Test for Senate seats

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's a simple, but rather useful test for vunerablity of Senate incumbents.

First, find their ADA scores, then compare that to the percentage of the vote received by Kerry in their state in 2004.

Second, find the ACU scores, then compare that to the percentage of the vote received by Bush in their state in 2004.

Add the differences resulting from steps one and two.

[Alcon]

This is interesting, but as with many formulas for politics, is overcomplicating things and undercomplicating them at the same time.

Some things that can't be accounted for - name recognition, personal popularity, power in Washington, and more.

[No more McShame]

True that test would tell us that Conrad is going to get destroyed in North Dakota.  Even if Hoeven does run, it's very unlikely that he'd get crushed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry guys, but what the test indicates is how far the incumbent is out of touch with his constituents.

Of all the incumbents up for election in 2006, only five have gone out on a limb.

Santorum is the only Republican to significantly diverge from the voting history of his states.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry guys, but what the test indicates is how far the incumbent is out of touch with his constituents.

How exactly?

[CARLHAYDEN]

To simplify history, here's basically what happens:

Usually an incumbent in his/her first term is very attentive to the desires of his/her constituents, as he/she does not want to antagonize them into voting for his/her opponent in the next election.  After the incumbent has been reelected, he/she frequently begins to feel invunerable and pays less and less attention to the desires of his/her constituents.  Eventually the disconnect may become serious enough that the constituents decide they have to get rid of the incumbent.

The ancient greeks had a word for this: hubris.

I prefer the word arrogance.

Whatever term you prefer, the eventual result is defeat.

Incumbents traditionally have masked their divergence from the constituents wishes by providing 'pork.'

However, the Democrats have a problem in that they are the minority party in both houses of Congress, and there is a Republican President.

Additionally, incumbents who come to rely more and more on money from outside their home state/district may amass considerable funds, but it is another sign of weakness at home.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You haven't answered by question.

[minionofmidas]

Your question being how it indicates that, not how they get out of touch.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your question being how it indicates that, not how they get out of touch.

Exactly

[CARLHAYDEN]

The test I have provided is NOT a perfect one, as I have indicated, but does have a positive correlation (therefor is useful as a part of an analytical process).

To simplify the explanation, there is a strong positive correlation between preference (in the electorate) for liberal policies and the  (in 2004) for Kerry, and conversely a strong positive correlation between a preference (in the electorate) for conservative policies and the (in 2004) vote for Bush.

The South Dakota election in 2004 illustrated how a long term incumbent who had a voting record substanially divorced from the preferences of the majority of the voters in his state was defeated.

To me, this is NOT rocket science!

What has occured since 1994 that has drastically changed the political framework is that incumbents who previously could vote in Washington contrary to the wishes of their constituents could get away with it due to a combination of connivance of the local media (who would NOT publicize those votes) and the availability of pork to buy support.

Since 1994, the explosion of the internet, the loss of pork and the replacement of the Republican leadership from those believed that defeat was inevitable (Rep. Michael was an archtype) with those determined to win election, has rendered previously sucessful reelection methods ineffectual.

Interestly enough, only one of the nine Senators up for reelection this year with strong indicated differrences with their state electorate is a Republican (and only one of the seven with the highest indicated congruence up for reelection this year is a Democrat).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K, what about a certain DNA Senator for North Dakota who was re-elected in 2004, winning every single county in the state?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The test will say that Boxer, Dorgan, Sununu, and Santorum shouldn't have been elected in the first place.

[CARLHAYDEN]

O.K, what about a certain DNA Senator for North Dakota who was re-elected in 2004, winning every single county in the state?

Its very simple Al.

Republicans decided not to allocate their resources to try to defeat him.

He (Dorgan) will either trim his sails, or fact defeat in the next election.