Earlier in the day, Markos billed the likely matchup between Maine’s Rep. Tom Allen (D) and Susan Collins (R) for control of her Senate seat in 2008 as a “battle of the titans”, which leads me to ask: does Allen really have what it takes to win this thing?
Now, I’m not trying to say that Allen is a weak candidate. In a state with only two House districts, it’s clear that Allen would be a fairly serious threat to an entrenched Collins. But with a Senator as popular as Collins (who enjoys a whopping 73% approval last November, according to the latest SUSA tracking poll in November), Allen will have to execute a perfect campaign in order to win.
Let’s check his track record as of late. Here’s how he fared in 2006, according to CNN:
Allen (D): 61
Curley (R): 31
Kamilewicz (I): 8
And here’s his 2004 performance:
Allen (D): 60
Summers (R): 40
Allen’s district has a PVI of D+6.2. His House colleague, Democrat Mike Michaud, occupies a seat that’s a shade less Democratic at D+3.5. In his sophomore re-election bid in 2004, he won by a margin of 58-39, a margin very similar to Allen’s, who had been serving since 1998 by this point. In 2006, Michaud crushed his Republican opponent by a 70-30 margin.
Now, there are a lot of dynamics left unstated here: Kamilewicz, his 2006 third-party opponent, ran a peace campaign that probably cut into his left flank, although it only cost a mere $42,000. And while Allen enjoyed a 4-1 spending advantage over Republican Darlene Curley in 2006, he didn’t exactly saturate the market with his total expenditures of $650,000. But the point I’m trying to make is this: winning with 60%, especially in a Democratic year such as 2006, doesn’t leave me feeling overwhelmed.
Does anyone have a better sense as to why Allen hasn’t been able to peak above 60% since 2002?