|
Winner
|
Winner%
|
|
Obama%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy
|
55.2%
|
|
58.1%
|
|
Nelson
|
55.2%
|
|
50.0%
|
|
Donnelly
|
50.0%
|
|
43.9%
|
|
|
53.3%
|
|
60.7%
|
|
McCaskill
|
54.8%
|
|
44.4%
|
|
Tester
|
48.6%
|
|
41.7%
|
|
Heitkamp
|
50.5%
|
|
38.7%
|
|
Brown
|
50.7%
|
|
50.7%
|
|
Casey
|
53.7%
|
|
52.0%
|
|
Kaine
|
52.9%
|
|
51.2%
|
|
|
51.5%
|
|
52.8%
|
|
|
|
|
|
This blog continues the discussion that we began with Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009).The latest book in this series is Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Coattails and the Senate: An Update
A November 10 post asked whether President Obama's coattails were responsible for the Senate Democrats' net gain of two seats. It looked the 11 Democratic victories in races that RealClearPolitics rated as "tossups" or "leans," comparing the percentage of the vote for the winning Senate candidate and President Obama. Below is an updated version of the table, with final, certified figures. As before, it shows that only in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin did the president get a higher percentage of the vote than the winning Senate candidate, and only in Massachusetts was the difference more than five percent. We have to conclude that the evidence for any coattail effect is very weak.
(In the Ohio race, rounding to two decimal places instead of one shows that Senator Sherrod Brown got a slightly greater share of the vote than President Obama: 50.70 percent to 50.67 percent.)