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

Gender Equality in the US House: A State-by State Quarter-Century Report Card (1989-2014)

A study of 5,325 congressional elections finds the number of female U.S. Representatives has more than tripled over the last 25 years, but the rate at which women are elected to the chamber still varies greatly between the states.

Political Crumbs

Final Four Has Presidential Approval

By edging Michigan in the final seconds Sunday, the University of Kentucky guaranteed that one school in the Final Four this year would be located in a state that was not carried by President Barack Obama in 2012. (Connecticut, Florida, and Wisconsin had previously earned Final Four slots over the weekend). Across the 76 Final Fours since 1939, an average of 3.1 schools have been located in states won by the president's ticket during the previous election cycle. All four schools have come from states won by the president 29 times, with the most recent being the 2009 Final Four featuring Connecticut, Michigan State, North Carolina, and Villanova. On 30 occasions three Final Four schools have been located in states won by the president, with two schools 11 times and only one school six times (the most recent being 2012 with Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Ohio State). There has never been a Men's NCAA Division I Final Four in which no schools were located in states carried by the president's ticket.


Three for the Road

A new Rasmussen Poll shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a dead heat with likely 2014 Democratic nominee Mary Burke. Walker is seeking to win his third consecutive election after prevailing in 2012's recall contest. Eight of his predecessors accomplished this feat: Republicans Lucius Fairchild (in 1869), Jeremiah Rusk (1886), Robert La Follette (1904), Emanuel Philipp (1918), John Blaine (1924), Walter Kohler (1954), Warren Knowles (1968), and Tommy Thompson (1994). Three others Badger State governors lost on their third campaign: Democrat George Peck (1894), Progressive Philip La Follette (1938), and Republican Julius Heil (1942). One died in office before having the opportunity to win a third contest (GOPer Walter Goodland in 1947) while another resigned beforehand (Democrat Patrick Lucey in 1977 to become Ambassador to Mexico). Overall Wisconsin gubernatorial incumbents have won 35 of 47 general election contests, or 74.5 percent of the time.


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