In cinema, in sports, and...yes...in politics, there is always an abiding interest in the sequel. As of late 2007, an almost unbelievable eighteen of the fifty top grossing movies of all time were sequels (amazing—none of the classics in the seven-film Police Academy series made the cut). Rematches like Ali-Frazier III (the still-discussed Thrilla in Manila) rank in the public conversation among the top 10 fights of all time.
In politics, the rematch has a wide variety of motivations, and also a wide variety of outcomes. A quick study of the political rematch shows that the overwhelming majority of them are unsuccessful. Yet that does not stop them from happening, by the dozens, every election cycle.
A quick look at Election 2009 and Election 2010 shows that in major contests (House, Senate, Governor), there are potentially going to be more than forty such rematches. With some prospects still not showing their cards, that number could easily rise over fifty before we head to Election Day. Arguably the most high-profile contest in this year’s mini-election cycle is a rematch: Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds went heads up against GOP nominee Bob McDonnell in a 2005 contest for Virginia Attorney General, a contest won by McDonnell by just under 400 votes.
Political sequels can fall into one of two categories. By far the more common of the two is a rematch involving challengers who have lost in a previous cycle, and are back for another round. But there are also a handful of races, with the possibility of several more, where a former incumbent is trying to claw his/her way back to political relevance. For these two types of contests, the motivation is often very different.
Challengers may seek the rematch because, simply put, no one else wants to make the plunge. In safe districts around the country, candidates file to challenge incumbents over and over again because the terrain is so committed to a single party that the challenger has the nomination to himself or herself. Since 2002, Mark Leyva has been the GOP nominee in the heavily Democratic IN-01 (held since 1984 by Peter Visclosky), and Don Karg has been the sole GOP challenger for Ed Pastor in AZ-04 for most of this decade. In all, there are about 15-18 districts across the country where these kind of rematches are likely. Across the board, these are districts where the incumbent won by more than 20 points in their first meeting.
It goes without saying that these kind of challenges are something of an impossibility, although longshots of that caliber do occasionally cash in: look at Joseph Cao as evidence of that.
Other challengers seek the rematch because they felt that they were competitive in the first go-round, and that either the electoral climate or the capacity for campaign resources has changed dramatically since then. In the House of Representatives, there are just over a dozen prospective races of this variety (note that some of these are still speculative):
AL-03: Josh Segall (D) challenging Rep. Mike Rogers (R)
AZ-05: David Schwiekert (R) to potentially challenge Rep. Harry Mitchell (D)
CA-44: Bill Hedrick (D) challenging Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
CA-50: Francine Busby (D) challenging Rep. Brian Bilbray (R)
FL-22: Allen West (R) challenging Rep. Ron Klein (D)
IL-13: Scott Harper (D) challenging Rep. Judy Biggert (R)
IA-03: Mike Mahaffey (R) to potentially challenge Leonard Boswell (D)
MD-01: Andy Harris (R) challenging Frank Kratovil (D)
MN-06: Elwyn Tinklenberg (D) challenging Michele Bachmann (R)
PA-11: Lou Barletta (R) challenging Frank Paul Kanjorski (D)
PA-12: William Russell (R) challenging John Murtha (D)
PA-16: Lois Herr (D) challenging Joe Pitts (R)
SC-02: Rob Miller (D) challenging Joe Wilson (R)
TX-17: Rob Curnock (R) challenging Chet Edwards (D)
(source for contest information here)
There are also a couple of statewide races that may fit this mold, though the match-ups are far from cemented. In Kentucky, 2004 Democratic nominee Dan Mongiardo is in the race to take on GOP Sen. Jim Bunning, but it is possible that NEITHER will be the nominees of their party. Mongiardo has one of the marquee races of the primary season with state attorney general Jack Conway, while Bunning is still the source of ceaseless retirement rumors, and is almost certain to get primaried by Kentucky secretary of state Trey Grayson. Meanwhile, in Vermont, 2002 Democratic nominee Doug Racine is looking at the governor’s race, but Governor Jim Douglas has, to date, been mum about his 2010 plans, leading some to speculate that he may retire.
If there is going to be a successful rematch, it is going to come from this second group. Some of these candidates were incredibly close (Harris, Tinklenberg and Barletta immediately come to mind), and others were within striking distance without drawing a ton of media or party attention (Hedrick, West, Harper, and Miller).
There is actually a third category in 2010, and it is one that is not often seen. There are two gubernatorial candidates and one House candidate who had respectable performances in 2006/2008 as Independents, who seem likely to make the plunge with one of the two major parties. In the House, it is David Krikorian (OH-02), who won 18% of the vote as an Independent, is now looking at challenging Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) as a Democrat. Meanwhile, colorful Independent candidate Kinky Friedman is looking at the 2010 gubernatorial race in Texas as a Democrat, and Independent candidate Christy Mihos is looking at challenging Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts again, only this time as a Republican.
Has this ever been done? The answer, which might surprise you, is: Yes. In 1996, after having drawn substantial votes in two Independent races for governor and Congress, Utah’s Merrill Cook ran for election as a Republican in UT-02 when scandal-tainted Enid Greene-Waldholtz stepped aside. He defeated SLC lawyer and future mayor Rocky Anderson to win the seat.
In 2008, there were a total of twenty-eight rematches involving serious candidates running for Congress a second time in a particular district. The batting average was not stellar: five of the twenty-eight challenges were successful, for a success rate of just under 18%. What’s more, two of those five successful challenges were in open seats where the Democrat had run against an incumbent previously (Mary Jo Kilroy and Dan Maffei). Holding it just to true "rematches between an incumbent and a challenger, the batting average drops to three of twenty-two (or 13.6%).
Here is a little Sunday morning trivia: who were the three candidates (hint: all of them were Democrats) who won successful rematches in 2008? Here is another hint—only two of the three were House races, the other one was a race for the U.S. Senate.
In addition to challengers who want another at-bat, we also see one certain (and another half-dozen prospective) rematches involving vanquished incumbents who are trying to avenge past losses. The motivation here is two-fold. Some just have a hard time leaving the stage, while others are convinced that their exit from the stage was a fluke, precipitated by a miserable electoral climate or some bizarre twist of fate. In the 2010 cycle, it is not surprising, then, that all but one of the candidates talking rematch is a Republican.
Here is the list of potential contests of this variety (remember that some, if not most of these, may not come to pass):
ID-01: Bill Sali (R), to potentially challenge Walt Minnick (D)
KS-02: Nancy Boyda (D), to potentially challenge Lynn Jenkins (R)
MI-07: Tim Walberg (R), to potentially challenge Mark Schauer (D)
NM-02: Steve Pearce (R), to potentially challenge Harry Teague (D)
OH-01: Steve Chabot (R), challenging Steve Driehaus (D)
VA-05: Virgil Goode (R), to potentially challenge Tom Perriello (D)
Of this list of six, apparently Chabot is a lock to challenge Driehaus for the seat he held since the Republican tsunami in 1994. He has a website up, and has made an affirmative declaration that he is running. Goode has submitted paperwork for 2010, but has not made a definitive declaration about his intentions. The rest are varying stages of rumor.
Why are there comparably fewer incumbent rematches? Well, there are two fairly simple answers for that.
For one thing, the potential pool of candidates. Every election cycle, there are literally hundreds of vanquished challengers. But how many incumbents lose in a cycle? The short answer is: not many.
For another, incumbent attempts to regain their seats, at least at the federal level, are almost always unsuccessful. A serious wracking of my brain came up with just two successful resurrections of a Congressional career, and one of them has a major caveat. The one that did it the traditional way is North Carolina Rep. David Price, who lost to Fred Heineman narrowly in 1994, and came back to defeat him by eight points in 1996. The other is Washington’s Jay Inslee, but he came back to Congress by changing districts: after losing in Washington’s rural, conservative 4th district in the 1994 tsunami, he came back in 1998 by winning in the 1st district, based in suburban Seattle.
If there are ones missing, of course, we’ll hear about them in the comments, I hope...
So, given their relative lack of success, why do rematches occur with such frequency? Well, for one thing, the parties do not mind repeat candidates. They tend to be well-funded, and you don’t have to buy name recognition at the outset. Furthermore, with incumbents seeking their old seats, there might be a sense that the incumbent is "owed" another shot at the brass ring (though, not always: ask Kansan Jim Ryun, who lost in the 2008 primary to get another shot at Boyda).
How many will be successful in 2010? It’s a bit hard to say, though Democrats are certainly excited about the prospects for Hedrick, Harper, and Tinklenberg, while the GOP will be touting Harris, Barletta, and Chabot. The newly-minted Democrat in Ohio (Krikorian in OH-02) is touting a poll showing him trailing Mean Jean Schimidt by just five points.
History shows that at least a few of these, indeed, will be successful. But history also shows that it will be ONLY a few that make the cut.