The Incumbent Advantage

There has been a lot of excitement in recent weeks over the Senate retirement announcements that have been made so far this year. Four senators, all members of the Republican Party, and three of whom hailing from “purple” states, have announced that they will not seek reelection in 2010. They are Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mel Martinez of Florida, Kit Bond of Missouri, and George Voinovich of Ohio. The prevailing logic for the opposition party (in this case the Democrats) is that it is harder to defeat an incumbent than it is to simply beat another nominee. Incumbents generally have powerful political connections (both in the state party and nationally) a strong fundraising advantage, an entrenched base of supporters, and usually (but not always) need not worry as much about primaries as their challengers must. These advantages can be crucial in winning an election. Since all of the retirees are Republicans, it would seem that the Democrats’ chances of winning these seats in 2010, on paper, have increased greatly. However, I think it would be a good idea to explore the idea that these retirements may not bode well for the opposition and, indeed, may actually make it harder for Democrats to win these seats in the upcoming election.

With the exception of Brownback, all of these men were extremely unpopular at their jobs. Over the course of the past few months, Voinovich, Bond, and Martinez were consistently ranked by various pollsters and politicos to hold the most vulnerable seats in the United States Senate. All three men would have faced uphill battles against pretty much any Democrat in 2010. Despite the advantages of incumbency, these men were so unpopular that they stood virtually no chance of defeating any credible challenger. However, all signs seem to indicate that 2010 is going to be a slightly red year. It’s just a normal reaction to the massive gains made by the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. But the names Voinovich, Bond, and Martinez will still be the names of individuals that were unpopular among their constituents, regardless of the particular zeitgeist or flavor of the year. It doesn’t matter what party they belong to, if the voter has a problem with the individual, they’re not going to vote for them. But if 2010 is going to be a comeback year for the GOP, it might actually be advantageous for John Cornyn (the current NRSC chair) to back generic Republican nominees who we know little about and forgo the numerous perks of incumbency.

Let’s say I’m an Ohio swing voter concerned with the growing power of the Democrats and unhappy with the liberal turn the country has seemingly begun to take (this is the scenario that the GOP and the news pundits are predicting for 2010). As a swing voter who votes 50/50 Dem/Rep, this year I will, most likely, vote for a Republican since the electoral wind seems to be blowing that way (assuming the candidate isn't too controversial, that is). This is intended to counterweight the enormous power the Democrats have had over the country for the last four years. But I will not do so if it means voting for someone like George Voinovich who has personally let me down over the years. If the only opposition to the Democrats is a candidate who has personally offended me in the past, I will ignore the loftier purpose of balancing powers and simply vote for the guy who hasn’t let me down yet. If 2010 is truly going to be a reactionary year in favor of the Republicans, it will be a reaction in favor of the Republican Party and American conservatism, not just a potential fresh start for failed Republican individuals.  

And it's not as though running new candidates doesn't have other potential advantages. It opens the field for state powerhouses and big names like Jeb Bush (who, I am aware, has announced he will not actually run) to run without the disincentive of having to wage a messy primary war against a fellow party member. Had Jeb Bush run, he would have certainly started the race with better odds than Mel Martinez and, probably, the edge on most Florida Democrats. Charlie Crist is another such name in Florida politics who could clear the field should he choose to run, but I digress. Another benefit of running new names, although this may be more specific to the Republican Party in 2010, is it gives the party a chance to reinvent itself. A lot of names are stained in the public’s mind by their connections to the ever-unpopular Bush Administration and the neocon movement of the last eight years. Even if the next election cycle presents a chance for the Republicans to regain control of Congress, they’ll have to work on moving themselves away from the principles and tactics that cost them the last two elections. It’ll be hard to do that if they cling to the ideas and candidates of the past. It might be better to run new faces without the negative associations to the Bush presidency. Mel Martinez, for instance, made a name for himself as Bush’s HUD secretary, now he’s one of the least popular senators on the Hill. The two facts probably aren’t completely unrelated, though his association to the 43^rd president is hardly the only reason he’s disliked. If November taught us anything, it’s that people are tired of the same old Republican Party that has seen little reform since it’s last major revolution in the 1980s. Running new candidates in 2010 could be exactly what the party needs to jumpstart it again and begin a new period of reform.

However, this is all just food for thought. The advantages of incumbency are innumerable. In about 90% of races, the incumbent starts out with at least some edge in polling and a hefty fundraising lead. But retiring politicians do offer a chance for parties (particularly parties in the minority) to reinvent themselves along ideological lines, as well as to run bigger, better names, and to do some good old-fashioned housecleaning and bring in new candidates to replace unpopular incumbents. That being said, although it might make sense for a few of the more unpopular faces in the Republican Party to step down and make way for rising stars, it is far more prudent to keep as many senators on as possible, even if they are a little out of favor at the moment. 

Introducing So Goes the Nation

      Before anything else, I'd like to christen this blog with a big hello to the rest of the blogosphere, particularly the political side of it. We're very glad to be a part of this community and to be producing our own commentary on the web. Nathaniel and I have been longtime readers of blogs (usually those of a political/news oriented nature) and finally came to the same realization that I believe every blogger comes to, "if they're doing it, why can't we?" This media, which has truly democratized politics and the spreading of thoughts and opinions, is so rich with opportunity to create great things, that we felt we had to make some contributions of our own.

       So Goes the Nation is our first blog and it is committed to the reporting of American political and electoral news. Our name comes from the old political saying in America, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." It was believed that in presidential elections whoever won Maine would be the overall winner in the electoral vote and for a long time it had a pretty good track record. Although Maine isn't perhaps the electoral bellwether it once was, the second part of the saying is still frequently used elsewhere. We chose the title for our blog because we want to be able to predict and report on the constantly changing nature of this great nation as accurately as Maine once did. Nathaniel and I are interested in provoking hearty political discussion and debate and contributing to the blogosphere as best we can with the best political coverage we can give. We intend to be unbiased in our reporting (with the exception of a few "opinion" articles which will be clearly separated from the rest of the blog) and true to our commitment to bringing the most accurate, insightful, and up-to-date news as possible onto your monitor each day. We welcome any and all who are interested in political science, history, current events, and the United States' political system and we will work hard to earn your respect, trust, and readership. Feel welcome to post responses to our articles even if you don't feel the same way about an issue as it's author, that's what this blog is all about. We hope our little blog will be successful and gain as much readership as possible and we encourage those of you who like what we're doing to tell your friends. It takes an individual to create, but it takes everyone to make that creation work. I personally feel that's what blogging is all about. 

       So without further formality or introduction, I give you all So Goes the Nation!