Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

History on Baldwin’s side in U.S. Senate race

‘Out-party’ incumbents not blamed for Washington

- CRAIG GILBERT

History tells us that U.S. Senate Democrat Tammy Baldwin has at least one big thing going for her in her 2018 reelection race that has nothing to do with her record, her public image or the strengths and weaknesses of her wouldbe Republican opponent:

She’s a member of the “out-party,” meaning the party that doesn’t control the White House.

Why is that such a good thing politicall­y?

Because most “out-party” senators

experience the upside of incumbency (name recognitio­n, fundraisin­g, etc.) without its biggest downside — being blamed for what the people in charge are doing in Washington.

Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson enjoyed the same advantageo­us outparty status when he won his re-election race last fall in the eighth year of a Democratic presidency.

Over the decades, in fact, out-party senators have been nearly unbeatable in Wisconsin.

The last time an incumbent in the out party lost a U.S. Senate race in this state was 55 years ago (1962), when Republican Alexander Wiley lost to Democrat Gaylord Nelson while Democrat John Kennedy sat in the Oval Office.

Nationwide, out-party incumbents have a midterm re-election rate of 91% since 1914, according to “Sabato’s Crystal Ball,” an elections website run by University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

By comparison, senators in the same party as the president have a 75% re-election rate. It may not sound like there is a huge gap between 91% and 75%. The historical odds for incumbent senators in midterm elections are pretty good in both cases. But it’s the difference between a 1-in-10 chance of losing and a 1in-4 chance of losing.

In Wisconsin, out-party senators are 15-1 (a 94% success rate) in all general election contests over the past 100 years, based on a Journal Sentinel review, while “in-party” senators

— those in the president’s party — are 9-4 (a 69% win rate).

In their last seven races, Wisconsin’s in-party senators have suffered two close calls (Democrat Russ Feingold in 1998 and Republican Bob Kasten in 1986) and three defeats. That’s a very spotty record.

Feingold lost to Johnson in 2010 with fellow Democrat Barack Obama in the White House. Kasten lost to Feingold in 1992 with fellow Republican George H.W. Bush in the White House. And Nelson lost to Kasten in 1980 with fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter in the White House.

Wisconsin’s out-party senators have had a far easier time, however. Not only are they undefeated in their last seven races, but their average victory margin is 28 points. Only once since 1970 has an outparty senator come remotely close to losing: Johnson’s three-point victory over Feingold last fall.

All this history gives Baldwin no assurance of winning next year, of course. Her re-election race will be shaped by a host of factors, including her own level of popularity, President Donald Trump’s approval ratings, the identity of her GOP opponent, the conduct of the campaign and more than a year’s worth of unpredicta­ble developmen­ts in the nation and the world.

These are the campaign’s “unknowns.”

But the campaign’s “knowns” or “givens” also will play a role.

One big given is the presence of an incumbent in the race. Incumbency is usually but not always an advantage. No first-term U.S. senator has lost in Wisconsin since the 1930s.

Another given is that this election falls in a midterm, not presidenti­al, cycle. In recent times, midterm elections have generally advantaged Republican­s, because turnouts are smaller and the electorate tends to be older, whiter and less liberal than it is in presidenti­al years. This helps explain the GOP’s success in 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile, bigger, more diverse presidenti­al turnouts have advantaged Democrats, as they did in 2008 and 2012.

But the impact of these first two fundamenta­l factors — incumbency and the type of election cycle — is, in turn, shaped heavily by a third: which party holds the presidency.

As we noted above, incumbency tends to be a bigger asset to senators who don’t belong to the president’s party.

And the midterm/ presidenti­al rule — the notion that midterms are better for Republican­s and presidenti­al cycles are better for Democrats — works differentl­y depending on who sits in the White House and how that president is performing.

The GOP had two good midterms when Democrat Obama was president, but a lousy one the last time there was a Republican president (George W. Bush in 2006).

Ron Johnson is a good example of how these political forces can work. One reason some of us were skeptical of his 2016 re-election prospects was because it was a presidenti­al year, which is supposed to be bad for his party in this state. The GOP had won only one Senate race in Wisconsin in a presidenti­al year in more than half a century. But we paid less attention to a more longstandi­ng historical

trend: the electoral advantage of being an outparty senator, as Johnson was last fall.

The election parallels between Johnson and Baldwin — two political opposites — are notable.

As with Johnson last year, Baldwin has middling ratings, though she is a little better known. Averaging two polls this year by the Marquette Law School, Baldwin is viewed favorably by 40% of registered voters in Wisconsin and unfavorabl­y by 37%. At the same point in his first term (averaging two Marquette polls from the spring and summer of 2015), Johnson was viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorabl­y by 30%.

So both entered their re-election cycles with conditions ripe for a competitiv­e race: so-so polling numbers in a deeply polarized and competitiv­e state.

Both also faced competing historical trends.

Baldwin ought to be disadvanta­ged by facing a midterm electorate that tends to skew Republican, just as Johnson faced a presidenti­al electorate that tends to skew Democratic.

But like Johnson last year, Baldwin can also count on a much more fortuitous circumstan­ce: She’s an out-party incumbent, thanks to her party’s presidenti­al defeat in 2016.

In her case, the opposing party also controls Congress. And the opposing party’s president, Trump, has the worst first-year approval ratings on record.

History suggests the election benefits to Baldwin are significan­t, whatever else happens in her race between now and November 2018.

 ??  ?? Baldwin
Baldwin

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States