When political analysts label election races as “competitive,â€? money is a big factor in their calculation. But, overall, is the 2006 midterm election really all that competitive? Fifty-four congressional races around the country lack either a Democrat or a Republican — no warm body to take on the dominant party. (Democrats occupy 43 of those seats, and they can count on holding them.) While money is fueling intense competition in many races, and that’s where the media focus is, money also prevents competition by fending off challengers who cannot match the incumbent’s fundraising.

If history is to be any guide, most elected readers of this blog should expect to return to Washington next year. In the last three elections, since the 2000 contest, an average of 97% of House incumbents have won re-election, as have 87% of senators. Political analysts have been saying that 2006 could be a Democratic watershed event akin to the “Republican takeover� in 1994. But that year, 90% of House members still won re-election, as did 92% of senators.

We at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics have found that In the money race, incumbent senators have a 4:1 advantage over their current challengers. House incumbents have outraised their current challengers 7:2.

All told, we predict, this election will cost about $2.6 billion. That’s a lot compared to past elections – it’s shaping up to be the most expensive midterm election ever. But compared to other things, is what the U.S. spends on its federal elections really a lot of money? General Motors spent $3 billion on advertising alone in 2005. Americans will spend more eating out in restaurants over the course of two days than we’ll spend on this election. Coincidentally, conspiracy theorists, $2.6 billion—the Center’s election prediction—was the 2005 revenue of Diebold, maker of the machines many voters will encounter on Election Day.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am and is filed under Politics, Campaign .