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.