Beating Battle-Tested Republicans

Conventional wisdom holds - and for good reason - that incumbent Representatives or Senators who have survived a few decent challenges will be better equipped to fend off further challenges in the future.

On the face of it, this conventional wisdom makes sense. It seems logical that out of the candidates targeted for defeat by an opposing party, those who were superior campaigners would be the ones more likely to survive - and that, conversely, the weaker campaigners might be weeded out after a few cycles.

It seems logical, too, that the incumbents who were better fits for their districts would tend to win reelection more often than those who were not.

And it seems likely that an incumbent who has survived a couple of tough challenges may have learned how to handle them -  the most effective advertising strategy in the district, how best to neutralize an opponent's strength on key issues, etc.

That said, this conventional wisdom is generally accepted for elections held in a relatively neutral political environment. Does it hold in a political environment which dramatically favors one political party? And if so, will it be enough to save a few Republican veterans currently facing the stiffest challenges of their careers?

Amy Walter in the National Journal Online:

I'm the first to admit to a "survivor" bias. If an incumbent has survived a serious challenge or two -- especially in an unfavorable political environment -- I assume no challenge is too tough. But that's a dangerous assumption to make about even the hardiest Republican House incumbents this year.

On top of the obvious troubles -- such as a serious fundraising disadvantage for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the unprecedented number of voters who say they want Democrats in charge of Congress -- they also face new and unforeseen dangers.

Here's the big one: No one can figure out just how many new or non-chronic voters are going to show up on Election Day.

She goes on to identify several key factors favoring Democratic candidates across the board in this election. Beyond simply the unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican brand, we have:

- voter enthusiasm. As DemFromCT notes, not only are Democratic voters generally far more enthusiastic about voting for Obama than Republican voters are (a Diageo/Hotline poll indicates 60% of Dems will vote "enthusiastically" for Obama, while 46% of Republicans feel the same way about McCain), but the generic support for Democrats across the board is significantly higher than it is for Republicans (a CNN poll has a generic Congressional ballot at 54% D, 44% R%).

- the youth vote. Even more than usual, the youth vote overwhelmingly favors Democrats this year, and substantially increased voter registration numbers have indicated that it may be an exceptionally significant factor this fall. Walter notes that these voters belong to the "cell-phone" generation, and frequently aren't polled; I don't know how significant I personally think that is, but I do agree that a potential increase in youth turnout is bad news for Republican incumbents.

In 2006, of course, Republicans also faced an adverse political climate...and in fact, several of their incumbents who had survived strong challenges in the past, or were considered nearly invulnerable, did go down. Charlie Bass in New Hampshire, Nancy Johnson in Connecticut, Anne Northup in Kentucky, and Jim Leach in Iowa all fit this profile, and all of them were defeated. So were Clay Shaw, Rob Simmons, J.D. Hayworth and Chris Chocola.  

Naturally, a number of Republican veterans of repeated challenges did survive 2006, if just barely. Many of them are on the target list for this year, such as:

- Chris Shays in CT-04. Shays is sort of the prototypical Republican survivor; he has held office since 1987, represents the most Democratic district in the country currently held by a Republican, and his last two races have been by far the closest of his political career. He's opposed by Orange to Blue candidate Jim Himes.

Dave Reichert in WA-08. Both of Reichert's races for Congress have been nailbiters; he first won election over Dave Ross in 2004, 52%-47%, and squeaked by Darcy Burner in 2006, 51%-49%. As you know, Burner is back for a second go-round this fall (and we are proud to have her on Orange to Blue as well). Reichert's district went for Kerry by three points, so with 2008 looking far more favorable for Democrats than 2004, his number may have come up.

Steve Chabot of OH-01. Chabot represents a Cincinnati-based swing district with one of the largest black populations of any district represented by a Republican - nearly one-third of the district's population. Despite his sterling electoral record, Chabot must be seriously concerned about the prospect of an Obama candidacy, particularly given the other difficulties Republican candidates face this cycle.

Two other notable "survivors" face tough races from Orange to Blue candidates this cycle. They are Mark Kirk in Illinois, who faces off against the impressive Dan Seals, and Randy Kuhl in New York, who faces the beloved Eric Massa. As we come to our end-of quarter push, please help these fine candidates, along with Burner and Himes, as they try to take on the toughest and most seasoned of Republican candidates.

Walter cites several other candidates who have been at the top of the national Democratic target list - and the netroots' - for several cycles, as vulnerable again this year. She specifically mentions Jon Porter of Nevada and Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. I'd submit that several more Republican survivors are at risk this cycle despite surviving difficult races in the past, like Jean Schmidt (OH-02), and Thelma Drake (VA-02).

One could add several more names to that list, in fact, had so many Republican incumbents who barely survived 2006 not retired rather than face another challenge, as Tom Reynolds (NY-26), Deborah Pryce (OH-15), Mike Ferguson (NJ-07), Rick Renzi (AZ-01) and Jim Walsh (NY-25) have done. There have been so many retirements from candidates who narrowly won reelection, in fact, that one has to ask whether they themselves felt their number had come up, despite having won consistently in the past.

Their retirements, I think, serve to underscore the idea that traditional preconceptions may not apply in this election, and proven electoral viability even in the toughest of races may not be enough to save Republicans this time out.

This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that every Republican incumbent whose seat has been targeted by the DCCC in the past is finally going to go down this year, of course. Republicans faced adverse political circumstances in 2006, as well, and several of their "survivors" did survive (consider all the names above, plus folks like Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania).

Nevertheless, it appears that the political environment is so toxic for Republicans that even being a superior campaigner and a well-liked Representative does not guarantee electoral success.