Challenger

In political races the challenger is the person seeking the office already held by an incumbent. As a rule, the challenger faces an uphill battle in trying to unseat an officeholder.

Incumbents have advantages in name recognition, fund raising, staff, news media coverage, and a proven record to run on. The record in office can be a disadvantage, however, if it includes actions or issue positions that have angered the voters.

Under the term limit imposed by the Twenty-second Amendment, presidents can be incumbents for no more than two full terms. Challengers therefore have only one opportunity to unseat a sitting president. Since the amendment became effective in 1951, only three challengers have been successful: Jimmy Carter against Gerald R. Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan against Carter in 1980, and Bill Clinton against George Bush in 1992. During the same period, five incumbents survived election challenges (Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996). Although many factors enter into the unseating of a president, all three of the losing incumbents undoubtedly were hurt by problems with the economy during their administrations.

Governors are particularly vulnerable to challengers if they have succeeded in raising taxes or failed to cut them when the state's economy improved. pocketbook [Page p76]voting is perhaps more common in state elections than federal elections because people are more immediately affected by state and local taxes.

Although there are many “tax-loss governors,” it is not entirely clear that challengers always benefit from state tax increases. Political scientist Gerald Pomper surveyed thirty-seven states in the 1960s and concluded that “voters do not evidence a consistent concern for fiscal issues.”

More recent evidence shows that challengers usually fail to dislodge incumbent governors. From 1970 to 1991, 180 governors ran for reelection, and 131 or 73 percent won. Incumbents did even better through the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, with 92 percent winning reelection from 1992 to 2000.

The trend to four-year terms for governors has reduced the opportunities to be elected to this office. Although the longer tenure is somewhat offset by term limits in many states, the turnover in statehouses is lower than in the past. From 1900 to 1910 each state elected an average of 3.3 new governors. In the 1980s the average state had only 1.1 new governors.

In congressional elections, challengers for Senate seats typically fare better than challengers for House seats, although incumbents in both chambers have a strong advantage. In 2000, 97.8 percent of House incumbents and 79.3 percent of Senate incumbents won reelection.

Campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show a direct correlation between challengers' spending and their successes or failures in the general election. In 2000 successful challengers for House seats spent an average of more than $1.9 million on their campaigns, whereas challengers who failed to hold incumbents to less than 60 percent of the vote spent just $148,507.

In 2000 Senate campaigns, challengers spent an average of $2.8 million, compared with the average incumbent who spent $4.6 million.

...