Over the summer, it was pretty hard to miss the less-than-stellar polling numbers for Democrats in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. And while those numbers have moderated somewhat (particularly in the Garden State), it has also been pretty hard to miss right wing crowing that the races amounted to a "bellwether" of what was to come in 2010. Indeed, as Chris Christie was riding high in August, the right-wing Washington Times proclaimed the off-year governors races by that exact term--stating that "both races are already attracting outsized attention and national funding as harbingers for the 2010 midterm elections."
While there can be no question that the national parties pay outsized attention to these two off-year gubernatorial races, it may well be because of their isolated status, rather than any predictive value that the races have. In fact, a study of the past two decades shows that the two off-year gubernatorial elections have, with one notable exception, told us very little about the next year's midterm elections.
1989
Of the five election cycles that we have seen in the last two decades, one could argue that this was the gubernatorial cycle with the best outcome for the Democrats. Democrat Jim Florio had swamped Republican Jim Courter in New Jersey (61-37), while Democrat Doug Wilder had scored a narrow upset of Republican Marshall Coleman in Virginia (50-50). The outcome of those two elections was probably all that the Democratic Party could have hoped for in the off-year. But did it portend a Democratic landslide in 1990? No. Not really. In fact, there was very little change to the electoral balance of power after the 1990 elections. Democrats gained a seat in the Senate, and seven seats in the House. A favorable outcome (given that the Dems had large majorities at the time), but one of the weakest outcomes for the party "out" of the White House in a midterm election.
1993
If there was an election cycle where the off-year might have been an accurate prognosticator of certain doom, it was the 1993 gubernatorial elections. New Jersey's incumbent Democratic governor (Florio) was upset by Republican Christie Todd Whitman. Meanwhile, in Virginia, the victory for Republican Congressman George Allen over Democratic state Attorney General Mary Sue Terry might have been predictable, but the margin (a 58-41 drubbing) certainly was not. It goes without saying what outcome was visited upon the Democrats during the following year.
1997
The 1997 off-year races would best be described as a mixed bag. While Democrats had to be disappointed in the GOP incumbent Whitman's re-election in New Jersey, they had to be heartened by the fact that their unheralded nominee, state Senator Jim McGreevey, came within just a point of the shocking upset. Virginia, meanwhile, went strongly Republican, as state Attorney General Jim Gilmore easily dispatched Democratic Lt. Governor Don Beyer by double digits (56-43). Given those results, a "bellwether" would predict a solid GOP year in 1998. Which is exactly what pundits predicted, expecting the GOP to earn a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an expanded House majority. Neither thing happened, as Democrats managed to hold serve in the Senate and actually gain a handful of House seats.
2001
The 2001 elections, in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks less than eight weeks earlier, stand as the cycle with the weakest connection to the events of the following year. The 2001 election cycle was, on balance, stellar for the Democrats. Jim McGreevey elected to make a second bid for the New Jersey governorship, and easily dispatched then-GOP rising star Bret Schundler (56-42). Meanwhile, Mark Warner (whose political pedigree was limited to a strong-but-unsuccessful 1996 Senate bid) scored an upset in Virginia, dispatching state Attorney General Mark Earley by a five-point margin (52-47). The predictive value here? Nil. Republicans reclaimed the U.S. Senate in the 2002 midterm elections, and picked up eight seats in the House.
2005
We remember (with joy, no doubt) the landslide defeat visited on the Republican Party during the 2006 midterms. Was there any way to predict that, based on the 2005 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey? Well...not exactly. The results for the Democrats in those two contests were favorable: Democrats Jon Corzine (53-43 over GOP nominee Doug Forrester) and Tim Kaine (52-46 over GOP nominee Jerry Kilgore) held serve for the blue team, but neither result was particularly shocking. Kaine's win was a bit of an upset, given that he had trailed through most of the campaign. But it was hardly an eye-popping result, nor was Corzine's by-the-numbers win in blue New Jersey. Certainly nothing that would foreshadow what came in November of 2006, when the Democrats ran the tables and regained majorities in both houses of Congress.
* * * * * * * * * * *
There are a number of reasons why these two gubernatorial races are not terribly good predictors of national electoral trends, but one reason transcends the others, and it is this: statewide elections like gubernatorial elections often turn on issues that are, by definition, local in nature. Whether it is property taxes in New Jersey or transportation in rapidly expanding Northern Virginia, elections can turn in gubernatorial races on things that have little or no national parallel.
Voters, as a result, are often able to understand that the "mess in Washington" (no matter what party is presently responsible for said mess) is unlikely to be impacted greatly by the governor of a state, whose primary responsibility is dealing with his/her own set of messes in the state capitol. Thus, it is the nature of things in that state capitol, as much or more than the nature of things in Washington DC, that might propel a party to victory or defeat. Which is why it is pretty easy to argue that Chris Christie is running against the Democratic establishment in New Jersey a great deal more than he is running against the Democratic establishment in DC.
This is not to say that national issues do not factor into these races from time to time. Health care has certainly factored into Chris Christie's recent swoon in the polls, as his opposition to the idea of state mandates put him in the uncomfortable position of defending in a public forum the idea that health insurers could deny mammograms in certain cases. It is not hard to attribute at least some of the erosion in Christie's support among women, particularly Independent voters who otherwise might be persuaded to be in his corner.
The bottom line is this: there is no consistent evidence to support the theory that the off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia have any "bellwether" status vis-a-vis the following year's federal elections. That connectivity has been there some of the time, has been completely absent some of the time, and the connection the other times has been tenuous, at best.
Which, presumably, will do nothing to stop the chattering classes from drawing sweeping conclusions about 2010 based on November 3rd, no matter which party winds up being left smiling on that day.