MyDD :: Vote decline among House members 2002-2004

Vote decline among House members 2002-2004

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:36:40 AM EST

After the 2002 midterm election, Adam Tondowsky crunched all the numbers and I posted them here on MyDD. He's done it again, so I'll have 4 posts in succession from the analysis he's compiled. Here's the first:

These long time incumbents saw there vote decline by more than 5% vs. 2002 and received less than 65% of the vote, though they still won by over 20%. The result of their decline may be because or a strong opponent, a mini scandal, or a reflection of a slowly changing district demographic. This list also does not include candidates who did not face a major party opponent in 2002.

                                           2004     2002           
Republicans
1. Ohio 14         Steve La Tourette       62.7%    72.1%
2. Ohio 15         Deborah Pryce,          60.0%    66.5%
3. Michigan 8      Mike Rogers             61.1%    67.9%
4. Colorado 6      Tom Tancredo            59.5%    66.9%
5. Virginia 10     Frank Wolf              63.8%    71.7%
6. Texas 21        Lamar Smith             61.5%    72.8% (redistricted)
7. California 50   Randy 'Duke' Cunningham 58.5%    64.3%
8. New York 3      Peter King              63.0%    71.9%
9. Minnesota 3     Jim Ramstad             64.6%    72.0%
10.Pennsylvania 3  Phil English            60.0%    77.7%

Democrats
1. Florida 2       Allen Boyd              61.6%    66.9%
2. Ohio 10         Dennis Kucinich         60.0%    74.1%
3. Hawaii 1        Neil Abercrombie        63.0%    68.6%
4. Virginia 9      Rick Boucher            59.3%    65.8%

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Also (none / 0)

Adam noted this overall findings:

A final interesting result is, excluding freshmen (whose vote usually goes up after they first win), and candidates who didn't face a major party challenger in 2002 and 2004, Democratic incumbents did better at increasing their vote compared to Republicans.

(I excluded Texas as well because of the redistricting)

I.E, the Congressperson received 61.5% of the vote in 2002 and 63.5% of the vote in 2004.

71 Democratic incumbents increased their share vs. 2002

40 Democratic incumbents decreased via 2002 (1 lost)

3 had the same percentage.

37 Republicans increased their share vs. 2002

77 Republicans decreased via 2002.

Bernie Sanders increased his share of the vote in Vermont.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:53:36 AM EST

Ohio Congressional Vote (none / 0)

I've been working on lots of resources in order to attack Ohio in 2006, 2008 and beyond. One such area is those house races in Ohio were we can try to pick up a seat or two.

Look at this resource on my website.

Also, we need to look at this idea as we look towards the 2011 redistricting fight here in Ohio.

Finally, we need to concentrate some of our energy on the little known but critical 2006 Secretary of State election here in Ohio. I'll be doing some work on that myself.

Paul
Bring Ohio Home

by bringohiohome on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:02:17 PM EST

I think he overlooked one... (none / 0)

Any reason he omitted this one?

Texas 22 Tom DeLay 55.16 63.17

Yes, I know redistricting played a role, but if you're going to include Lamar Smith (who ran against a token perennial candidate, btw), you ought to include The Hammer as well.

by kuff on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:31:48 PM EST

Re: I think he overlooked one... (none / 0)

That's not in this group (These long time incumbents saw there vote decline by more than 5% vs. 2002 and received less than 65% of the vote, though they still won by over 20%.), it's in one of the upcoming posts though.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Pennsylvania 3rd district (none / 0)

Republican Phil English went from 77% to like 59-60%, this was mostly due to Democrats fielding a canidate although he was an extremely weak canidate, , in 2002 only a Green Party canidate opposed him, but that's still a 17 point decline.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:31:32 PM EST

Re: How about Pennsylvania 3rd district (none / 0)

YEa, thanks, he missed that one, I added it.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What will happen if (none / 0)

the economy comes crashing down? Will people blame that shadowy gorup of people called "liberals" or will they blame the party that has ushered us into a dark age? We shall see.

PS Kennedy wouldn't have won in '56.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:51:59 PM EST

Tom Tancredo (none / 0)

The reason Tom Tancredo won re-election in 2004 was because the Democrats put up a lame candidate against him. I had a real hard time casting my vote for her and only did it in hopes of changing the balance in the House.

I had been a long-time supporter of Tancredo. I wrote telling him why I was dropping my support and voting for his opponent. Asked him to clarify some positions -- especially his strong support of George W Bush. He didn't get it. He wanted to argue with me and make me wrong about my concerns.

Sweet is war to those who have not experienced it. (dulce bellum inexpertus) from Adagia by Desiderius Erasmus - 1515

by Herb La Tortue on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:33:28 PM EST

Kucinich slips the most (none / 0)

It looks like Dennis Kucinich may have hurt himself back home with his presidential bid.

I was an Iowa Deaniac who got to watch Kucinich and his folks up close; I admired his positions on some things. But sorry, he and many of his supporters came off as just weird. And that impression spread across the country with his die-hard refusal to drop out after Kerry had mathematically clinched the nomination. I remember the Kucinich endorsement coming on maybe the Sunday of convention week and the commentators treating it like a joke.

That kind of stuff must have rubbed folks the wrong way in Cleveland.

The Map splits Cleveland on racial lines. There's a black district (Tubbs-Jones) and Kucinich has the Drew Carey Show district. "Polka, bowling, and kielbasa," as Kucinich used to say. Not a lot of natural grains and tofu.

Kucinich knocked GOP incumbent Martin Hoke in `96. But Hoke was a fluke who beat Mary Rose Oakar in 1992 after she bounced about 900 checks in the House bank scandal. Hoke then held on in '94 because it was '94.

So it's a pretty good Democratic district that's become a lot more vulnerable in two years - and the incumbent's quirks are the most likely explanation. Could Dennis Kucinich be vulnerable to a primary challenger in 2006?

by jdeeth on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:45:47 PM EST

Re: Kucinich slips the most (none / 0)

although Kucinich only received 60% of the vote, there was also an independent candidate who got 6%. her issues page is kind of thin, but it looks like she was more likely to attract Democratic voters than Republicans. Kucinich's presidential bid may have cost him some credibility in his district, but I think it's still way off from endangering his seat.

by johnny longtorso on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Deborah Pryce (none / 0)

Deborah Pryce (15th district-Ohio) has been hard to beat in this district. However, if a Democrat with a war chest and strong national party backing came along, I think we could see her go down. She clearly is not responding to her constituents, but to the Bush agenda. She has refused to meet with some groups because she says she already knows all there is to know about a given issue.

by Marie Smith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:06:20 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.