Why Feingold lost: conservatives rejected him (according to exit polling)

[andym]

Here are the exit polls for this year.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=WIS01p1

Russ won liberals 89 to 10%
Russ won moderates 58 to 42%
Russ lost conservatives 11 to 89%

Problem was that conservatives were 36% of the voters, liberals were 21% and moderates were 43%. Self-described liberals were almost outnumbered 1.7:1.

These numbers are roughly in agreement with national numbers for self-described Liberals and Conservatives.

This also supports the notion that self-described conservatives at least in this election in WI, really are conservative.

How does this compare to his last election:

Previously (in 2004) he won 22% of the conservative vote, 86% of the liberal vote, and 63% of the moderate vote.
Back then conservatives were only 32% of the voting population, liberals were 20% and moderates 48%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/WI/S/01/epolls.0.html


So he lost about half of the conservative vote (22 to 11%) and a larger percentage of the population described themselves as conservative this year (32 vs 36%) . Essentially conservatives came home to the GOP. Also more self-identified than in 2004, either reflecting a shift in voting population or less moderates voting. Liberals remain about the same percentage of the voting population (20 vs 21%) in WI.

Looks like moderates staying home cost him this election.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I wouldn't say the conservatives rejected him. I'd say the liberals abandoned him by not showing up.

[andym]

2. But the same percentage of liberals showed up in both 2004 and 2010. nt.

[Parche]

3. yeah what he said...

:hi:

[andym]

5. But the same percentage of liberals showed up in both 2004 and 2010. nt.

[pnwmom]

6. The conservatives voted against him in higher numbers than before.

His progressive politics didn't hold up against the wave toward conservatism.

[undeterred]

8. Exactly.

Feingold has always had some crossover vote from Republicans- at least from those intelligent enough to recognize him as a true fiscal conservative. That group may have dwindled. I don't think the number of liberals has changed.

[TroglodyteScholar]

15. And you'd be wrong.

But whatever, if it's how you FEEL, I guess it's right for you.

[pnwmom]

4. Not surprising. He wasn't in a safe blue area, so he got swamped

in a Rethug wave. A real loss.

This, of course, argues against the liberals who fantasize that we could turn red or purple areas blue simply by running more Feingolds.

[andym]

7. It argues that we need to work on convincing more people that progressivism is the road forward

The future of progressivism over the next decade probably lies with the success of the legislation enacted the last two years.

[EFerrari]

11. Russ voted no on the ftas that are killing jobs and manufacturing.

No on the Patriot Act, he was against the bail out and he was against the health insurance bill. All of those votes should have been okay with fiscal conservatives.

[andym]

13. Those votes were probably OK with them, it was the rest of his record: he has a 5/100 Conservative

rating, but a 78/100 Progressive rating (which is basically the highest of any Senator).


http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/senatorRussellFeingoldWI111.html
Senator Russell Feingold
Democrat of Wisconsin
Progressive Rating: 78/100
Conservative Rating: 5/100

[pnwmom]

17. True enough. n/t

[girl gone mad]

14. A centrist or blue dog would certainly have done worse.

[pnwmom]

18. Yeah, right. Someone less liberal would have done worse

in a conservative district.

:sarcasm:

[Kaleva]

9. It does look lie moderates staying home cost Feingold the election.

That coupled with a getting a smaller percentage of the conservative vote sealed his fate.

[madrchsod]

10. if the republicans are happy electing a block of concrete over russ

i feel sorry for the people of wisconsin who can actually think.

this election cycle has some of the dumbest people on the planet elected to the house and senate.

[anaxarchos]

12. In 2010, the preliminaries are that "over 2 million" or

50% of registered voters in Wisconsin voted. In 2006 (the last mid-terms), nearly 53% voted. This year was a significant fall-off from 2006, but 2 things are noteworthy:

1) 2006 was a record year, the highest mid-term % since 1962 (when it was almost the same as 2006). 2006 totals were not repeated this year.

2) The composition of the vote was very different between 2006 and 2010. In 2010, turnout in Milwaukee and other cities (Democratic areas) was around 40%. In the western suburban counties of Milwaukee (Republican), turnout was over 60%.

The Republicans brought out their base, the Democrats did not (to the same extent).

[pnwmom]

22. Feingold was SUPPOSED to be the kind of candidate

that progressives will enthusiastically flock to vote for. Doesn't help, when the district has become more conservative than the candidate.

[BlueCheese]

16. Do I remember correctly...

... that Feingold has always kind of lived on the edge in terms of his elections? I seem to remember he nearly lost in 1998, too.

Unfortunately it doesn't take much of a shift to lose when that happens. I hope there's a future in public service for him. He's one of the good ones.

[pnwmom]

19. He's never been in a safe district. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. There was a shift in voting population

much older than the 2008 voting group.

It is now a pattern which will make governing all kinds of fun.

You need to run ONE type of campaign in Presidential elections and one that is 180 for off year elections.

[elocs]

21. Feingold got caught in the anti-incumbent, pissed off voter tsunami of this election.

He had a big bullseye on him. That loss of the moderate and conservative vote for him compared to 6 years ago was vital.

So, Liberals were 21% of the electorate. How exactly would we get more Liberals elected by pushing the party to the left if only 21% of the electorate are Liberals? Or is this new math?

[pnwmom]

23. Good questions. Supposedly there are a lot more liberals

who would vote if ONLY there were more progressive candidates to vote for. But wait? Wasn't Feingold exactly the sort of candidate liberals were supposed to turn out for in droves? What happened to that theory?