Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Sestak Seeks First US Senate Rematch in Pennsylvania History

Bookmark and Share

If Sestak wins the 2016 Democratic nomination he will be the first major party candidate to secure a rematch in a Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race in the popular vote era

joesestak10.jpgWhen former Pennsylvania U.S. Representative and 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak raised a surprising $460K in receipts for the first quarter of 2013, it didn't take much imagination to suspect his political aspirations were still alive and well.

Sestak, who Republican Pat Toomey defeated by 2.0 points during the GOP wave that cycle, announced today that he is preparing to run again the next time the state holds a Senate contest - in a rematch against Toomey in November 2016.

By staking his claim this early, the former Congressman and Navy Admiral may have just cleared the Democratic field 3.5 years out from Election Day and can now simply focus on the general election.

(In 2010, Sestak had to first defeat Republican-turned-Democratic incumbent Arlen Specter in a closely fought primary campaign decided by 7.8 points).

A Sestak vs. Toomey rematch would be a rarity in Pennsylvania politics.

In fact, there has never been a rematch in a Senate race in the Keystone State.

A Smart Politics review of Pennsylvania U.S. Senate elections finds that if Joe Sestak wins the 2016 Democratic nomination, his rematch against incumbent Pat Toomey will be the first among major party candidates in the history of the state in the direct election era.

Pennsylvania has held 38 U.S. Senate special and general elections since its first popular vote contest for the office in 1914.

Not once has a defeated major party candidate sought and earned a general election rematch against the victor across these last 100 years.

Prior to Sestak's announcement most of the early 2016 chatter in Washington has been about the presidential race.

Sestak has demonstrated he is capable of raising plenty of money and probably expects the 2016 cycle won't be as GOP-friendly as the last go-around when he lost by just two points to Toomey.

It should be noted a handful of minor third party candidates have run in multiple elections against the same opponent, though they are not top-billed 'rematches' per se:

· In 1922 and 1928 Socialist William Van Essen ran against Republican David Reed, winning 5.6 and 0.8 percent respectively.

· In 1930 (special election) and 1932, Van Essen won 1.3 percent and 3.3 percent against Republican James Davis.

· In 1944 and 1950, Socialist Labor candidate Frank Knotek won 0.05 percent and 0.04 percent of the vote against Democrat Francis Myers (who lost his '50 reelection bid to Republican Jim Duff).

· In 1946, Knotek won 0.4 percent as a Socialist Laborite in a race won by Republican Edward Martin and then won 0.04 percent against Martin in 1952 under the Industrial Government banner.

· In 1958, Socialist Labor candidate George Taylor carried 0.3 percent of the vote as Republican Hugh Scott won his first of three terms. Taylor won 0.1 percent six years later against Scott in 1964.

As of the end of March, Senator Toomey had nearly $2.4 million cash on hand for his Senate campaign.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Herseth Sandlin and the US House to Senate Pathway
Next post: Are Eric Holder's Days Numbered?

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


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