ANALYSIS — Fundraising is a critical part of winning reelection, but sometimes incumbents have political problems that money can’t fix.
When voter sentiment is against you, outspending your opponent isn’t sufficient to survive an electoral wave. This is important context when analyzing campaign fundraising reports.
While there can be confusion over what constitutes a wave election, 2010 certainly qualifies. Republicans gained a net of 63 House seats in President Barack Obama’s first midterm election, with health care at the top of people’s minds. And 2006 fits the description as well, considering Democrats gained 31 House seats during George W. Bush’s second midterm when the president had lost much of his credibility after the war in Iraq and the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina.
Under adverse political conditions, smart members gird themselves for the storm by raising money and leveraging that financial advantage most incumbents enjoy. But sometimes it doesn’t matter.
Of the combined 74 House incumbents who didn’t win reelection in 2006 and 2010, 84 percent of them (62 members) outspent their challenger and still lost.
Southeast Pennsylvania offers one of the best examples of this dynamic, which can plague both parties. In 2006, Democrat Patrick Murphy knocked off GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, even though he spent only three-quarters of what the incumbent did ($2.4 million to $3.2 million) in a suburban Philadelphia seat. Four years later, Fitzpatrick toppled Murphy while spending less than half of his opponent’s outlays ($2.1 million to $4.3 million).
2010
Murphy was one of 52 House Democrats to lose reelection in 2010 and one of 43 to outspend their challenger and still come up short.
That tally is technically accurate but deceptively low. Successful Republican challengers, including Mississippi’s Steven M. Palazzo, Ohio’s Steve Chabot and Steve Stivers, South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, and Texas’ Francisco “Quico” Canseco outspent the Democratic incumbent by less than 10 percent. That’s close to spending parity, rather than a true contest where the challenger outspends an incumbent.
On paper, Republican Allen B. West outspent Democrat Ron Klein by $1.2 million in Florida, but West spent much of his money raising more money rather than on voter contact. Three Republicans outspent Democratic incumbents by more legitimate and substantial margins: New Mexico’s Steve Pearce, Ohio’s Jim Renacci and Virginia’s Scott Rigell, the last two being self-funders.
Eight GOP challengers spent less than one third of the money of the Democratic incumbent they defeated, including New York’s Ann Marie Buerkle (25 percent) and Chris Gibson (31 percent), Illinois’ Joe Walsh (25 percent), Minnesota’s Chip Cravaack (28 percent), Idaho’s Raúl R. Labrador (30 percent), Virginia’s Morgan Griffith (31 percent) and Florida’s Daniel Webster (32 percent).
Across all the House races with a losing Democratic officeholder, the Republican challenger spent 67 percent, on average, of what the incumbent spent. When voters want change and are determined to make a statement, the candidate with the most money doesn’t always win.
2006
It was a similar dynamic in 2006, just with the party roles reversed. Of the 22 House Republicans who lost re-election, all but three of them outspent their Democratic challenger.
And there’s some nuance to those exceptions. Democrat Brad Ellsworth spent three times more than Indiana Rep. John Hostettler did, but the Republican was a notoriously terrible fundraiser. Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak was at near spending parity with the Republican he ousted, Curt Weldon, with the challenger only narrowly ahead. Democrat Paul Hodes, though, outspent GOP Rep. Charlie Bass by a more substantial margin in New Hampshire.
Successful Democratic challengers who overcame massive spending deficiencies included Texas’ Ciro D. Rodriguez (whose spending was 26 percent of the incumbent’s total), New Hampshire’s Carol Shea-Porter (27 percent) and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler (41 percent). Overall, successful Democratic challengers in 2006 spent 70 percent of what the GOP incumbents they defeated did.
While nonincumbents often need more money to raise their profiles and convince voters to fire their member of Congress, the financial bar is lower in so-called change elections. Challengers don’t have to have more or as much money as incumbents, just enough to be regarded as a viable alternative.
2018
More recently, 2018 saw an electoral wave in the House, with Democrats gaining a net of 41 seats. But the campaign finance landscape was different from 2006 and 2010. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 ignited the Democratic donor base, culminating in a large proportion of successful Democratic challengers outspending GOP incumbents.
Of the 30 House Republicans who lost reelection in Trump’s first midterm election, just seven of them outspent their Democratic challenger. And in some of those races, the advantage was minimal. California’s David Valadao, Florida’s Carlos Curbelo, Illinois’ Peter Roskam and Virginia’s Barbara Comstock had negligible spending advantages and still lost. More of a financial boost probably wouldn’t have helped anyway. For instance, Utah Rep. Mia Love outspent Democrat Ben McAdams by $2.5 million but was narrowly unseated.
Overall, successful Democratic challengers, on average, outspent the GOP incumbents they defeated.
2026
This year’s financial dynamic in House races might look closer to 2006 or 2010 than to 2018.
Yes, there’s mounting evidence that a Democratic House majority is within reach because of historical midterm trends. Trump’s job approval rating stands at 41 percent, according to Nate Silver’s latest average. And Democrats have been consistently overperforming in races across the country over the past 10 months.
But there are signs of fatigue among Democratic donors. Losing yet another race to Trump isn’t great for morale.
Still, as history tells us, underfunded challengers can defeat incumbents under the right political conditions. And, maybe most importantly, Democrats don’t need an electoral wave to win the House majority. They don’t need to gain 63 seats, 41 seats or 31 seats or topple dozens of incumbents as we saw in previous cycles.
They need a net gain of three seats.
The post Money isn’t enough to save incumbents in wave elections appeared first on Roll Call.
