The Problems With the Differing Perceptions on Race Relations and How These Misunderstandings Get Us Nowhere

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

The Fact of Biases

Many whites, by no means all, do not understand the Ferguson protest, largely because they do not see the larger context from which the protest has emerged.  Comments opposed to the protest are too focused on rioters behaving badly and completely neglect the decades old concerns of those that are against violence and engaged in peaceful protest for differences in treatment of some under the law .  Many whites are resistant to claims that race plays a role in the treatment of individuals by others, by society in general, or by government.  I think the scientific argument concerning life on another planet, serves as a great metaphor here.  While we may not be able to prove that life exists elsewhere outside of our solar system, it would be illogical to assume that in the vast expanse of space, that there is no other life.  Therefore, it is not a matter of "if", but "when".  Is it also illogical to assume that race rarely plays a role given our history?  Our Constitution, effective beginning 1789, is about 225 years old.  For one-third of that time, we enslaved people of color under the assumption that they had, nor deserved basic rights to life and liberty.  Although slavery ended in 1865, many states, both southern and northern, continued to deny basic rights to life and liberty, as well as political rights to blacks.  These denials came in the form of lynchings, all white juries, segregation, and requirements designed to make it nearly impossible for a black person to register to vote.  These policies only ended in the 1960s.  Therefore, for 75% of our history, an entire group of people who share a common skin color, have been denied basic freedoms and protections that many of us take for granted.  Moreover, it is often neglected that it was not the Southern racial majority that led the charge for change. Quite the opposite.  The South resisted.  Civil rights protections and an end to discriminatory policies such as segregated school and public accommodations were forced on the South by the courts, by protesters and by federal legislation enforcing compliance in the face of noncompliance.  Therefore, it is safe to argue that white perceptions of blacks inferiority did not disappear by 1970, 45 years ago.  Therefore, current generations alive today, that were also alive then, may continue to hold these perceptions; and may have passed them on to some extent to their children.  Racism is typically something that is taught.

White perceptions of inferiority of blacks, a perceptions that was fueled decades ago in order to support the enslavement and denial of other rights of blacks has now morphed into assumptions as to why such a large percentage of blacks live in poverty and why crime rates are much higher.

White feelings of black inferiority now are typically only seen in our "implicit biases", rather than manifested in more explicit ways as before.  In the decades following slavery, whites took on feelings of fear and intimidation.  Don't believe me?  If you are white, tune in to your gut reaction when you drive through a black community.  You say, "it is not because they are black, it is because the poor community also has a high crime rate".  That me be true, but the reaction continues to happen outside of black communities when coming across a young black man.   Many whites hold more sinister assumptions about a black man walking down the street, than they do about a white man.  Additionally, the same reaction does not tend to happen in poor white communities.  Many whites are more fearful of entering an impoverished black community, than they are of entering an impoverished white community, such as a run-down trailer park.  White feelings of fear and intimidation impact our responses to situations involving a black person.  We can debate the source of those feelings, but they exist nevertheless.  My comments are not an attempt to bash whites, only an attempt for us to be honest with ourselves so that we can progress further in our race relations.  Differences matter, whether we want them to or not.  We make assumptions of a group of a different color.  This goes for blacks towards white as well.  I had a black student inform me once that his mother, given the history of white treatment of blacks in this country, had a strong dislike for white people in general.  However, our assumptions due to differences are not isolated to differences in skin color (black, brown, white, etc.).  We make assumptions about people from other countries, and about the other gender.  It is human nature to try to determine facts based on the information we have first, which is how someone looks most of the time. 

There is a great deal of research, surveys, and other forms of data that support different outcomes overall between blacks and whites.  If you do not believe the data, or you do not want to see the significance and meaning of the data, you must stop reading here.  If you never believe the data, no matter the topic,  you are always right in your opinions, and as a consequence, can never be proven wrong.  For all others, the links below provide a small window into the world of data on race relations and civil rights.

Implicit Bias:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/opinion/kohn-ferguson-implict-bias/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Recent research has found that differing treatment as a result of perceptions and subconscious biases begins as early as grade school:

http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/docs/Skiba%20et%20al%2054%204.pdf

http://www.mintpressnews.com/black-and-hispanic-students-punished-more-severely-than-white-counterparts/191496/

Race Relations, Perceptions and Claims About Race in the Context of the Brown and Eric Garner Deaths

Back to the issue of the police.  Do Americans want a bigger police presence in areas of high crime?  Yes.  That is a shared feeling among whites and blacks. I would also argue that law abiding citizens living in impoverished areas where crime is high, being the group most victimized by that crime, would also want to see a greater police presence.  Surveys show that blacks, being most likely to be a victim of homicide, are much more likely to favor greater gun control.  What minorities in impoverished and crime ridden communities do not want is different treatment solely because of color or a stereotype.  In other words, stop and frisk itself is not unwanted in these areas.  Rather there is a desire to see that harassment is not common place when there is no evidence of a crime.  Or find that in place of "reasonable suspicion", there is only a preconceived idea that this person must be a criminal because they are black and wearing a hooded jacket, or that they must be an undocumented immigrant because they are Latino.  This would be similar to stereotyping individuals with tattoos as uneducated, unsophisticated and "up to no good".  Only, in addition to tattoos, having a dark skin color is a signal of potential wrongdoing and "thuggery".

Nevertheless, implied bias and stereotypes are not excuses to neglect fact and to run to the opposite corner, seeing nothing other than discrimination and racism.  This is unfair is the same way that it is unfair to attack anyone and anytime a claim is made that there is a racial component in an event or issue.  When the data says 60% face a certain kind of treatment, one side converts that to 100% and the other side converts that number to 0% in their underlying assumptions.  Both mistakenly, as a result, are going to neglect data, additional variables, facts, and context in their limited analysis of the issue or event. 

Calls for Action and Policy Prescriptions Based in Strategic Thinking, Reality and Objectivity

There are broader concerns, both racial and non racial, that are brought up by the recent deaths of unarmed citizens in incidents involving law enforcement .  Additionally, there are many concerns with policy that are not racially driven policies, but if addressed, would reduce a lot of the disproportionate mistreatment handed to black citizens.  For example: 1.  Better training of officers in perceiving threats 2. Body cameras.  3. Rethinking stand your ground laws so citizens do not see them as permission to take the law and public safety into their own hands when a threat does not exist or as a reason to shoot down anyone that steps on their property under any circumstances.  Perhaps murder convictions, like that of the white man who shot a young black women in the face through his front door when she was seeking help after a car accident, will help with this latter point.  So called "Stand Your Ground" laws of some states appear, according to coverage, to be particularly problematic for blacks.  To be objective, there is not much data on this, likely due to the newness of these laws.  

In thinking about incidents of deaths at the hands of law enforcement, we must take an objective and sensible approach.  Cops cannot always be held to the same standard as an individual.  If a cop does willfully kill someone out of malice, or extreme abuse, then yes, they must be punished the same as others.  However, we do not immediately throw murder convictions on cops every time they fire their gun and suspect dies, even when the suspect is unarmed.  When a suspect is running, perhaps towards law enforcement, whether they are armed or not, but they do not stop as instructed, don't we understand the need for law enforcement to shoot?  Police must make split second decisions in situations where they have a great deal of uncertainty.  Furthermore, don't we all understand that law enforcement rules of engagement must be different than that of an average citizen given the job and responsibility of the police?

I caution those that immediately jump to Michael Brown's defense, in the same way that I cautioned others not to re-actively take the side of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.  Those defending Brown at all cost and no matter the circumstances need to understand that the facts of Brown's case are detracting from the cause.  The Michael Brown case is not the best case to present the argument of disproportionate and discriminatory treatment of blacks by the police.  However, Brown is not Trayvon Martin and, and for that reason, it is unfair and lacking in objectivity to all on both sides to portray these cases as the same.  But it is hard to contain a ground swell of public opinion and community action once it has started; neither is it a good idea to waste the opportunity presented by the overwhelming reaction of the public to the Brown, and then to the Eric Garner case, among others.  It is very important that the political and community leaders educate the public on their perception, their concerns and their goals, being sure to separate this from the Brown case.  Bring up the Trayvon martin case, but educate followers in the complexities of the Brown case, openly acknowledging the possibility that Brown was a legitimate threat. Community leaders can do this while still point to a problem that should be addressed.   When using the hands up gesture be clear that it is representative of a larger problem, and be clear that there is an understanding that Brown may not, mostly likely did not, have his hands up.  He was unarmed but nonetheless he felt big and strong and unstoppable, something that he portrayed in the convenience store video of the robbery where he felt no need to have a gun in assaulting someone and taking what he wanted.  Brown felt empowered.  In summation, this movement cannot be all hear; it must be strategic and political as well.  Only that way will there be success in the long-run.

Political and community leaders cannot be angry at small gains, nor allow anger of their followers to go unnoticed.  They must educate the community about the legislative and democratic process.  Seemingly small gains, such as body cameras or others listed above, are indeed significant and meaningful gains. Democracy, especially within a federal structure such as ours with multiple governments enacting policy, is a big ship that moves slowly and cautiously.  Leaders and followers of both sides do all an injustice by perpetuating a narrative that is unrealistic and unfair.  Let's have a discussion because we need one, but let it be an honest and productive discussion.

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

Martin and Brown: Cases Highlighting Vastly Different Perceptions and an Effort to Understand Them

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

Differing Perceptions On Display

One only needs to scroll through social media feeds, watch clips from various talking heads on cable news networks, or tune into radio news talk shows to see that there is a striking difference between most white perceptions of the Brown incident and most black perceptions of the incident.  The problem is that the perceptions on both sides neglect fundamental facts and concerns.  Rather, both sides take an "all or nothing" approach, jumping into their usual defensive postures.   Either the comment is made with the implication that Brown was not doing anything wrong and that the officer is a murderer who should have been immediately arrested; or the comment implies that racism and discrimination do not exist, and that to say so is simply "race baiting". The "race baiting" charge is then followed by a comment that is racist itself and proves the underlying biases of the comment maker.

Those in support of Michael Brown equate his circumstance with that of Trayvon Martin's, intentionally or not portrays Brown as a law-abiding and non threatening teenager.  Those against the Ferguson protests also equate Brown with Martin, but with the implication that both were criminal.  Both narratives exist despite the fact that Brown had just assaulted a convenience store owner, feeling empowered even without a gun; and, despite the fact that Martin had done nothing criminal to warrant the following and harassment by George Zimmerman, who is now assumed by some as a member of law enforcement.  In one narrative they are both innocent victims and in the other equally incorrect narrative they are both criminals.  There are fundamentally different facts between these two cases that a frighteningly large percentage of Americans seem to overlook or be unaware of.   I want to simultaneously cry in sadness and pull my hair out in madness. 

Comparisons attempting to depict Wilson and Zimmerman as victims; Brown and Martin as "thugs".

Image equating the circumstance of Michael Brown with that of Trayvon Martin

My favorite, and I say this sarcastically, are the comments of those that claim to not understand why Trayvon Martin's shooting received so much media attention, while a random white guy or white girl's murder by a black man did not warrant the same attention.  Often times, I find the poster to the right is shared to prove this claim that there is a possible reverse racism or effort to "race bait".  The question in the poster: "What is the difference"?  The maker of the poster and those that share the poster fail to recognize the difference.  The difference is that in once case there was no question as to whether or not the shooter should be captured, put on trial and punished. In Martin's shooting, it appears to have taken public pressure by the black community to arrest and put on trial the shooter of Trayvon Martin.  Whether you believe the narrative or not, this is why the black community and others were outraged.  To water down the these cases to a similarity of death v. death at the hands of someone of the opposite race missed the point. This oversimplification seems to occur within both perceptions. 

Survey Data as Evidence

The differing perceptions of whites and blacks regarding race, discrimination, and treatment in the criminal justice system have been present before these two incidents.   Survey after survey supports what I anecdotally witness on the internet and television, and even among my students.  The Pew Research Center survey (right) and the first two Gallup surveys (below) illustrate that whites are more likely than blacks to believe that racial equality has been achieved and that claims of racism or bias are usually exaggerated or unjustified.  The Gallup survey results below dig into differing perceptions among blacks and whites regarding police.  

 

 

Contemplating the Origin of These Perceptions

Seeing this, it isn't hard to believe why the black community is skeptical about the account of the shooting given by Officer Wilson and the Ferguson police department.  If you look at the treatment historically of unarmed, innocent and peaceful black citizens, especially leading up to and during the civil rights movement, the distrust of law enforcement is even more understandable.  This is a history that includes the use of dogs and painful fire hoses on peaceful protesters, racial profiling in car stops, and the coordination of top law enforcement officials with lynch mobs and the KKK.  However, perceptions of whites may often neglect experiences of whites in the same way that perceptions of whites by blacks may be neglecting the experiences of blacks.

The high rates of crime in minority communities, the fact that blacks make up a disproportionate share of those in prison, and the frequent coverage of the media of crimes committed by black suspects fuel white fear and intimidation.  Whether the coverage is objective and proportionate or not is a separate matter.  The point is the views of some whites should not be lost on those that claim whites hate blacks for simply being black, claiming a racism that continues from decades of unequal treatment.  Does pure racism motivate the opinions of some?  Most likely, but this should not be the characterization of the whole group, in this case a characterization of all whites.  At the same time, it should not be assumed that all blacks hate whites as a result of historical treatment of blacks by whites.  However, the feelings of whites should not be lost on whites that claim there is no assumption made by them of wrong-doing by blacks, but then point to the high crime rate among blacks as support for the feeling they just denied as impacting their views.  While we attempt to explain our own biases, we should also confront those biases and recognize when they may be leading to an unfair and somewhat false perception of a situation, person, or group.

Confronting Perception and Bias

As a society, we cannot run from these perceptions, and we cannot deny they differ nor deny that the differing perceptions may be justified. As individuals we do ourselves an injustice, myself included, if we consistently take on a defensive and antagonistic stance.  Since we are all guilty of this, the solution is easier stated than done.  However it is not impossible for a society to confront its demons and have uncomfortable conversations.  All types of biases exist that inform our perceptions, whether they are racially motivated biases or motivated by someone's economic condition, beliefs, or weight.  We cannot deny our own biases but then argue for the bias of another.  What must equally be avoided is the act of dismissing racial biases because they are uncomfortable to talk about with a willingness to discuss less controversial biases.  Thankfully, we have seen confronting uncomfortable histories and biases successfully done in other countries without an unraveling of social order.  Both perceptions exist for a reason.  These are perceptions that have been fueled partly by reality and partly by biases that have been passed down from one generation to the next.

In a coming article I will explore in greater detail the problems with these perceptions and make specific suggestions regarding the Ferguson, Missouri protest. 

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

 

The Exaggeration of the Repudiation of President Barack Obama: Analysis of the 2014 Midterm Election Results

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

The Results of the 2014 Midterm Elections

In a nutshell, Republicans did well.  Well enough in fact in key Senate races that they took control of the Senate, gaining at least 6 seats to become the majority party in that chamber.  As of Wednesday, November 5, the Senate is poised to consist of 2 independents, 44 Democrats and 52 Republicans for the next two years beginning January 2015.  There are a couple of races still to be decided in both the Senate and the House, so Republican gains may increase by a few more seats.  In the House of Representatives, Republicans also gained seats.  Republicans will increase their seats from 233 to 243 seats in the House in January, maybe more.  As for the 36 Governor races across the country, Republicans saw gains as well.  With the exception of Pennsylvania, Republicans increased their number of states with Republican governors.  Pennsylvania is the only state that was previously held by a Republican governor and saw the Democrat win the election instead.

The Analysis: A Repudiation of President Obama?

The day after the election, the partisans, pundits and surrogates quickly offered their analysis of the election outcome.  Since Republicans gained seats and Democrats lost seats, the common conclusion became that Democratic losses were a repudiation of President Obama.  Pundits, including Political Science folks like myself, and partisans who make this claim are forming an analysis that assumes government is composed of solely the president, intentional or their part or not.  As overly focused on the president as the American people are, they still see government itself as composed not just of a president, but as being run by two opposing political parties.  Could some voters have been upset with policy choices of President Obama when they went to the polls?  Yes, of course this is true of Republicans, and this is also most likely true of some independents.  However, I argue that claims of the election results as signifying a voter repudiation of President Obama are not completely false, but are greatly exaggerated.  The media, this includes pundits, political talk show hosts, and newspaper op-ed writers, has over dramatized and over simplified the outcome of the election.  To discuss the results with reference to the complexity of the American political system, American politics, and the era of polarization would seem to lose viewers and readers.  The path of least resistance is to oversimplify, over dramatize, and focus on the figure in the government that viewers are most familiar with and curious about.

Why the 2014 Election Results Are NOT a Repudiation of Obama

There are multiple reasons, most of which are firmly based in sound political science theories, as to why viewing the Republican gains as a voter repudiation of the Democratic president are naive.

1.  If 2014 is a repudiation of President Obama, 2010 should be as well. 

And for that matter, shouldn't 2012 be one too?  But that doesn't work because President Obama received a majority of the popular vote and electoral votes, thus winning re-election.  If voters were repudiating Barack Obama in 2010 and in 2014, but loved him in between in 2012, they sure are finicky in their feelings towards the President.  Those that claim the Republican gains of 2014 are a signal of opposition to the policies of President Obama should make the same claim about 2010.  In 2010 Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate and Democrats lost seats in both chambers, resulting in Republicans taking back the House of Representatives from Democrats who had won control in 2006.  While Republicans won seats in the Senate in 2010 as well, unseating a few Democratic incumbents such as Russ Feingold, they did not win enough to get the majority of 51 or greater to take control of that chamber.  Nonetheless, 2010 was a huge victory for the Republican party and a huge loss for the Democratic party.  Democrats had emerged the victors in the previous two federal elections, 2006 and 2008, taking control of Congress from the Republicans who had held it since the 1994 elections.  Therefore, following the logic of the post-election pundits and partisans, 2010 must have been a repudiation of President Obama who had been elected in 2008.  Not so fast.  If that were the case, then why did voters overwhelmingly re-elect President Obama just two years later in 2012?  Obama saw only a slight increase in his approval rating from 2010 to 2012, so this cannot be explained by any significant increase in voter love of the president.  Yes, President Obama's approval leading up to the election was in the low 40s in terms of percent "approve", but most of that disapproval comes from Republican voters while only a small fraction of it comes from independents who would cause his number to go above or below 50%.  The loss of some independents in approval does not all by itself cause a loss for Democrats in general.  When independents were voting this election in states where their votes predict the outcome, they were largely voting against the party in power, rather than against Barack Obama.  President Obama's approval ratings did dip before the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections and rose to as high as 52% before the 2012 Presidential election in which he won re-election; however, correlation is NOT causation.  Approval ratings of the president can in fact reflect the feelings of the voters regarding the party in power as a whole (see point #2 below).  I argue that 2014 was no more a repudiation of President Obama than 2010 was.  In fact, the role of President Obama in predicting the outcome of those midterm elections was minimal.  The explanation lies more in voter perception of the party in control, rather than voter feelings regarding one individual in control.  There is limit to the logic that votes against non-Obama Democrats are solely a judgement on President Obama.  Link: Gallup Approval Ratings of President Obama

2.  Political science theories

The Electoral Reward and Punishment Model.  This model purports that voters either reward or punish the party they believe is currently in control of government.  If things are going well for most voters (mainly independents), they will reward the party in power.  If things are not going well for voters, again we are really only talking about independents, then they punish the party in power. I isolate this factor to independents only because voters have become very partisan in the polarized political environment we are now in.  Therefore, Republican voters will vote for Republican candidates and Democratic voters will vote Democratic regardless of conditions.  This is going to be the case for the vast majority of partisan voters, unless their is a major event or circumstance of a level that would cause some partisans to switch sides temporarily.  Therefore, independents who do not stick with one party, will base their decision largely on how they perceive the country is doing, and which party they believe is in control of government at that time.  Since Democrats were in control of government (Congress and the Presidency) from 2009 to the end of 2010, voter assessment was of the Democratic party in November 2010.  After Republican victories in November 2010, government consisted of a Republican controlled House, but a Democratic controlled Senate and Presidency. The resulting perception remained that Democrats control government.  Voters are not complex in their assessment of government control.  There is not much appreciation for the fact that opposition party control of one chamber significantly hampers the ability of the other party to take action and have legislative successes despite having control of the other chamber and the White House.  A bill must pass in both chambers to go to the President's desk for signing into law.

Partisans, pundits and news talk show hosts are claiming that the Democratic loss in November is more specifically a repudiation of Obama's policies.  Again, this is oversimplifying the results and neglecting key facts.  First, the president's policies are liberal and are that of his party.  Much like Bush's policies were conservative and hawkish, also similar to the policies of the Republican party at the time.  This does not mean there aren't some important divisions within the party, but the policies are pretty consistent overall between the president and his party.  Second, voters do not necessarily prefer conservative (Republican) policies over liberal (Democratic) policies.  It must be restated that Democrats are liberal and will vote with Democrats, while Republicans are conservative and will vote with Republicans.  Therefore, the voters that I am largely referring to are the small slice of the electorate that does not identify with a particular party.  It is these voters that decide the outcome of many elections in which Democratic and Republican voters are evenly matched.  If independents preferred one ideology over the other, than why do they seem to jump back and forth so frequently?  The move from one party to the other is solely an assessment of current conditions, and not an assessment of an ideology and its policies.  If voters are unhappy with the current state of things, such as the state of the economy, foreign affairs, income levels, or government action, they will "throw the scoundrels out", or punish them, and give the other party a chance.  If things do not improve, they will throw that party out, and go back to the other party since America is a two-party system and there is really no other choice but that one.

In 2002 and 2004 Republicans did well because Americans were rallied behind their government as a result of the September 11th attacks, giving government much of the benefit of the doubt.  The economy was doing well and Americans perceived that the government was taking action to deal with the threat.  Therefore Republicans, the party in power during running up to both of those elections (Republicans had control of Congress since 1994 and the White House since the 2000 election) they were rewarded.  In 2006, Republicans were punished as voters were unhappy with the lack of progress in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly feeling that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, concerned and saddened by the frequent news of soldier deaths and IED maiming, and dismayed at the federal governments lack of adequate response to conditions in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and a doubling of the national debt over the Bush years and years of Republican control of Congress.  Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006.  By 2008, things had only gotten worse with the Great Recession of 2008.  The 2008 Presidential election was a further punishment of Republicans in Congress and in the White House as Democrats increased their numbers and won the White House over the Republican candidate. Voters still blamed Republicans who were seen as being in control for much of the time period leading up to 2008.  Two years later, with a Democratic president and a Congress that had been controlled by Democrats for four years, the voters handed out another punishment, this time to the Democrats.  The economy had not improved.  Democrats lost seats in both chambers in the 2010 midterm elections, resulting in their loss of the House to Republicans.  By the 2012 Presidential election, the economy had begun improving, which meant that voters would reward the party perceived to be in power.  This party was the Democrats as they control two of the three seats of power, the White House and the Senate.  However, by 2014, government dysfunction was the problem of the moment.  Since 2010, voters were witnessing a government that was increasingly gridlocked and unable to adequately respond to national concerns such as the growing income inequality gap and pass basic laws dealing in topics with elements that Americans agreed on. 

The President's party, whether Republican or Democrat, typically loses seats in the midterm election.  Historically, this has even been the case when the sitting president during the midterm election cycle had an approval rating above 50%, sometimes well above.  It just follows that a determination by voters about the effectiveness or competence of who is in control of government will drag down those officials, including the president, of the party in control.  Midterm elections are more difficult for the President's party because they are going to lose a number of seats that were gained when the party could ride the presidential coattails of the popular, and thus winning, presidential party nominee during the previous presidential election.  While feeling about a president should not completely be neglected in a midterm analysis, it should be recognized that voter satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a president is only one variable and not explain most or all of the votes for the other party. 

3. The map favored Republicans in 2014 for Senate, but may favor Democrats in 2016

The overwhelming majority of states that had Senate seats up for grabs were red conservative states where Republican voters tend to outnumber conservative voters.  Some of these states were gains for Republicans because in the mass anti-Republican waves of 2006 and 2008 a moderate Democrat was able to grab the independent vote and win the state.  This was bound to be undone as conditions returned to normal and the conservative state voted in a way that more reflected the ideological leaning of the state and as conditions were not what voters wanted leading to the loss of those independents to the Republican party.  In fact, over time, these states are appearing to get even redder.  Only the Republican wins in Blue states are significant supporting arguments for a Democratic punishment year.  Most of the states in the midsection of the country and the South were states with Senate elections this year.  Senate elections stretched from Montana down through the plains states to Texas and then across the deep South.  Link: 270towin.com Senate election map

4.  Turnout among Democrats is lower in midterm elections

The Democratic party has a higher proportion of minorities, youth, and single women.  These groups tend to have lower education and lower income rates, which means they have lower probabilities of voting.  The voter turnout rate among all eligible voters drops from 50-65% in a Presidential election to under 50%, sometimes as low as 40% in a midterm election when the presidency is not on the ballot.  Therefore, Democrats are hurt significantly in voter turnout in midterm elections.  This explains why they can do well in a presidential but not well in a midterm election when there is not a major event such as a recession or 9/11 driving voting behavior.  Republican voters are overall wealthier and white, which means they have higher voter turnout rates due to higher percentages of high income earners and higher education rates.  These are the voters that show up for presidential and midterm elections.  The Democratic party is more diverse, but with that diversity comes groups with historically lower voter turnout rates.  This in addition to the fact that the map favored Republicans in the Senate should not be so easily neglected by pundits and hosts since the removal of these two variables may have meant only a modest gain for Republicans, and perhaps falling short of picking up a majority in the Senate. 

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!