Yuku free message boards

Well I actually agree with Ken -what's that, twice in a week?

I don't believe that a guy with approve/disapprove numbers hovering at around negative 40% (Bush) would do better against Obama than a guy who's at around positive 20% (McCain).

The math just doesn't compute. The only reason this is even close is because of term limits.

I think the so-called incumbency advantage is overrated.

There are several factors I can think of why an incumbent would be favored over a non-incumbent, none of which have to do with the fact that they're the office-holder per se:
1. Political skills. Maybe the same skills that got the candidate elected in the first place make them an electable candidate in subsequent elections
2. Demographic advantages. If a moderate latino wins office in a moderate latino district, they'll be more likely to win re-election in the same district again -not because they're the incumbent, but because they're still a good demographic match for the district.
3. Money. Incumbents have a fundraising advantage. A big part of the reason incumbents win is not because they're incumbents, but they have more money.
4. They actually deliver for their constituents in some way, either through good consituent service or because they're a good ideological match to their constituents.

These and other factors are all aspects of what we think of as the "incumbency advantage."

Well, there's no way to control for 1 and 2. #3 can be cured by public financing. And I wouldn't want to get rid of #4.

Term limits are a blunt instrument. They sweep away the good with the bad, and sweep away voters' democratic choices with the along with the incumbents. There are plenty of ways to limit the "power" of incumbency without limiting the power of voters as well. Two reforms that I can think of immediately include public financing, and proportional representation, which makes elections about ideas rather than personalities.