Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


What Are the Odds of Incumbents Winning All 8 of Minnesota's U.S. House Races in 2010?

Bookmark and Share

This report is Part 4 in a series on the incumbency advantage in Minnesota politics.

In the third part of Smart Politics' analysis of the incumbency advantage in Minnesota's U.S. House contests, it was revealed that, aside from a decade and a half span during the rise and fall of the state's three-party system in the 1930s and 1940s, Minnesota's incumbents have been reelected at virtually the same rate over the past 100 years.

The impressive 90+ percent rate at which incumbents have been reelected in Minnesota during most census periods over the past century, however, is assuredly not going to dissuade the DFL from angling for the seats of both freshman Erik Paulsen in the 3rd CD and, particularly, Michele Bachmann in the 6th CD.

The historical number-crunching, in addition to the current political environment, does point to a very difficult road for the DFL to pick up even one of these seats.

Earlier reports in this series explained, with regards to Paulsen, no freshman Congressman from Minnesota has been defeated in a general election matchup since 1948, and, with regards to Bachmann, it has been 65 years since the last time a 2-term Republican incumbent has been defeated in a non-redistricting year.

There has been no announcement to date that any of Minnesota's eight Representatives will be retiring in 2010 (e.g. Jim Oberstar) or seeking higher office (e.g. Tim Walz).

As such, in light of the high rate at which incumbents are reelected, Smart Politics conducted an analysis to investigate just how frequently all Minnesota's U.S. Representatives have won reelection in a clean "incumbency sweep" in the more than 75 general elections that have been held in Gopher State history.

As it turns out, taking the long view across Minnesota's 150-year history, the odds are better than average, but not strong.

To begin with, all of Minnesota's U.S. Representatives have appeared on the ballot for reelection bids in just 32 of the state's 76 general elections that have been conducted from 1859 through 2008, or a rate of 42 percent. (1859 was the first year 1857's inaugural Gopher State Representatives could go up for reelection).

That number has increased in recent years, with every member of Minnesota's U.S. House delegation running for reelection 8 times during the past 14 election cycles dating back to 1982 (60 percent).

Out of the 32 elections in which each of Minnesota's U.S. Representatives have appeared on the general election ballot, incumbents swept their contests in just 19 instances, or 59 percent of the time.

That means the "incumbency sweep" has occurred in just 25 percent (19 of 76) general elections since 1859.

However, the incumbency sweep became much more prevalent further into the 20th Century:

· U.S. House incumbents fared quite well in Minnesota's early years - sweeping into office in each of the first four times all incumbents appeared on the general election ballot: 1860, 1864, 1866, and 1872. However, the Gopher State was sparsely populated then, carved into only 2 U.S. House districts in 1862 and 3 districts in 1872 (Minnesota elected 2 at-large Representatives prior to 1862).

· Over the next 74 years, from 1874 through 1948, Minnesota's U.S. House delegation was only able to pull off the incumbency sweep in 3 of the 11 election cycles (27 percent) in which all Representatives were on the ballot - successfully accomplishing that feat in 1898, 1900, and 1930, but failing to do so in 1880, 1890, 1894, 1922, 1938, 1940, 1944, and 1948.

· Over the next 32 years, from 1950 through 1982, the incumbency sweep occurred in 6 of the 10 elections (60 percent) in which all Representatives were on the general election ballot: sweeping through 1950, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, and 1972, but losing one delegation member in 1954, 1960, 1966, and two members in 1982.

· Since 1984, however, incumbents have swept all 8 of Minnesota's congressional districts in six of the seven cycles (86 percent) in which they have all sought reelection. Incumbents swept through 1984, 1986, 1988, 1996, 1998 and 2004. In only one election did the House delegation fall short of a sweep - 2002, when DFLer Bill Luther was drawn into a new district (from the 6th to the 2nd, ultimately losing to John Kline).

2010 will be the last year of the current census period, with new district lines to be drawn before the 2012 election. In the eight times all U.S. Representatives have run for reelection in years ending in '0' the incumbents have swept through four cycles (1860, 1900, 1930, and 1950), while losing at least one member in four other cycles (1880, 1890, 1940, 1960).

Election Cycles with All of Minnesota's U.S. Representatives on the General Election Ballot

Year
Sweep
Representatives
Won
Lost
1860
Yes
2
2
0
1864
Yes
2
2
0
1866
Yes
2
2
0
1872
Yes
3
3
0
1880
No
3
2
1
1890
No
5
1
4
1894
No
7
4
3
1898
Yes
7
7
0
1900
Yes
7
7
0
1922
No
10
8
2
1930*
Yes
10
10
0
1938
No
9
5
4
1940
No
9
7
2
1944
No
9
7
2
1948
No
9
6
3
1950
Yes
9
9
0
1952
Yes
9
9
0
1954
No
9
8
1
1956
Yes
9
9
0
1960
No
9
8
1
1966
No
8
7
1
1968
Yes
8
8
0
1972
Yes
8
8
0
1982
No
8
6
2
1984
Yes
8
8
0
1986
Yes
8
8
0
1988
Yes
8
8
0
1996
Yes
8
8
0
1998
Yes
8
8
0
2002
No
8
7
1
2004
Yes
8
8
0
* Two incumbents in 1930 (William Nolan in the 5th CD and Paul J. Kvale in the 7th CD) were first elected in special elections in 1929. Data compled by Smart Politics.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Are Minnesota's U.S. House Seats Safer for Incumbents Today Than in the Past?
Next post: Minnesota Crime Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since the Moon Landing

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Which States Own the Best Track Record in Backing Eventual GOP Presidential Nominees?

Nine states (each with primaries) have an unblemished record in voting for the eventual Republican nominee since 1976 - and not all host contests on the back end of the calendar.

Political Crumbs

Evolving?

When Scott Walker "punted" back in February after being asked if he was comfortable with the idea of evolution he added, "That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or the other." However, it may very well be a question that is asked at one of the upcoming GOP debates this year. In South Carolina during the first GOP debate in 2012, FOX News' Juan Williams asked Tim Pawlenty, "Do you equate the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution as the basis for what should be taught for our nation's schools?" Pawlenty replied, "There should be room in the curriculum for study of intelligent design" but that it was up to the local school districts if it should be in a science class or comparative theory class. At the fourth Republican debate held in California, Jon Huntsman addressed the GOP becoming "anti-science" thusly: "Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy."


73 Months and Counting

January's preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers show Minnesota's unemployment rate of 3.7 percent was once again lower than Wisconsin's 5.0 percent. That marks the 73rd consecutive month in which Minnesota has boasted a lower jobless rate than its neighbor to the east dating back to January 2009 including each of the last 67 months by at least one point. The Gopher State has now edged Wisconsin in the employment border battle for 204 of the last 216 months dating back to February 1997. Wisconsin only managed a lower unemployment rate than Minnesota for the 12 months of 2008 during this 18-year span.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting