Home General Only One U.S. Senate Incumbent was Defeated for Re-Election Last Month
formats

Only One U.S. Senate Incumbent was Defeated for Re-Election Last Month

Published on December 17, 2012, by in General.

This Bloomberg article describes the unusually high re-election rate for incumbent members of Congress running for re-election last month. Perhaps most surprising is that only one incumbent U.S. Senator was defeated for re-election in the November election (also one incumbent was defeated in a primary earlier in the year).

In the House, only 40 incumbents were defeated, and in 13 of those instances, two incumbents were running against each other, so defeat of an incumbent was inevitable. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

10 Responses

  1. Arthur C. Barker

    And it seems that the electoral evidence just continues to mount that America’s obsolete political sytem, in combination with election-rigging tactics, has produced Soviet-like results if you believe, as I do, that Democrats and Republicans in most cases are simply two wings of the Statist Party. It amazes me how, just a few elections ago, the Canadians all but wiped out the governing party there (only two seats were retained) and we are the picture of “stability” in politics.

  2. TruFoe

    Yeah…Republicans and Democrats. Tweedle Dee and Tweedel Dum. No differences there. Nope. The Bobsey Twins. Doublemint gum. Two peas in a pod. Chang and Eng.

    So I guess we can expect the fiscal cliff negotiations to wrap up today, huh? Nothing to discuss there. No differences at all. Move along then…nothing to see here, folks.

  3. Clifford F. Thies

    The one incumbent Senator who was defeated in the general election was Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who was elected in a special election. The one who was defeated in the primary, Richard Lugar of Indiana, did not endorse his rival, who subsequently was defeated in the general.

    In addition to the Congressmen who were defeated by other Congressmen (due to re-districting), my guess is that most of the other incumbent Congressmen who were defeated were harmed by re-districting.

    In Florida, for example, the Republicans lost three incumbents because the legislature over-reached, thinning out Republican strength in the districts in order to try to make the two new districts allowed to the state to be at least competitive.

    In North Carolina, the Republican targeted the state four white Democratic Congressmen, persuaded two to decline to run for re-election, defeated one of the remaining two, and came within a few hundred votes of defeating the other.

    Let’s not forget that the President, an incumbent, was also re-elected, this in spite of a weak economy.

  4. TruFoe

    Was there not a time recently when House reps were reelected at something like a 96% rate?

  5. Demo Rep

    Will ANY gerrymander incumbent lose before new gerrymander districts in 2022 ??? Stay tuned.


    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  6. Demo Rep

    For the clueless the U.S.A. has had an EVIL gerrymander oligarchy in the gerrymander Congress since 1788 -

    — results — genocide of the American Indian tribes, slavery, un-declared wars, major money supply and price inflation since 1914, insane national debt —

    the stuff that EVIL oligarchs DO — it is in their EVIL genes.

    Another crop of MONSTERS in Jan. 2013.

    —-
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  7. So?

    Yeah…Republicans and Democrats. Tweedle Dee and Tweedel Dum. No differences there. Nope. The Bobsey Twins. Doublemint gum. Two peas in a pod. Chang and Eng.

    Yep. Except it’s even worse than that, if anything.

    “So I guess we can expect the fiscal cliff negotiations to wrap up today, huh? Nothing to discuss there. No differences at all. Move along then…nothing to see here, folks.”

    Look at the bigger picture.

    What are they arguing over?

    A few billion here and there when the deficit and debt are both in the trillions?

    The REAL fiscal cliff is straight ahead. It will come in when they can’t pay the interest on the debt, or when they’ll have to inflate the money supply so fast that they’ll lose that all important “full faith and credit” that it’s backed with.

    And neither party is doing anything to turn us away from that cliff…if in fact it could even be done at all.

    Which party is going to do anything to close the hundreds of overseas US military bases and bring all the troops home?

    Which one is going to end the failed prohibitionist “war on drugs”?

    Which one will free the millions of people in prisons and jails, probation and parole for victimless crimes?

    Which one will end corporate bailouts, welfare and subsidies?

    Which one will ACTUALLY reduce spending rather than just the rate of projected spending growth?

    Democrats?

    Republicans?

    Please, don’t make me laugh!

  8. So?

    The one incumbent Senator who was defeated in the general election was Scott Brown of Massachusetts

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  9. Arthur C. Barker

    TruFoe(#2), sarcasm becomes you. No, they can’t wrap up today because they’re designed to fool the American people that there is actually a difference in the two wings of the Statist Party. Both believe in a massive government. The Republicans started out with an offer of $1 trillion in new revenue combined with $3 trillion in supposed expenditure cuts. The Democrats say they want $1.8 trillion in new revenue and just $2.2 trillion in alleged budget cuts. That is over a TEN-YEAR period! The FY 13 budget, assuming one ever gets passed since they’re currently running on a CR now, is for $3.8 trillion in expenditures. Over the next ten years, total expenditures would come to something much greater than $38 trillion, probably more like $45 to $50 trillion. There’s your difference. Less than $1 trillion between the two in theoretical budget cuts on a base of $50 trillion in total expenditures. Or, essentially no difference whatsoever. So?(#7) covered a lot of the policy identities held by the two wings.

  10. TruFoe

    7, 9 -

    Wow. Compelling arguments, those.

    OK, then. I’m on board. Government is out to get us. They want to bleed us of every cent we have in our pockets.

    So…how do we solve this problem? Stop your tiresome bitching for one minute and offer a single…practicable…solution to the problem you’re both carping on.

    Remember…if you use the words “third party,” use the word “practicable” in the same sentence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>