Why 2010 doesn’t have to be a repeat of 1994

I learned that local factors are at least as influential as national waves in determining the outcome of congressional elections. The current punditry skates past a more textured analysis of our political dynamics. We should put as much emphasis on local concerns as we do nationwide “waves” and other national developments when discussing this year’s mid-term election.

My story should resonate with lots of current incumbents. On Labor Day in 1994, I was ahead of my Republican challenger Todd Tiahrt by 30 points, but on Election Day, I lost by about five points. What happened?

I had been an effective congressman, but had become deluded into believing that my good record alone would help me prevail that November. Congress had just passed, and President Clinton had signed, my legislation to give product liability protection for small airplane manufacturers; Wichita is the headquarters for most of these companies. Within a week after the bill was signed Cessna announced they would be hiring nearly 1,000 new workers in a new plant to be built specifically because this legislation had been enacted.

Then, as now, jobs were an enormous issue in the district. I thought this legislation would ensure my victory.

It wasn’t enough. What I felt had been a good record of devotion to my constituents became secondary to several other factors specific to my district, which I didn’t recognize until only after I had been defeated.

I had raised a lot of money, but I’ve learned since that having more money than one’s opponent isn’t the omnipotent campaign asset a lot of conventional wisdom suggests it is. I spent about twice as much on the general election as my opponent did; it still wasn’t enough to make up for the intensity of his much better-run grass roots effort. A money advantage alone didn’t save me, and it will not protect vulnerable incumbents now.
Other factors specific to my district hurt me during that re-election effort. Such local factors too often are lost amid a tsunami of ‘wave’-election prognosticating. 

Three of my votes had damaged my standing back home. I voted for the 1994 Crime Control legislation (the “assault weapons ban”), which earned the wrath of the National Rifle Association and ultimately hurt me with my blue-collar base. My vote for NAFTA eroded my union support, and my more general support for President Clinton’s domestic agenda (including health care, an energy bill, and the 1993 economic plan) failed to rally independent voters behind my campaign. I don’t regret any of these votes now. But with the advantage of hindsight, I can see how these votes caused me to lose part of my district. 

That fall, I performed well with higher-income Republican voters. I did less well with my traditional union and blue-collar supporters. Other district-specific factors worked against me. My home town, Wichita, was becoming a center for anti-abortion activity. Operation Rescue organizing in the summers of 1993 and 1994 ultimately produced hundreds if not thousands of committed activists who worked on behalf of my opponent—and many of them, like Tea Party activists today, were newcomers to politics.

 
Moreover, the redistricting process in my state had taken a key Democratic County out of the Fourth District of Kansas and instead added an equivalent amount of voters from much stronger Republican counties. And perhaps most important of all, I certainly did not campaign with the intensity or effort in 1994 that I had in my first election in 1976. In hindsight, I did not run the campaign that I should have. Today’s candidates, especially incumbents, shall be forewarned of the dangers facing them, and much more forearmed than I was in 1994. 

My 1994 experience amounts to a few simple lessons for 2010 incumbents: if perhaps you have lost a bit of your touch, it’s true that a wave can help take you down. But there’s hope. If you focus on the classic and historic rules of politics; if you can demonstrate your independence, put grass roots connections with the electorate ahead of the mad drive to raise bundles of cash, and reach voters in an authentic way, the odds are with you. Even in the hostile campaign era we live in today, you can defy the coming wave.

Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture in the Clinton Administration and a member of Congress from Kansas from 1977-1995, is a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center.