Defeating an incumbent for a seat in Congress is statistically improbable and yet many still try and fail without even having their name acknowledged by mainstream media. Campaign financing obviously overshadows the challenger (in most cases), which can easily demoralize a campaign. However, it is still interesting to notice the trends that challengers follow in attempting to upset reelection campaigns. The only viable option for challengers are to go into attack mode.
This principle is especially evident in the campaign between Democrat Incumbent Steven Israel and Republican Grant Lally in the campaign for New York’s 3rd Congressional District. Israel is a much liked Democrat in a state/district filled with Democrats, so defeating him would be nearly impossible. Especially when Israel's policies appeal to Long Islanders who don’t want their property value to decline and care about keeping the environment in pristine condition.
Lally on the other hand is your average Obama-hating Republican lawyer. Lally’s campaign website refers to him being “President George Bush’s Manager of the critical Miami Florida Recount, stopping the Democrats from their attempted theft of the Presidency of the United States.” Clearly Lally isn’t going after any Democrat voters, which is a fatal mistake. The Democrat bashing doesn’t stop at his Bio page, it also leaks into his Issues page. Of the four (yes, four) issues that Lally has listed on his website, all of them refer to Steven Israel as “foolishly supporting” or something to that effect. All of them also refer to Obama in contempt for the Affordable Care Act, tax hikes, and for his regulations. Lally is actually making it impossible for any Democrat to even consider looking at his name on a ballot. He’s clearly focused on gathering the scarce Republican voters to elect him into office by practically having a hissy-fit over Democrat ideals. His campaign Twitter page extends the same Israel-Obama bashing in less than 140 characters.
Clearly Lally won’t win, with an idiotic campaign strategy, in a Democrat district, against an incumbent he is practically running a campaign as a form of satire. However Lally doesn’t have much of a choice. After all, the odds were never in his favor and so the only way to gain any footing in an election like this would be constant mudslinging. And that is what the structure of American elections has done; it has forced challengers like Lally to focus their campaigns on defamation by ranting and blaming until it gets nauseating for voters.
And Republicans are certainty not the only ones guilty of mudslinging, it’s everywhere and it has polluted the electoral field. Instead of getting a polished list of beliefs on certain issues and actual having intellectual discussions we’re left with some elections being decided by whichever party has the bigger populous.
Center for Responsive Politics. “Reelection Rates Over the Years” Accessed September 25, 2014.
Grant Lally for Congress. “Meet Grant” Accessed September 22, 2014.
Grant Lally for Congress. “Issues” Accessed September 22, 2014.
Twitter. “Grant Lally” Accessed September 22, 2014.
I find it particularly interesting that, despite the clear disadvantages Lally, and to that extent other challengers face, it seems as though, like you pointed out, the lack of campaigning to the other party is hurting the challengers more than it is helping. When one runs against an incumbent, I would think it is assumed that one would already have the support of his own party, and that mobilizing them should be a priority, but the more important votes come from those who will be swayed. Those swing voters, in my opinion, tend to be the more politically savvy, and as such should be legitimately campaigned to, not just made a part of the mud slinging, an activity that alienates voters and could potentially cost votes.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting how challengers are forced into these practices which seam only to pollute our political process. But, I would wonder whither this practice does have a positive side to it. Many of the more slanderous ad campaigns do appear to be effective in, at the very least, bringing attention to the challenger. If a candidate knows that they cannot steal any of the incumbent's supporters, could rallying his opposition bring them success?
ReplyDelete