Public Spending Can't Buy More Votes
Political scientists have repeatedly found that American politicians running for reelection did markedly better at the polls than politicians from the same party who weren’t incumbents. One straightforward explanation for the incumbency advantage is that while in office, politicians can target federal spending to their constituents and take credit for it.
But if opening the federal wallet was a way to build political support, you would think that congressional Democrats from Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright to Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly would be in good shape. After all, the current Congress passed laws amounting to a whopping $1.45 billion in federal spending that ranged from increasing prescription drug coverage and enhancing ACA subsidies to spending on climate mitigation and expanding veterans’ benefits. Not that long ago, all that spending was thought to be crucial to the Democrats’ chances in these midterm elections. But for the most part, Democrats aren’t highlighting all that spending — and polling suggests that swing district incumbent Democrats aren’t exactly coasting to reelection, either. Why not?
For one thing, the incumbency advantage has been declining since I first learned about it in 2002. In a nationalized political environment, fewer voters are willing to cross party lines for politicians from the other party, even if they have delivered for the district.
But polarization and nationalization aren’t the only explanations. Sometimes, the policies are deliberately designed to deemphasize the government’s role — and sometimes, the policies themselves can become a barrier to political engagement, especially if their implementation varies by state or imposes significant burdens on citizens.
Take the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges as an example. In 2016, more than 6 million Americans had subsidized health insurance via the exchanges, with an average subsidy of $4,000. That said, the subsidies help pay for private insurance, and many individuals have wound up paying back the government when their income rose. So the connection to government isn’t obvious, and the policy can have negative effects, too. It’s not surprising that Will Hobbs and I found that the exchanges didn’t do much to bolster favorability toward the ACA when they were rolled out. If policies aren’t becoming more favorable among the people who rely on them, it’s a good bet they aren’t shifting many votes, either.