In the wake of Zack Space’s upset loss to upstart Republican challenger Bob Gibbs, many Democrats in the 18th district are doing just what Democrats are doing all over the country: shaking their heads. Despite a clear fundraising advantage, a two-term incumbency to rest on, and much support from the national Democratic party, Space was not able to fight off the tide of support for Republican candidates—and apathy towards the Democratic party—that became the defining characteristic of the 2010 midterm elections.
The race for the 18th district was punctuated by some of the nastiest negative advertising in the country, with both candidates linking one another to the sluggish economy and pinning their opponents with association to China. This negative advertising probably worked to depress the turnout of moderates and increase turnout for extremists, which negative advertising has been shown to do in the past. This seemed to work in favor of Gibbs, the Republican, in this instance. Since the extremists in this election were more likely to be Republican (because of the economic situation, the conditions favor the party that is not in power ), they were mobilized by the nasty campaign while more moderate supporters of Space were more likely to stay home. This was compounded by the fact that Space, as a Blue Dog Democrat, was a moderate that represented an especially conservative district. Everything lined up to give Space a walloping loss at a 53-41 margin.
Campaign message also played a part in Gibbs’ victory. Much of Space’s campaign was built around trying to make free trade a central issue in the election. By painting Gibbs as a politician who blindly cared about free trade at the expense of blue-collar workers in Ohio, the Space campaign was attempting to make Gibbs seem like the politician while Space was more of a down-to-earth working man. This was an ineffective strategy because Space was already an established politician of the past four years. When voters are presented with a claim about a candidate, it does not live in isolation from their preconceived notions about the candidate. Voters evaluate the new claim in light of what they already know or believe about the candidate and then decide whether to accept out the new information or to reject it. Gibbs’ message as an outsider coming to right the wrongs of capital hill resonated much more with voters, especially since Space was a Democrat who was in support of the stimulus, a stimulus that had not shown any measurable effect for job prospects in the 18th district.
Space was also on the losing side of a national race. In a race for the House that looked like it was going to be messy for Democrats but was more of a landslide for Republicans than anyone would have managed, Space found himself caught up in the middle of an unpopular party in the wrong midterm year. While the old adage “all politics is local” seems to have some relevance to this election, it seems much more reasonable to assess that this year is an exception. Democrats all over the country were run out of their seats. Five Ohio congressmen lost their seats in the race, all Democrats. Sometimes, a candidate can do everything that he or she can to localize an election, but it ultimately gets contextualized by the national electoral landscape. Now, like many Democrats across the country, Space is off to find a new job.
Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. "Effects of Negative Campaigning on Turnout in U.S. Senate Elections, 1988–1998." The Journal of Politics 63.03 (2001): 804-19. Print.
Jacobson, Gary C. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009. Print.
MacKuen, Michael, and George Rabinowitz. Electoral Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2003. Print.
