Übersicht
A healthy and successful electoral process needs a combination of essential ingredients: numerous and diverse candidates, high voter turnout, and a thoughtful and informative debate over issues. However, in many instances those ingredients are overpowered by two others: incumbency and money.
Incumbency is by far the most potent variable for determining electoral success. During the 2009 and 2010 primary and general elections, legislative incumbents enjoyed an 87 percent success rate. A full one-third of them enjoyed a free ride because they ran unopposed. And those incumbents in contested general election races saw a similar success rate of 85 percent.
Money is the second most powerful variable. Legislative candidates who raised more money than their opponents were successful 76 percent of the time during the 2009 and 2010 primary and general elections. In other words, fundraising, and the ability to spend large sums of money to persuade voters, helped lead almost eight of 10 candidates to victory. In contested general elections, the fundraising advantage was similar—successful candidates won 77 percent of the time.
As expected, combining incumbency and money delivered a high (88 percent) chance of victory to legislative candidates; however, it was not as high as one might expect.
The dual advantage of money and incumbency, however, seems to have been affected by the mood of the electorate in 2010. Republicans rode into power on what many believed to be a wave of voter discontent and frustration.1 The so-called “Republican surge” gave the GOP control of 54 legislative chambers and wrested leadership of at least 18 state chambers from Democrats.2 That mood translated into a decline in the overall success rate of incumbents, as well as for those who held the monetary advantage. Between the 2007–08 and 2009–10 cycle, the success rate of those candidates experienced a downturn, while candidates with neither advantage enjoyed an uptick.
The success rate of those with the incumbency advantage in contested general elections declined a full 7 percent from the comparable 2005–06 cycle, and 9 percent from the 2007–08 cycle, while candidates who had both the money and incumbency advantages dropped by 8 percent between 2005–06 and 2009–10. In the same time frame, the success rate of candidates with neither advantage increased by 4 percent.
An analysis of the 2009 and 2010 elections involving all legislative candidates reveals:
- 14,643 candidates ran for 6,308 legislative seats.
- 5,247 candidates (36 percent of the 14,643) were incumbents seeking reelection.
- 4,563 (87 percent) were returned to their office, while only 683 lost—151 of whom lost during the primary election.
An analysis of contested general election races reveals3:
- Challenged incumbents enjoyed a high success rate of 85 percent—2,973 of the 3,506 challenged incumbents won.
- Only 354 of the 2,991 incumbents (12 percent) with the fundraising advantage lost.
- In 18 states, incumbents won between 90 and 98 percent of the time. In California, every incumbent who sought reelection won.
- Candidates with neither advantage were successful only one of ten times.
- Non-incumbent candidates with the monetary advantage were successful 59 percent of the time.
Methodology
To evaluate the incumbency and fundraising advantage of legislative candidates in contested general elections during the 2009 and 2010 elections, the National Institute on Money in State Politics calculated the success rate of incumbents seeking reelection, the success rate of candidates with a fundraising advantage, and the success rate of candidates with those two factors combined.
An incumbent is defined as a candidate who held a statewide or state legislative office, and either ran for reelection to their current seat or ran for an open legislative seat. When a sitting officeholder challenged another incumbent, the challenger was not considered an incumbent because they did not fully benefit from the incumbency advantage.
The rate of success for incumbents seeking reelection was determined by dividing the number of winning incumbents by the total number of incumbents running. For example, if 88 of 100 incumbents seeking election won, incumbents had an 88 percent success rate. Unless otherwise indicated, the number of incumbents seeking reelection includes incumbents who lost in the primary elections.
To determine how many winners were incumbents, the number of winning incumbents was divided by the total number of all winners. For example, 88 incumbent winners divided by 112 total winners means 79 percent of all winners were incumbents. Only one winner was counted in the one instance where there was a tie.
The fundraising advantage went to the candidate who raised the most funds in the race for that specific seat. In districts where two or more candidates were elected, the fundraising advantage was given to as many of the top fundraisers as there were seats up for election. In the event of a fundraising tie, the advantage was given to both candidates. A fundraising advantage was assigned only to candidates who were in contested races in the general election. It was not assigned to uncontested candidates nor to candidates who faced opposition only in the primary election, or who lost in the primary. If no candidate in a race reported raising money in a contested general election, the fundraising advantage was given to all general election candidates in that race.
A contested race was one in which there were more candidates in the general election than the number of seats up for election and therefore not everyone could win. For example, if three seats were up for election in a district with three candidates running in the general election, the race was not contested. If three seats were up with four candidates in the general election, the race was contested.
Eight states have multiple-seat districts: Arizona, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. All winners were included in the winner count. All races were considered contested races when there were more candidates in the general election than the number of seats up for election.
In Utah, candidates are sometimes selected in party conventions rather than in a primary election. Such conventions are included in any discussion about primaries, such as candidates losing in a primary or not facing opposition in a primary.
The race for the challenged house seat in Massachusetts’ Sixth Worcester District resulted in a tie.4 However, the incumbent was defeated in a 2011 special election held to break the tie. The 2010 race is included in the analysis as one winner and one incumbent in a contested general election.
New Jersey is excluded from the analysis because many candidates use multi-candidate or slate committees. These committees raise funds for multiple candidates for legislative office, and it is impossible to determine the amount attributed to individual candidates. The money raised by New Jersey slate committees in 2009 ($7.7 million) also was not included in this analysis.
The $12.9 million reported by 73 slate committees in Maryland in 20105 was not included in this analysis because the committees are made up of local committees, state party committees, and candidates running for legislative and constitutional offices.
How the 2009–2010 Elections Compare to Previous Elections
Over the past three election cycles, legislative incumbents in contested general election races won nine of ten times. Also successful were eight of ten general election candidates who outraised their opponents. Candidates with both the incumbency and monetary advantage had a 9-to-1 likelihood of victory.
The graph below dramatically illustrates the power of incumbency and money. The red line shows that, although money is a crucial factor in a candidate’s success, it is less powerful an influence on the voters than incumbency, illustrated by the blue line. The impact of money alone has declined slightly over the last three election cycles.
There is a startling gap between those candidates with one or both advantages and those with neither. The green line reflects the success rate of non-incumbent candidates who raised less money than their opponents.
As expected, candidates with both advantages—demonstrated by the yellow line—experienced a nearly unbeatable probability of success.
The graph also shows the notable drop in success for candidates with one and/or two advantages. Between the 2007–08 cycle and the 2009–10 cycle, the success rate of those candidates experienced a downturn while an uptick shows for candidates with neither advantage—a possible illustration of the attitude of voters across the country during the 2010 elections.6
![Succes Rate Contested General 2005-2010 Graph](/assets/press/Reports/images/MoneyAndIncumbency/SuccessRateContestedGeneral2005-2010.png)
Incumbency Advantage
Even with the 7 percent drop in their overall rate of success from the 2005–06 elections, incumbents in the 2009–10 elections continued to be reelected at a higher rate than all other legislative candidates. A major benefit of incumbency is name recognition—a difficult hurdle for challengers to overcome because incumbents remain in the public eye through legislative work, constituency contacts, and media attention.
Because incumbents have the upper hand, some are not even challenged and thus are granted a “free ride” into another term.
During the 2009 and 2010 primary and general elections, the success rate of legislative incumbents across the country was 87 percent. In fact, all the incumbents in California and New Jersey were reelected. The lowest rate of return, though still impressive, was in New Hampshire where 69 percent, or nearly seven of ten incumbents, were successful.
![Incumbency Success All States 2009-2010 Graph](/assets/press/Reports/images/MoneyAndIncumbency/IncumbencySuccessAllStates2009-2010.png)
In contested general elections, incumbents enjoyed an 85 percent success rate.
![Incumbency Success Contested Races2 009-2010 Graph](/assets/press/Reports/images/MoneyAndIncumbency/IncumbencySuccessContestedRaces2009-2010.png)
Fundraising Advantage
A candidate’s fundraising ability creates another extremely potent advantage, though not as strong an advantage as incumbency.
Nearly half (4,757) of the 9,601 candidates who ran in contested general election races raised more money than their opponents. Of those 4,757, more than three out of four (3,684) were winners.
In 35 states, the success rate of the monetary leaders exceeded 80 percent. The lowest success rate was in New Hampshire, at 54 percent.
![Success Rate $$ Leaders Contested 2009-2010 Graph](/assets/press/Reports/images/MoneyAndIncumbency/SuccessRate$$LeadersContested2009-2010.png)
Dual Advantage
While incumbent office-holders have the upper hand and a distinct advantage over challengers, that edge is enhanced when the incumbent is also the fundraising leader.
Candidates who possess both advantages—incumbency and more money than their opponents—have an 88 percent chance of victory. In other words, nearly 9 times of 10, the incumbent who raises the most money wins.
Incumbents with the most money enjoyed a perfect score in California and Hawaii. In 27 other states, the chance of victory for dual advantage candidates was 90 percent and higher, with three of those states at 98 to 99 percent.
![Success Rate Incumbent $$ Leaders Contested 2009-2010 Graph](/assets/press/Reports/images/MoneyAndIncumbency/SuccessRateIncumbent$$LeadersContested2009-2010.png)
Term Limits
Removing incumbents through term limits proves to be more successful than voting them out of office.
Term limits impacted 14 states during the 2009 and 2010 elections, creating 380 open seats.7 In both the primary and general election cycles, 22 percent of incumbents sought reelection in the 14 states, while 78 percent sought reelection in the other 34.
Michigan experienced the largest increase in open seats due to term limits, with 63 seats turned to open races. In total, 25 term-limited representatives went on to run for 21 senate seats. Fourteen of the 18 who went on to compete in the general election won, demonstrating the power of incumbency.
Term limits in California opened 27 seats; only one term-limited senator and one term-limited assemblywoman ran for seats in the other chamber (Gil Cedillo in AD 45; Noreen Evans in SD 2). They both were monetary leaders and won their contested general races.
State | Number of Term-Limited Legislators8 | Incumbents in Contested General | Incumbent Monetary Leaders in Contested General Election | Percent of Incumbents who were Monetary Leaders |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona | 23 | 48 | 37 | 77% |
Arkansas | 47 | 20 | 16 | 80% |
California | 27 | 62 | 62 | 100% |
Colorado | 12 | 54 | 50 | 93% |
Florida | 31 | 69 | 63 | 91% |
Maine | 25 | 142 | 82 | 58% |
Michigan | 63 | 71 | 63 | 89% |
Missouri | 62 | 60 | 55 | 92% |
Montana | 30 | 57 | 43 | 75% |
Nebraska | 1 | 12 | 10 | 83% |
Nevada | 17 | 31 | 30 | 97% |
Ohio | 20 | 86 | 79 | 92% |
Oklahoma | 10 | 43 | 38 | 88% |
South Dakota | 12 | 60 | 47 | 78% |
Total | 380 | 815 | 675 | 83% |
One intent of term-limit laws was to encourage participation of newcomers by creating so-called open seats.9 As intended, the number of open seats in states with term limits outnumbered those states without: 554 open seats of 1,597 seats (35 percent) in states with term limits compared to 489 open seats of 4,711 seats (10 percent) in states with no term limits.
Fundraising appears to have been unaffected by term limits. Legislative candidates in the 14 term-limited states raised an average $72,113 compared to the $65,321 average raised in the other states. Fundraising by incumbents was also higher, on average, in the 14 term-limited states ($135,964) than in the others ($101,976).
Public Funding
1,060 candidates participated in public funding programs in the seven states that offered public financing to legislative candidates in 2009 and 2010.10 That included 414 challengers who received $6.8 million of the $10.2 million they raised; 448 incumbents who received $8 million of the $14.2 million they raised; and 198 open-seat candidates who received $3.2 million of the $4.9 million they raised.
In the primary and general elections, 522 of the 1,060 were monetary leaders: 118 challengers, 319 incumbents, and 85 open-seat candidates.
521 of the 1,060 were winners: 73 challengers, 367 incumbents, and 81 open-seat candidates.
A Closer Look at Eight States
A closer look at eight states highlights those states with a high percentage of victory due to incumbency and money to those at the lower levels. Also illustrated is the influence of term limits where more open seats were created, producing mixed results for term-limited members of one chamber running for seats in the other. In one instance, all incumbents running were winners. With the exception of one state, the success rate of incumbents with the monetary advantage exceeded 80 percent in the other seven states.
ARIZONA
In Arizona, 52 of 64, or 81 percent, of incumbents won. Those incumbents who also had the fundraising advantage won 86 percent of the time.
Twenty-five of the 90 seats up for election were open—23 because of term limits. 74 of those 90 seats were contested. Three term-limited senators challenged three house members. All three senators won—two in contested general elections. One of the three outraised his general election opponent. Two term-limited house members ran and won two open senate seats—one outraised a write-in opponent in the general election.
All 108 legislative candidates participated in the public funding, which accounted for 38 percent ($3.1 million) of the $8.1 million raised.
CALIFORNIA
In California, all 67 incumbents running for election won—62 of them faced a general election opponent, and all 62 raised more money than any of their challengers.
In contested general election races, just 2 of the 129 candidates with neither advantage won. Non-incumbents with the monetary advantage were more successful: 29 of the 31 won.
A total of 338 candidates ran for 100 legislative seats. Of the 100 seats, 94 were contested races.
Term limits in California opened 27 seats; only one term-limited senator and one term-limited assemblywoman ran for seats in the other chamber (Gil Cedillo in AD 45; Noreen Evans in SD 2). They both were monetary leaders and won their contested general races.
GEORGIA
In Georgia, 189 of 198 incumbents won. Georgia had the lowest percent of contested general election races. Only 35 percent of the seats were contested: 82 of 236.
Only 55 incumbents ran in contested general election races. Fifty-two of those 55 incumbents were successful, and 50 also had the monetary advantage.
MICHIGAN
In Michigan, 62 of 80 incumbents won. Michigan had the largest number of seats impacted by term limits in 2010, accounting for 63 of the 380 term-limited seats across the nation.
In contested general elections, incumbents won 85 percent of the time (60 winners of the 71 incumbents running.) Add monetary advantage to the equation, and the incumbents’ success rate increased to 89 percent.
Twenty-five house members ran for open senate seats, and 14 of those won. Thirteen of the 14 were also monetary leaders.
Michigan does not offer public financing of legislative campaigns.
MISSOURI
In Missouri, 92 of 114 incumbents were successful. The success rate was similar in contested general election races where 47 of 60 incumbents won. Fifty-five of the 60 incumbents were the top fundraisers in their respective races, and 45 of them went on to win.
Of the 180 legislative seats up for election in 2010, 115 were contested; 62 seats became open seats because of term limits. Six term-limited house members ran for five open senate seats and one challenged a seated senator. All six won their race. Five were contested general races.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
In New Hampshire, 226 (69 percent) of the 329 incumbents running won. Incumbents in contested general election races won 70 percent of the time. Successful incumbents with the monetary advantage won at the same rate (70 percent.)
886 candidates ran for the 424 seats, of which 414 were contested.
New Hampshire had the highest success rate (36 percent) of candidates who had neither advantage: 38 of the 105 candidates. 157 of the 374 non-incumbents with the monetary advantage won.
New Hampshire has no term-limit restrictions and does not offer public subsidy.
OREGON
In Oregon, 64 of 69 incumbents won. In contested general races, 92 percent (61 of 66) of the incumbents won and those who were also monetary leaders won 93 percent of the time. Only 8 percent of the candidates with neither advantage were successful; and only half of the non-incumbents with the money advantage won.
Oregon does not offer public financing of campaigns and there is no term-limit restriction.
SOUTH CAROLINA
In South Carolina, 103 of 111 incumbents won. Just 47 of the 123 seats up for election were contested. Of the 34 incumbents who were monetary leaders, just one lost the general election. South Carolina does not offer public financing of campaigns and there is no term-limit restriction.
Appendix A: Legislative Incumbents Who Were Top Fundraisers in Contested General Election Races, 200
In the three states with full public funding—Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine—more than half (210) of the 325 incumbents were also the top fundraisers. In the four partially funded states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) the outcome was higher: three-quarters (260) of the 306 incumbents were also the top fundraisers in their race.
*This state provides full public financing.
**This state provides partial public financing.
Appendix B: Money and Incumbency Advantage in Contested Legislative General Election Races, 2009&nda
In almost nine of ten cases, candidates with both advantages fared better than all others. The success rate was less than 80 percent in only five states: Alabama, Arkansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and North Dakota.
In the three states with full public funding the success rate of dual-advantaged candidates was close to the national trend of 88 percent: Arizona at 86 percent, Maine at 85 percent, and Connecticut at 90 percent.
*This state provides full public financing.
**This state provides partial public financing.
Appendix C: Success Rate of All Legislative Incumbent Candidates through Primary and General Electio
The 2009 and 2010 election cycle brought out 14,643 candidates vying for 6,308 seats. Seven of ten seats went to an incumbent who was either running for reelection or seeking a seat in the other chamber. As a group, incumbents were successful 87 percent of the time.
At 69 percent, New Hampshire was the only state that returned incumbents less than 75 percent of the time.
In 14 states, term limits restrictions created 380 open seats. While the percentage of successful incumbents ranged from 77 percent to 100 percent in those 14 states, the average percent of the 14 states was close to the national average of 87 percent.
† This state imposed term limits.
Appendix D: Legislative Seats Contested in General Elections, 2009–2010
Nearly three-fourths of the seats up in 2009–10 were contested. Contested elections and ample participation in the electoral process are essential ingredients in democracy. That means more choices for the voters.
That statistic varied, however, from as high as 99 percent in Michigan to as low as 35 percent in Georgia. That followed the trend set in the 2007–08 election cycles for both states when Michigan was among the top five states with the highest percentage (95 percent), while Georgia held onto the bottom spot at 24 percent.
Twenty-five states were at or above the 73 percent national average of contested seats. Another 17 states came in between 50 percent and 70 percent, and 13 of those were at or above 60 percent.
Six of the seven full- or partial-public funding states were above the national average for contested seats. The seventh state, Nebraska, came in at 63 percent, however, according to a representative from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, no candidate accepted public funding in the Nebraska 2010 elections.11
For more information on contested seats and on monetary competitiveness in legislative races, see the Institute’s report Monetary Competitiveness in 2009–2010 Elections.
** This state provides partial public financing.
† This state imposed term limits.
Appendix E: Effect of Fundraising Advantage of Non-Incumbent Candidates in Contested Races, 2009&nda
Candidates with neither the advantage of incumbency nor the ability to out raise their opponents face huge obstacles if they wish to succeed. The average success rate nationally is 11 percent—that means only about one in ten candidates with neither advantage is likely to win.
Even New Hampshire, the state with the highest success rate for candidates with neither advantage, came in at 36 percent, which gave candidates a less than four in ten chance of success if they were not an incumbent and did not have the monetary advantage.
Further evidence of the uphill battle for non-incumbent candidates without the fundraising advantage is the fact that only seven states had a success rate higher than 20 percent.
If a candidate had the monetary advantage, but not incumbency, their chances of success rose to 59 percent as a national average.
* This state provides full public financing.
** This state provides partial public financing.
† This state imposed term limits.
- 1. Linda Feldmann, “After GOP landslide of Election 2010, what next for Obama?” Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 3, 2010, available from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2010/1103/After-GOP-landslide-of-Election-2010-what-next-for-Obama, accessed Mar. 30, 2012.
- 2. Karen Pierog, “Republican Election Surge Hits U.S. State Houses,” Reuters, Nov. 3, 2010, available from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/03/usa-elections-states-idUSN0328435720101103, accessed Jan. 25, 2012.
- 3. Excludes New Jersey data because because many candidates use multi-candidate or slate committees. These committees raise funds for multiple candidates for legislative office, and it is impossible to determine the amount attributed to individual candidates.
- 4. “Durant Wins in 6th District by 56 Votes,” telegram.com, May 10, 2011, available from http://www.telegram.com/article/20110510/NEWS/105109926/1116, accessed Dec. 21, 2011.
- 5. A description of Maryland Slate Committees can be found at http://www.elections.state.md.us/summary_guide/sg_04.html, accessed Feb 13, 2012.
- 6. Jeffrey M. Jones, “Anti-Democratic Sentiment Aids GOP Lead in 2010 Vote,” Gallup Politics, Sept. 3, 2010, available from http://www.gallup.com/poll/142874/anti-democratic-sentiment-aids-gop-lead-2010-vote.aspx, accessed Feb. 13, 2012.
- 7. “Legislators Termed Out: 1996-2010,” National Conference of State Legislatures, available from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14842, accessed Dec. 9, 2011.
- 8. “Legislators Termed Out: 1996-2010,” National Conference of State Legislatures, available from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14842, accessed Dec. 9, 2011.
- 9. Susan Leavwy, “Term Limits Take Effect,” Washingtonpost.com, Mar. 5, 1999, available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/termlimits.htm, accessed Mar. 30, 2012.
- 10. “Public Financing of Campaigns: An Overview,” by the National Conference of State Legislatures, updated Jan. 6, 2010, available from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview.aspx, accessed Dec. 30, 2011.
- 11. December 13, 2011, email response from Frank Daley at the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!