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).
| District | Dem | 2006 margin |
2008 margin |
Diff. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY-25 | Dan Maffei * | -1.6 (49.2/50.8) | 12.9 (54.8/41.9) | 14.5 |
| NC-08 | Larry Kissell | -0.2 (49.9/50.1) | 10.8 (55.4/44.6) | 11.0 |
| NE-02 | Jim Esch | -9.4 (45.3/54.7) | -3.8 (48.1/51.9) | 5.6 |
| NY-29 | Eric Massa | -3.0 (48.5/51.5) | 2.0 (51.0/49.0) | 5.0 |
| CA-04 | Charlie Brown * | -4.5 (45.4/49.9) | -0.6 (49.7/50.3) | 3.9 |
| IL-10 | Dan Seals | -6.8 (46.6/53.4) | -5.2 (47.4/52.6) | 1.6 |
| OH-15 | Mary Jo Kilroy * | -0.5 (49.7/50.2) | 0.7 (45.9/45.2) | 1.2 |
| WA-08 | Darcy Burner | -3.0 (48.5/51.5) | -5.6 (47.2/52.8) | -2.6 |
| VA-10 | Judy Feder | -16.3 (41.0/57.3) | -20.0 (38.8/58.8) | -3.7 |
| NV-02 | Jill Derby | -5.5 (44.9/50.4) | -10.4 (41.4/51.8) | -4.9 |
| OH-02 | Victoria Wulsin | -1.1 (49.4/50.5) | -7.3 (37.5/44.8) | -6.2 |
| NJ-07 | Linda Stender * | -1.5 (47.9/49.4) | -8.0 (42.2/50.2) | -6.5 |
| WY-AL | Gary Trauner * | -0.5 (47.8/48.3) | -9.8 (42.8/52.6) | -9.3 |
| FL-13 | Christine 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.
| District | Dem | 2006 margin |
2008 margin |
Diff. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-03 | Bill Durston | -21.6 (37.9/59.5) | -5.5 (44.0/49.5) | 16.1 |
| CA-48 | Steve Young | -22.8 (37.2/60.0) | -15.1 (40.6/55.7) | 7.7 |
| NC-03 | Craig Weber | -37.2 (31.4/68.6) | -31.8 (34.1/65.9) | 5.4 |
| NJ-11 | Tom Wyka | -25.5 (36.6/62.1) | -24.8 (37.0/61.8) | 0.7 |
| AZ-02 | John Thrasher | -19.7 (38.9/58.6) | -22.2 (37.2/59.4) | -2.5 |
| FL-05 | John Russell | -19.8 (40.1/59.9) | -22.4 (38.8/61.2) | -2.6 |
| PA-19 | Phil Avilo | -30.5 (33.5/64.0) | -33.2 (33.4/66.6) | -2.7 |
| PA-09 | Tony Barr | -20.6 (39.7/60.3) | -27.8 (36.1/63.9) | -7.2 |
| TX-04 | Glenn Melancon | -31.0 (33.4/64.4) | -39.5 (29.3/68.8) | -8.5 |
| IN-06 | Barry Welsh | -20.0 (40.0/60.0) | -30.5 (33.4/63.9) | -10.5 |
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.
ran in 2006 and won in 2008.
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.
http://www.delawareliberal.net…
H/T S-Guru.
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.
on another note, what is the deal with fl-13? I assume there is some cause of decline that I missed.