Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Advantage Walsh in Montana US Senate Race? Not So Fast

Bookmark and Share

Appointed U.S. Senators who subsequently run for their seat have been elected only a shade above 50 percent of the time

johnwalsh10.jpgThe announcement Wednesday that President Obama selected Democratic U.S. Senator Max Baucus as his choice for Ambassador to China was followed by immediate speculation that Montana Governor Steve Bullock's likely appointee to the seat would be Lieutenant Governor - and 2014 U.S. Senate candidate - John Walsh.

That speculation was accompanied by several media assessments that Walsh's 2014 prospects would be noticeably strengthened by virtue of running as an incumbent next November.

On paper, the Baucus ambassadorship seemed to be the break Montana Democrats needed after enduring several false starts this year when would-be top-tier candidates passed on the race that opened up eight months ago when Baucus said he would not run for a seventh term (e.g. former Governor Brian Schweitzer, Emily's List President Stephanie Schriock).

But should the Montana race now be rated as "Advantage Walsh?"

Not quite.

While the incumbency advantage tends to be a truism in American politics, not all incumbents are created equal.

Put simply, appointed Senators who subsequently run for their seat are not elected at anywhere near the rate of those in the chamber who have won at least one U.S. Senate contest.

In the direct election era over the last 100 years, there have been 193 appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Of these appointees, 71 did not run for election to the seat, leaving 122 such candidates (the fate of two has not yet been decided: South Carolina Republican Tim Scott and Hawaii Democrat Brian Schatz will be running to retain their seats in 2014).

Of the remaining 120 appointees, only a shade more than half - 63 - were elected to their seat, or 52.5 percent.

A total of 57 appointees lost their U.S. Senate bid, or 47.5 percent.

Appointees have also underperformed in more recent political history.

The election rate for appointed Senators has only been slightly higher in recent decades, with 15 of 26 appointees victorious in their U.S. Senate campaigns since 1970, or 57 percent.

By contrast, the reelection rate of incumbents overall during this 22-cycle span is well north of 80 percent.

This disparity makes intuitive sense.

Appointed Senators have not had as many years to establish and capitalize on the 'incumbency advantage' - usually serving far shorter stints than a true freshman who get six years to nurture their new relationship with his or her constituency.

Moreover, unlike a true freshman who earned the seat at the ballot box, voters are perhaps less enamored by appointees who were given their seat.

The fact that Walsh has already won over Montanans by virtue of winning a statewide race in 2012 as Steve Bullock's running mate guarantees little.

Winners of statewide races who were appointed to the U.S. Senate and then lost their seat include Kansas Republican Lieutenant Governor Sheila Frahm in 1996, Texas Democratic Railroad Commissioner Robert Kreuger in 1993, and Minnesota Governor Wendell Anderson in 1976.

If Walsh is appointed in the coming weeks, that does not necessarily mean he clears the field for the Democratic nomination in 2014.

Former Republican Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger, now running as a Democrat, is polling just as strong as Walsh in early horse race matchup surveys against likely GOP nominee U.S. Representative Steve Daines.

Daines was considered a slight favorite against Walsh prior to the news of Bachus' looming ambassadorship.

So, the question is this: when nearly half of appointed U.S. Senators fail in their reelection bids to begin with, how much does being appointed to the seat truly improve the odds of a candidate - particularly one, like Walsh, who would run as a Washington outsider?

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Iowa to Send Historically Unseasoned US House Delegation to 114th Congress
Next post: Pressler's In: Can the Political Rip Van Winkle Win?

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