North Carolina contest is interesting because it is occurring in a southern swing state. The vast majority of the states in the South are strongly Republican so North Carolina in an outlier.
Also, the contest is a chance to gauge the public¹s reaction to Tillis and the Republican agenda that he has championed as Speaker of the NC House of Representatives. There has been a strong backlash against some of these policie. For example, the Moral Mondays movement started in North Carolina in 2013 as a reaction to policies related to voting rights, abortions rights, and cuts to education and social programs.
Lee: But beyond the basic week-to-week horse race numbers, this race is interesting for two bigger reasons, both related to questions of campaign strategy.
First, for over 20 years, the nationalization of mid-term elections has been a campaign hallmark. House and Senate candidates have favored talking about national political controversies and national politicians in addition to – sometimes to the exclusion of – controversies and leaders endemic to a particular state or district.
Mike Lee
This nationalization strategy has, however, failed Thom Tillis in North Carolina. Tillis has lampooned Hagan as soft on ISIS, a cheerleader for Obamacare and essentially an Obama crony. Hagan has consistently questioned Tillis’ role in pushing controversial education bills through the NC state House. Hagan’s local message has been the resonant one.
Second, it is easy to get the impression that political and cultural events conspire to produce a “wave” of inevitable victory for one party or the other.
Amid President Obama’s dismal approval ratings, Hagan is facing down rather than riding the wave.
Tillis, however, has been incapable of using these national trends to his advantage. When the national talking points – link Hagan to Obama/Obamacare – failed to gain traction, Tillis struggled to maintain a consistent attack.
Tillis’ shift from message to message suggests an inability to replicate the strategy. Tillis remains within striking distance, but he faces a tough home stretch. It appears quite possible that poor strategy can get you tossed from a wave.
RELATED: Read Gibbs/ Ragusa’s op/ed “Congressional Dysfunction Did not Happen Overnight”.
Arkansas Senate Race
Reviewed by Jordan Ragusa
Jordan Ragusa
I’m intrigued by the Senate race in Arkansas, pitting Democratic Senator Mark Pryor against Republican Representative Tom Cotton. While the Senate races in North Carolina and Kansas have more intrigue, in my view there’s more to learn from the Arkansas contest.
In 2002 Mark Pryor won his first race for the U.S. Senate. Running for a second term in 2008, Pryor garnered a whopping 80 percent of the vote. But in this year’s contest, polls have Pryor’s opponent—Republican Tom Cotton—ahead by two to seven percent. In fact, Election Lab (a forecasting site developed by political scientists) calculates that Pryor has just an 8 percent chance of winning this November.
An obvious question is: how can we explain these wild fluctuations? And what does this tell us about Senate elections? For starters, it’s important to note that, in 2008, the Republican Party didn’t run a candidate against Pryor. Why? Because dozens of studies have shown that poor economic conditions can be very damaging to congressional candidates of the president’s party (which was Republicans in 2008). It’s not as if Arkansas somehow lacked high quality Republican candidates, like Cotton. Rather, those candidates made a strategic decision not to run. In 2014, however, the circumstances are almost perfectly reserved. With a sluggish economy and an unpopular Democratic president, the electoral landscape looks particularly good for Republican candidates. Political scientists call the effect of these nationwide dynamics a “wave.” In addition, since 1946 the president’s party has gained seats in a Senate just four times (1962, 1970, 1982, and 2002). Indeed, we know that midterm elections—like the current one—are particularly hard on the president’s party.
So in sum, the Senate race in Arkansas perfectly reflects the importance of understanding the “fundamentals” about congressional elections: presidential popularity, strategic decision-making by high quality candidates, and the critical effect of macroeconomic conditions.
