Incumbent Advice...
Someone emailed and asked for advice for an incumbent. Here are my thoughts...
If you are the incumbent, you are in a very enviable position. At the federal level, incumbents literally win 99 percent of the time (that's not an exaggeration, it's a statistic). Incumbents have better name ID, can raise more money (many PACs have rules that they will only give to incumbents), and often have perks like paid staff and mail franking privileges.
Generally (compared to a challenger), an incumbent can afford to be more subtle in drawing contrast between himself and the opponent. For example, instead of saying the opponent is inexperienced, an incumbent can merely talk about how he is experienced (this is a very subtle way of attacking the opponent).
This is true so long as the challenger is not posing a serous threat. I would say that as long as the challenger is polling below 40 percent an incumbent can afford to take the approach of not mentioning the challenger by name, which is sometimes called the "Rose Garden" approach.
Even if this is the case, the incumbent must still aggressively raise money (to be used in case the race tightens). I also recommend running a vigorous but positive grassroots campaign -- as well as going ahead and doing some oppo research on the challenger.
If you notice a challenger is making headway and closing the gap, the incumbent's strategy must change immediately. The incumbent can no longer afford to play nice. At this point, it basically becomes a free-for-all where both sides go on the attack. The incumbent must now demonstrate why the challenger shouldn't represent the district. An incumbent who does not realize the challenger is creeping up on him -- and continues to play by the old rules -- will often be surprised on Election Day.
(Note: All Presidential races are close enough that they warrant both sides aggressively going on the attack from day 1.)
If you are the incumbent, you are in a very enviable position. At the federal level, incumbents literally win 99 percent of the time (that's not an exaggeration, it's a statistic). Incumbents have better name ID, can raise more money (many PACs have rules that they will only give to incumbents), and often have perks like paid staff and mail franking privileges.
Generally (compared to a challenger), an incumbent can afford to be more subtle in drawing contrast between himself and the opponent. For example, instead of saying the opponent is inexperienced, an incumbent can merely talk about how he is experienced (this is a very subtle way of attacking the opponent).
This is true so long as the challenger is not posing a serous threat. I would say that as long as the challenger is polling below 40 percent an incumbent can afford to take the approach of not mentioning the challenger by name, which is sometimes called the "Rose Garden" approach.
Even if this is the case, the incumbent must still aggressively raise money (to be used in case the race tightens). I also recommend running a vigorous but positive grassroots campaign -- as well as going ahead and doing some oppo research on the challenger.
If you notice a challenger is making headway and closing the gap, the incumbent's strategy must change immediately. The incumbent can no longer afford to play nice. At this point, it basically becomes a free-for-all where both sides go on the attack. The incumbent must now demonstrate why the challenger shouldn't represent the district. An incumbent who does not realize the challenger is creeping up on him -- and continues to play by the old rules -- will often be surprised on Election Day.
(Note: All Presidential races are close enough that they warrant both sides aggressively going on the attack from day 1.)
posted by Matt Lewis at 1:31 PM
Subscribe
<< Home