Google Ads


Site Stats

How Did Our Reruns Do?

by: Crisitunity

Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM EST


It's become something of blogospheric conventional wisdom, over the last few years, that running for the House two times in a row was the right approach: that in some cases it takes one cycle to build name recognition and make fundraising connections, and one more cycle to close the deal with voters. Fans of Paul Hodes, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, or Joe Donnelly (he must have a netroots fan somewhere?) could point to their successes in 2006, on the second try, as evidence.

On the other hand, for every Hodes or McNerney in the House, there's a "where are they now?" bin with Lois Murphy, Diane Farrell, Patty Wetterling, or Francine Busby in it. 2008 seemed to have a particularly large number of Democratic candidates giving it a second shot, so it may be worth stopping to examine those races.

Unfortunately, there wasn't a particularly high success ratio: of the 14 races that were considered competitive where the Democratic candidate was making a second run, only three four made it over the finish line (Dan Maffei, Eric Massa, Mary Jo Kilroy, and Larry Kissell). These candidates seemed to benefit from a perfect storm of traction from a repeat run, and running against weakened opponents (a different opponent for Maffei in the wake of Jim Walsh's retirement and a bungled GOP recruitment, and befuddled, unlikable opponents for Massa and Kissell). (On the following table, * indicates a different opponent in 2008.)

The others seemed to falter, either in the face of a nutty GOPer but too red a district (Brown, Wulsin, probably Esch) or an uncontroversial 'moderate' incumbent with a strong hold on a suburban district (Seals, Burner, Feder). By contrast, because of the confluence of swing districts and craptacular opponents, NY-25, NY-29, and NC-08 seem like races we likely could have won with or without a returning opponent (although the prospect of a Maffei rematch may have caused Walsh's retirement)... which isn't to say that we should avoid rematches, simply that it may not provide as much of an advantage as conventional wisdom currently holds.

Also, I can't help but notice one troubling pattern: the male reruns improved on their 2006 numbers. The female reruns declined. If you look at the names above from the 2004-06 cycles, you see the same pattern (Nancy Boyda excepted). I won't attempt to psychoanalyze that, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

UPDATE: A reader helpfully points out that I left out Mary Jo Kilroy, who ran against a different opponent in 2008. I was prepared to have to admit that this screws up my theory, but interestingly, even though she won on her second try, the rate at which she improved her margin was still lower than any of the male rerun candidates.

UPDATE II: Another reader points out Gary Trauner, another repeat runner but against a different opponent. So there is, in fact, one male candidate who lost ground (albeit while running in Wyoming in a presidential year).

DistrictDem 2006
margin
2008
margin
Diff.
NY-25Dan Maffei *-1.6 (49.2/50.8)12.9 (54.8/41.9)14.5
NC-08Larry Kissell-0.2 (49.9/50.1)10.8 (55.4/44.6)11.0
NE-02Jim Esch-9.4 (45.3/54.7)-3.8 (48.1/51.9)5.6
NY-29Eric Massa-3.0 (48.5/51.5)2.0 (51.0/49.0)5.0
CA-04Charlie Brown *-4.5 (45.4/49.9)-0.6 (49.7/50.3)3.9
IL-10Dan Seals-6.8 (46.6/53.4)-5.2 (47.4/52.6)1.6
OH-15Mary Jo Kilroy *-0.5 (49.7/50.2)0.7 (45.9/45.2)1.2
WA-08Darcy Burner-3.0 (48.5/51.5)-5.6 (47.2/52.8)-2.6
VA-10Judy Feder-16.3 (41.0/57.3)-20.0 (38.8/58.8)-3.7
NV-02Jill Derby-5.5 (44.9/50.4)-10.4 (41.4/51.8)-4.9
OH-02Victoria Wulsin-1.1 (49.4/50.5)-7.3 (37.5/44.8)-6.2
NJ-07Linda Stender *-1.5 (47.9/49.4)-8.0 (42.2/50.2)-6.5
WY-ALGary Trauner *-0.5 (47.8/48.3)-9.8 (42.8/52.6)-9.3
FL-13Christine Jennings-0.2 (49.9/50.1)-18.0 (37.5/55.5)-17.8

Just to make sure that I wasn't focused on high-profile losses while missing races that flew under the radar (which, as best as I can remember, was where Hodes, McNerney, Boyda, and Donnelly all flew in 2004), I looked at all the non-competitive races where I could find Democratic reruns as well. With a couple exceptions in California (which may have to do mostly with the surprisingly strong coattails Obama generated for Dems downticket in that state), the lower-profile reruns also gained little traction.

DistrictDem 2006
margin
2008
margin
Diff.
CA-03Bill Durston-21.6 (37.9/59.5)-5.5 (44.0/49.5)16.1
CA-48Steve Young-22.8 (37.2/60.0)-15.1 (40.6/55.7)7.7
NC-03Craig Weber-37.2 (31.4/68.6)-31.8 (34.1/65.9)5.4
NJ-11Tom Wyka-25.5 (36.6/62.1)-24.8 (37.0/61.8)0.7
AZ-02John Thrasher-19.7 (38.9/58.6)-22.2 (37.2/59.4)-2.5
FL-05John Russell-19.8 (40.1/59.9)-22.4 (38.8/61.2)-2.6
PA-19Phil Avilo-30.5 (33.5/64.0)-33.2 (33.4/66.6)-2.7
PA-09Tony Barr-20.6 (39.7/60.3)-27.8 (36.1/63.9)-7.2
TX-04Glenn Melancon-31.0 (33.4/64.4)-39.5 (29.3/68.8)-8.5
IN-06Barry Welsh-20.0 (40.0/60.0)-30.5 (33.4/63.9)-10.5
Crisitunity :: How Did Our Reruns Do?
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
My general rule of thumb
is that you only get one chance to "come out of nowhere." After that, you're a known threat, and they'll be ready for you. I'm sure there are exceptions, of course.

Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
ran in 2006 and won in 2008.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

OK, thanks
I addressed that point above.

[ Parent ]
Gary Trauner, Christine Jennings
Gary Trauner should be on the list.  Without looking up the results, he did worse in 2008 than 2006 but did not have the advantage of running against Barbara Cubin in 2008.

Christine Jennings was blown away by 18 points in FL-13 while possibly winning in a disputed count in 2006.

Ethan Berkowitz ran for statewide office in both 2006 (Lt. Governor and 2008 (US House, at large).  He did not run against the same candidate (almost happened) and it was not the same office.


Carney looking at run for House instead of Senate?
My theory as to why
female democratic challengers to GOP incumbents or contenders for retiring GOP open seats do worse than male Dem challengers is because of crossover unaffliated voters. Why? It goes to the nature of what it means to be a Dem or Republican and why Democratic primary voters are majority female and Republican primary voters are majority male.

A generic democrat basically focuses on progressive "care" issues in an anticipatory fashion (how do we make life better on education, health care, environment, race relations, equality etc before things get really bad). This is like the "mommy cares" instinct.

The generic republican believes in "order" and "tradition" in a a reactionary fashion so as to preserve "individual (read: traditional values) of liberty against perceived threats to the system. This is the "father protects" instinct.

The crossover voter is generally a white middle class voter, not a progressive activist (otherwise he'd be a Dem) and only gets "politically active" when something they value or their security is threatened or taken away from them (e.g. recession, loses a job, national security, busing, immigration). They don't react like conservatives when the "system" is threatened, unless they themselves have reason to feel personally threatened.

So in challenging the incumbent republican, when a male Democrat articulates a Dem position, he not only captures the "mommy" element of the electorate but benefits from the presumption that he understands the "father" element of the electorate because he is a male. Therefore, he has  a better shot with cross-over and disenchanted republicans. If it's a female Republican running for office, she is better situated than her female Democratic counterpart because she articulates the "father" element while benefiting from the presumption of the "mommy" element because she is a woman. A male republican articulating the GOP position is also better situated than the female Democrat because the "father" element is an easier sell with cross-over voters even when they feel threatened on non-economic threats (e.g. terrorism, communism, illegal immigration etc). This leaves the female democrat at a disadvantage when compared to male Dems and male or female Republicans because articulating the dem position reinforces the "mommy" element with no appeal to the "father" among Republicans and cross-over voters worried about non-economic threats like terrorism, communism, illegal immigration etc.

This is why I believe the first female president will likely be a republican and not a democrat.

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  


I agree
and if you notice around the world, I think more of the first female leaders tend to be on the right;

Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Jenny Shipley, Kim Campbell, etc.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens


[ Parent ]
Erm
Golda Meir (like every Prime Minister from the creation of the state until Menachem Begin) was a member of Israel's Labor party - most decidedly on the left of the Israeli political spectrum, and definitely well to the left (especially in Meir's day) of the American left.

[ Parent ]
Considering her policies
toward the Arabs and Palestinians, I'd say she'd be way on the right nowadays

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Aren't all Israeli parties leftist on economics?
Aren't even the right-wing parties in Israel pretty far left on economic issues?  I'm not too familiar with Israeli domestic policies, but I'd imagine it's the case considering how liberal Jews tend to be on economics in other countries.  Especially so in the U.S.

[ Parent ]
Most everyone
Most of the Israeli parties are economically left, especially the religious parties.  Shinui, which was a center party on foreign policy and very secular, was also libertarian.  There's also a economically conservative wing in Likud.  You'll see it if Netanyahu gets to power.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
I largely agree
And that has a lot to do with why Hillary Clinton wasn't able to thread the needle last year.  

[ Parent ]
Actually, HRC
was acutely aware of this and that is why she chose to run on "experience" and refused to back track on Iraq. The problem for her was twofold:(1) early constituencies and (2) planning. On early constituencies, the part of the Democratic party that made the early impact decision were the "mommy part" white liberal anti-war base voters who loved Obama's mommy care message. The second part was logistics, failing to plan for the cascade of small state primaries in Feb, btw Super Tuesday I and II. Thus allowing, Obama to build a narrow but insurmountable pledged delegate lead by the end of the WI primary. But as they say, coulda woulda shoulda....all that is history.  

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  


[ Parent ]
QED
That's what I mean by "thread the needle."  

[ Parent ]
Interseting theory
But the more I think about it, it does seem to be the case.  Look at 2006.  Which Democrats lost races that many people thought they were going to win?  Mary Jo Kilroy, Diane Farrell, and Lois Murphy, all women.  How about 2008?  Linda Stender and Darcy Burner certainly come to mind and Kilroy badly underperformed expectations(although she did win).  There were also a few men in 2008 that lost races many thought they would win:  Dan Seals, Ashwin Madia, Jim Esch, and Ethan Berkowitz(although Alaska is a whole different story in and of itself).  

[ Parent ]
wow, that is a really striking trend...
on another note, what is the deal with fl-13?  I assume there is some cause of decline that I missed.

A couple things
Christine Jennings and her 2006 primary challenger Jan Schneider all the way into 2008.  Schneider ran as an independent and took 5.5% of the vote from Jennings.  

There was also a payroll tax issue with Jennings.  Apparently her campaign failed to pay the IRS all of the payroll taxes collected during her 2006 campaign.

Jennings also fought the 2006 election result to court for far too long.  She was dubbed a poor loser for going nearly two years through the court system.  


[ Parent ]
I think people got sick of the post-election bickering
However, OH-02 and FL-13 badly need some fresh Democratic candidates.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Buchanan
He's turned out to be a beter politician than most thought he would be.  His votes on quite a few issues have boxed in Democrats.  Hate to say it, but I just don't see us beating him in FL-13 anytime soon.

Same with OH-02.  We've had multiple opportunities to oust her in very pro-Democratic years and blown it.  Plus she's been acting uncharastically sane in the last year or two, not making any monumental gaffes.  Doubt we can beat Schmidt unless somehow her district gets torn up in 2012 redistricting.


[ Parent ]
Like someone else said: only one surprise round.
Everyone saw the re-runs coming.  And you know that Ken Calvert sees Bill Hedrick coming this time around.

Also, you never know where the next sex scandal might pop up.  Though the stinking cloud of sex scandal it might stick around the 16th district for a bit longer.  Or maybe Rooney has the power to dispel it...

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01


[ Parent ]
Don't count on Rooney
He has a pretty solid background, including military service.  The district may be semi-competitive but unfortunately I think we're going to be stuck with him for a long time.

[ Parent ]
Better as in less conservative or more savvy
than expected?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox