Top Five myths perpetuated by pundits of the 2010 midterm elections

1. Americans have repudiated the Democratic Party and President Obama.  While there is some truth in this, the sentiment has been exaggerated in the press.  The voting American public has primarily repudiated the state of the economy, more than any single personality or party.  The Democrats, including President Obama, as the party in charge have taken the brunt of the blame for the state of the economy, but Americans are more dissatisfied with the lack of economic growth and the high rate of unemployment than they are with Democrats, per se.

2. The Tea Party dominated the election.  While the Tea Party movement gave a much needed dose of momentum and energy to a once struggling Republican Party, their influence in the election has been exaggerated.  Again, there is no question that Tea Partiers and their candidates made a significant impact in this election season, but the Tea Party movement was just one link in a chain of elements that spelled success for Republicans this season.  Republicans were buoyed by a struggling economy, a President with low approval ratings, some strong mainstream candidates, and general anti-incumbent sentiment—all components that worked in conjunction with the Tea Party energy.

3. This was the most expensive midterm election in history, and therefore many politicians have been corrupted and bought and paid for by wealthy corporate backers.  While it is true that this is the most expensive midterm election in history (some say final totals may approach $4 billion), this does not necessarily mean that elected officials have been corrupted.  Evidence shows very little support for a relationship between campaign contributions and legislators’ voting behavior, primarily because most campaign donors give to candidates who already agree with their policy preferences.  Moreover, the effects of the Citizens United ruling earlier this year have been relatively insignificant.  Yes, elections are very expensive and getting more so at every turn, but the increase in costs is caused by candidates’ incentives to run winning campaigns; this is not an element of democracy that can be regulated away.

4. Nancy Pelosi was a terrible Speaker of the House.  On the contrary, history is likely to show Nancy Pelosi as one of the most successful legislative leaders in modern history.  In addition to other legislative achievements, she successfully ushered a monumental health care reform package through a divisive House.  While perhaps as many as 45 percent of Americans indicate dissatisfaction with the new health care law, most Americans are in favor of many of its individual provisions, such as preventing insurers from dropping coverage from the sick.  History will be the guide on this one, but it is more likely than not that the first female Speaker of the House will come out with passing, or high, marks.

5. The new Republican mandate means that we can expect more cooperative bipartisanship in Washington.  Don’t count on it.  Despite what President Obama and (presumed) Speaker Boehner have said about working together to achieve common goals, both parties have strong incentives to score political points, which means not letting the other party get their way.  Our political system does not reward those who make short term sacrifices to achieve long term goals; rather, we reward players who can make immediate gains.  This means that we should expect very little from Congress over the next two years and anticipate more partisan bickering.  That’s democracy.

Jennifer Nicoll Victor is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh.