Skip to main content

View Diary: The Best- and Worst-Performing Republican Incumbents of the 2004 Election: DKE History, Part 2. (12 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Remember, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    These people underperformed the presidential results of their districts (not always in absolute terms, but relative to other incumbents in similar seats).  I don't know if demographic trends can account for that.  Recall that the list of weak Democrats included incumbents in Indianapolis, California, and Oregon, while Gene Taylor and Ike Skelton had some of the strongest performances.

    26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 07:12:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  CO-04 & NC-08 were high growth... (0+ / 0-)

      And the new voters moving in had no relationship with the incumbents. Keep that in mind.

      In PA-06, Gerlach depended on Presidential dropoff and just enough ticket splitting to finish on top.

      The likes of Taylor & Skelton were the last of the rural Blue Dogs. Notice that they're not in Congress any more.

      •  What I mean is (0+ / 0-)

        Any demographic account of why Marilyn Musgrave is on this list, at least, has to explain why she did worse than Bush.  If she did badly because of new arrivals to her district, then why did they split their tickets?  There might well be a reason but it might get back to the candidate-specific factors that this sort of exercise is meant to isolate.

        In general, things like partisan trends will indeed be very important, but what I was trying to find here were the exceptions to that: the relatively few races where candidate/campaign quality seems to have had a relatively strong partisan effect, above and beyond what was going on in the district.

        That said, your broader point about new arrivals complicating what it means to be an incumbent is interesting.  Writing these diaries has me suspecting that incumbency is a tricky thing to define, and that it might not always be binary.

        As for Taylor and Skelton: right!  Trends were against them, but they still did well in 2004.  Earl Pomeroy was crushing Duane Sand by 20 points even as Sand spent a million bucks (and Pomeroy spent even more).   2004 trends would seem to be with Julia Carson or David Wu, but they did poorly, relatively speaking.

        26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

        by Xenocrypt on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 08:16:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site