Last year while running for governor of Oregon – he would take second place in the Republican primary – Kevin Mannix made a history-based argument to those in his party worried about whether he was electable. Mannix had, after all, lost not only the race for governor the election before in 2002, but also two runs for attorney general against a less-than-charismatic opponent (Hardy Myers, who’s retiring this year).
Mannix’ counter was this: You don’t get to be governor of Oregon without losing a race or two before getting there.
The point’s barb doesn’t hold perfectly – you have to overlook John Kitzhaber, Barbara Roberts and Neil Goldschmidt, who (so far as we can recall) never lost a race – but it does have a point. Oregon’s current governor, Ted Kulongoski, lost a run for the job in 1982, which followed by two years a failed run for the U.S. Senate. The three governors pre-Goldschmidt – Victor Atiyeh, Robert Straub, and Tom McCall – all lost bids for major office before winning the governorship. (Their predecessor, Mark Hatfield, was lossless, but it may be worth noting that he became governor by defeating incumbent Democrat Robert Holmes, who in turn won the job by defeating his Republican predecessor, Elmo Smith.) No binding rule, but some precedent is available.
The argument didn’t work for Mannix; he lost the Republican primary in 2006 to a man he’d defeated in it four years earlier. But the idea at hand – building a winning campaign on the rising ground of earlier defeats – has some pertinence in next year’s Northwest major office races.
As noted here yesterday, the region’s sole governor’s race likely will rematch Democrat Chris Gregoire, now the incumbent, and Republican Dino Rossi. The two Senate races in the region would not be reruns, though in Idaho the probable Republican and Democratic nominees for a presumably (presumably) open seat, Jim Risch and Larry LaRocco, have run against each other twice before.
Moreover: Early energy in U.S. House races have focused so far on three districts in the region, one in each state – and each one featuring, evidently, a rematch from 2006. In the Washington 8th, Republican Dave Reichert likely will re-face Democrat Darcy Burner; in the Idaho 1st, Republican Bill Sali probably will again be challenged by Democrat Larry Grant; and (although this is less settled) in the Oregon 5th, Democrat Darlene Hooley may again face Republican Mike Erickson.
Yesterday we looked at the recent history of taking out incumbents (spotty at best). Today: How do candidates do when they run again? Do reruns often work?
Examine the regional results over the last generation, and you find an answer: Sometimes, but usually when something important enough changes about the race from one election to another, usually something that has to do with the incumbent more than it does the challenger.
There are a number of instances around the Northwest of losing a run for an office before winning it.
Governor’s offices are rich with these cases. Like Oregon, Idaho has plenty of precedent. The Gem State’s governor now, C.L. “Butch” Otter, placed third in the 1978 Republican primary for governor, before he ran for lieutenant governor in 1986 and launching a since-unbroken string of wins. His immediate predecessor, Jim Risch, hasn’t lost for major office but was bounced out of his state Senate seat in 1988 and lost another state Senate race after that, before his comeback in the 90s. Phil Batt, governor from 1995-99, lost a run for the job in 1982. Cecil Andrus, the state’s only four-term governor (1971-77, 1987-95) and one of its most popular, managed to lose two runs for governor in the same year – 1966, once in the primary and then, weirdly, in the general too – before his eventual election. (Andrus has maintained he’s the only person ever to lose a governorship twice at the polls as a ballot-named candidate in the same year; he may be right.)
But because of the four-year gap between elections for governor, or six-year for U.S. Senate, these tend to be fluky cases – and because of the passage of time, many things can change. What about the two-year U.S. House cycles?
On that level, here are the cases we can spot of those who win after losing for the same office:
Brian Baird, Democrat, Washington 3rd. Baird ran a close race, photo-finish, against incumbent Republican Linda Smith in 1996. Two years later, Smith ran for the U.S. Senate instead, and Baird won in his second race, as an organized and known quantity for an open seat.
Jack Metcalf, Republican, Washington 2nd. Lost in 1992 to incumbent Democrat Al Swift. In 1994, Swift retired, Metcalf launched well-organized in a very Republican year, and won. (He retired after 2000.)
Doc Hastings, Republican, Washington 4th. Ran against Democrat Jay Inslee, a strong campaigner, for an open seat in 1992, then beat him in the Republican tide of 1994, after Inslee had become tightly linked to Clinton Administration policies in a very Republican district. Hastings is still there.
Mike Kopetski, Democrat, Oregon 5th. In 1988 Kopetski ran against incumbent Republican Denny Smith, holding him to a virtual draw. In 1990, Smith ran for governor (unsuccessfully), and Kopetski had the campaign and visibility to win the House seat. (This is the Baird scenario precisely, eight years earlier; Kopetski retired in 1994.)
Richard Stallings, Democrat, Idaho 2nd. Stallings launched a seeming long-shot bid against Republican incumbent George Hansen in 1982, losing but with a respectable percentage. Two years later, they rematched, and this time Stallings narrowly (this is super-fine photo-finish) won. What changed? Mostly, that a few months before the 1984 elections, Hansen had been convicted of four felony counts related to finance recordkeeping.
Those five are all the cases we know of in the last generation where a candidate runs for the House the second time in a row, and wins the second time. In three of those cases, the win happened in large part because the incumbent opted out, and the returning challenger was well-set-up to go after the opening. In one other (Stallings) the incumbent had extraordinary legal problems.
And in one (Hastings) case, the challenger was able to take advantage of newly-developed – developed during the term in Congress – changes in issues and political environment, to oust an incumbent. Hastings (in a race that both parties might do well to study this year) is the only recent classic example of defeating a House incumbent on the basis of track record and district political compatibility.
It’s a rarity. Election after election it’s tried, but rarely succeeds. Up against the success stories, consider these:
Jim Feldkamp, Republican, candidate for U.S. House (Oregon 5th), 2004, 2006. His percentage of 37.6% against Democratic incumbent Peter DeFazio was almost precisely the same both times, despite a much earlier and more organized start in 2006.
Doug Cloud, Republican, candidate for U.S. House (Washington 6th), 2004, 2006. After take all of 31% against the super-established Democratic incumbent Norm Dicks, he returned to take 29.4% the second time.
Jerry Brady, Democrat, candidate for governor (Idaho), 2002, 2006. Defeated both times, first against incumbent Dirk Kempthorne, then for an open seat by Republican Otter (though, following the norm rule, his percentage improved slightly the second time when the seat opened).
Carol Cassady, Republican, candidate for U.S. House (Washington 7th), 2002, 2004. Talk about a thankless job, running as a Republican in the heart of Seattle, and she did it twice, going from 21.9% the first time to 19.3% the second.
Brian Boquist, Republican, candidate for U.S. House (Oregon 5th), 2000, 2002. Improved his percentage by two points to 45.1% the second time, but still didn’t come close.
Robert Lawrence, Republican, candidate U.S. House (Washington 6th), 1998, 2000, 2002. Co-winner of the regional “glutton for punishment” award: Ran three times against the impregnable Norm Dicks, and his percentages (in order): 31.6%, 31.1%, 31.3%.
Heidi Behrens-Benedict, Democrat, candidate U.S. House (Washington 8th), 1998, 2000, 2002. The other glutton for punishment winner (and maybe she gets the edge because she actually sought the nomination a fourth time). Her percentages against the immovable Jennifer Dunn (in order): 40.3%, 35.6%, 37.3%.
Dan Williams, Democrat, candidate U.S. House (Idaho 1st), 1996, 1998. Running against Republican Helen Chenoweth, his percentage dropped from 47.5% in the first election to 44.7% in the second.
Our conclusion, as suggested earlier: Something very significant, usually involving the winner of the previous election and generally outside control of the challenger, has to change if the results in the second election are to significantly change.
We’d also suggest this, as an opening salvo in election analysis. The question such 2008 prospective challengers as Burner, Grant and Erickson have to ask is: Has enough changed (in the right way) in connection with Reichert, Sali and Hooley to render them drastically more vulnerable in 2008 than in 2006? And if so, what is that?
Share on Facebook
