Ring of Fire: RFKJr asked an insightful election question tonight....

[wiggs]

....he was speaking to a capable sounding dem candidate for congress from Connecticut (to replace Rep simmons I think) and asked (paraphrased): "If your district is a very blue district and if you have all the issues on your side, why is your House race in a dead heat with the Republican incumbent who has been a rubber stamp for the worst administration ever?"

This is something I've wondered about too. Not just in this race, but others (Webb and Allen, for instance).

The answer had something to do with being outspent and out-organized the last two election cycles, with the dem adding that this time the money and the organization is much improved. To me, this didn't answer the question about the CURRENT race. If the money is more even and the organization much improved and the issues favoring dems in a blue District....WHY IS THE RACE EVEN?

[Eric J in MN]

1. Whenever there is a Republican incumbent, Congressperson,

...he or she is someone a plurality of voters actually went to the polls previously and cast their ballots for. *

They know his or her name.

They know the world didn't end during his or her previous term.


* Unless there was election fraud.

[wiggs]

4. Let's hope that this passive, uninformed kind of voter is not as

motivated to get to the polls on the 7th and that the knowledgable, active ones do. I can buy that the overall population may produce a poll that is evenly split, based on name recognition somewhat, as you suggest. I would hope that voters are a more refined group.

[wake.up.america]

2. Some areas would vote for Bush, even if Rove were to demand tribute to the king.

Using reason to understand why some areas still support Bush is not reasonable.

The "reason" is fear and ignorance of the truth.

[wiggs]

3. Next question: should dems use a pattern that works?

Should dems use fear, then, as well? Or take the high road and lose? Can they take the high road and win?

I happen to think that dem candidates have PLENTY of ammo to use in warning the electorate what has, can, and will happen with further one party rule by this bunch. No need to stretch the truth, but pulling out the stops and being blunt about what we have to worry about might.

So...I say: take the high road and don't lie, but realize that speaking plainly and bluntly about the dangers of GOP rule is effective. Having said that, I'll remember that the Ring of Fire guest was doing that to a degree...and is still tied with a terrible GOP candidate in their blue district....so I don't know.

[Virginian]

5. October Surprise: the Saddam trial will end 2 days b4 election.

Saddam will be found guilty and sentenced to death and it will be all over the press on Monday Nov 6. That is Rove's October Surprise.

[cornermouse]

6. Why?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009228.php

INCUMBENTS....When I was taking political science classes in the late 70s, the reelection rate for incumbents in the House of Representatives was upwards of 90%. This was seen as a worrying thing. Flash forward to today and most people would be delighted if the incumbent reelection rate were that low. In recent elections it's hovered around 98%. There are several reasons for this:

Gerrymandering has always been with us, but it's become easier and more precise in recent years. In the past, only a political genius could perform genuinely high-quality gerrymandering. Today it's available to anyone with a PC and the right software.

Conservatives and liberals have been showing an increasing tendency to self-segregate. That is, liberals tend to move to liberal places and conservatives tend to move to conservative places. This has an obvious self-gerrymandering effect, but also has the less obvious effect of making people more partisan. When you spend time only with people you agree with, your views tend to become more extreme. This is good for incumbents since extreme voters are less likely to defect to the opposition.

In a weird sort of vicious circle, Congress passes deliberately complex laws and then spends vast amounts of money on constituent services to help voters who are having trouble with federal bureaucracy. Because of this, constituent service has skyrocketed in the past few decades, and the beneficiaries of this service tend to vote for the people who helped them regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
----------
Due to rules, the last two items on the list are concentration of money/incumbent's ability to outspend challengers and fewer true independents now than in the past.

Also from 1999

http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1999/033099.php

During the first ten elections after the end of World War II, the Senate incumbent re-election percentage was all over the map, ranging from a low of 56.7 percent in 1946 to a high of 96.6 percent in 1960. The average for this period (1946-64) was 74 percent. (By comparison, the House incumbent re-election rate during the period ranged from 79.3 to 94.6 percent, averaging 89 percent. )

The unusually low re-election rate in 1946 was a manifestation of a devastating election for Democrats, one in which they lost 12 Senate and 45 House seats. Generally speaking, the incumbent re-election rates on both the House and Senate sides plummet when one party is getting pasted. In "normal years," when neither party is getting hammered, re-election rates remain relatively constant.

The next ten-election period, 1966-84, saw the Senate incumbent re-election percentage rise just two points to 76 percent -- ranging from 55.2 in the 1980 Reagan landslide to 93.3 percent in 1982. Interestingly, 1982 was a recession year and something of a downer for the GOP nationally. The party lost 26 seats in the House, but held its own in the Senate, just barely holding a number of seats by the narrowest of margins. (The House re-election rate increased three points during this period, to 92.6 percent.)
------------

Also

http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html

I read somewhere quite a while back that incumbents in the U.S. have a better chance of being returned to office than members of the old Soviet Politboro. I don't think that's a good thing.