Not being an election afficionado it seems to me that quite a few Senate incumbents are in close races: Baldwin, Brown, Tester, Scott, Cruz...if the poles are to be believed. Is this normal or is their an anti-incumbent vibe coming into play?
Not being an election afficionado it seems to me that quite a few Senate incumbents are in close races: Baldwin, Brown, Tester, Scott, Cruz...if the poles are to be believed. Is this normal or is their an anti-incumbent vibe coming into play?
It was a very close race, and it's obvious that the very unpopular and damaging pardon of Nixon cost him the race. But I thought a lot of Republican seats were turned over in Congress. Was that more in 1974?
1976 was actually quite a strong Democratic year in that they held most of their 1974 gains, with losses In the House and Senate nearly evenly balanced between the parties, mostly due to personal and local factors than any national trend. Dems probably close to maxed themselves out in 1974, so holding most of that was a big achievement.
Carter of course completed a trifecta, but only barely and more due to circumstances than a wave. His victory map, which looks antiquated now, already looked like something of a throwback then with all the Democratic states in the South that he carried largely through personal appeal. And Ford carried several states elsewhere that are out of contention for the GOP today.
Agree. That's why I was thinking the franking scandal (not minting) because it hit both parties I think, or during antitrust or after 1929 where everyone was mad. But my comment is informed by no research. .ЁЯШБ
WI (Baldwin) & PA (Casey) statewide races are usually close but both should hit 53%. MT (Tester) is a red state that got a little redder. Tester got lucky to win close races because he was rational politician. OH (Brown) is a swing state turned red. Brown's been in the public eye for 40 years & been a high quality guy the whole time. Brown needs to get truly lucky for the first time. TX (Cruz) & FL (Scott) are pink states with super unpopular Senators. Trump is going to drag Cruz to 50.2% while the state kicks & screams. Scott is the one GOP incumbent in trouble but might get bailed out by former NY snowbirds who made Florida their permanent residence post-COVID.
Rick Scott has surpassed 50% exactly 1 time in his political career; topping out at a whopping 50.06% in 2018(my point is; he's NEVER been popular; just rich)
Not being an election afficionado it seems to me that quite a few Senate incumbents are in close races: Baldwin, Brown, Tester, Scott, Cruz...if the poles are to be believed. Is this normal or is their an anti-incumbent vibe coming into play?
Mainly tracking the state presidential situation
Not all that unusual.
"...if the poles are to be believed."
Poles and Ukrainians are definitely to be believed! Polls, on the other hand...
/s
What a polarizing comment!
Can you think of a year in which there was a generalized anti-incumbent vote, irrespective of party and the partisan leanings of each state?
I've seen this type thing on a local level; never national
1976. A number of incumbent Senators from both sides were tossed out. Even a few Governors.
Interesting. I thought that was an anti-Watergate year.
Actually Ford did relatively well considering Watergate
It was a very close race, and it's obvious that the very unpopular and damaging pardon of Nixon cost him the race. But I thought a lot of Republican seats were turned over in Congress. Was that more in 1974?
I was thinking 74
1974 was very much a Watergate year. 1976 was not. If it were, it would have been a strong year for Democrats.
Democrats were starting from a very high base. They had nearly 300 house seats and over 60 senate seats.
1976 was actually quite a strong Democratic year in that they held most of their 1974 gains, with losses In the House and Senate nearly evenly balanced between the parties, mostly due to personal and local factors than any national trend. Dems probably close to maxed themselves out in 1974, so holding most of that was a big achievement.
Carter of course completed a trifecta, but only barely and more due to circumstances than a wave. His victory map, which looks antiquated now, already looked like something of a throwback then with all the Democratic states in the South that he carried largely through personal appeal. And Ford carried several states elsewhere that are out of contention for the GOP today.
тАШ74 was.
Led by the two biggest states, California and New York where Tunney and Buckley lost.
Seems like the year after the House minting scandal came to light dumped incumbents? Mid 80s maybe?
Otherwise I'd guess an election either in the 1910s or 1930/32.
Normally it's a 1 party thing imo
Agree. That's why I was thinking the franking scandal (not minting) because it hit both parties I think, or during antitrust or after 1929 where everyone was mad. But my comment is informed by no research. .ЁЯШБ
WI (Baldwin) & PA (Casey) statewide races are usually close but both should hit 53%. MT (Tester) is a red state that got a little redder. Tester got lucky to win close races because he was rational politician. OH (Brown) is a swing state turned red. Brown's been in the public eye for 40 years & been a high quality guy the whole time. Brown needs to get truly lucky for the first time. TX (Cruz) & FL (Scott) are pink states with super unpopular Senators. Trump is going to drag Cruz to 50.2% while the state kicks & screams. Scott is the one GOP incumbent in trouble but might get bailed out by former NY snowbirds who made Florida their permanent residence post-COVID.
Rick Scott has surpassed 50% exactly 1 time in his political career; topping out at a whopping 50.06% in 2018(my point is; he's NEVER been popular; just rich)
Maybe I am behind, but I don't think Baldwin's race will be very close.
The only Dem Sen incumbents I am worried about are Tester and Brown..