When Sen. Christopher Dodd announced last week that he will not re-election in 2010, he conceded an awareness of "my present political standing here at home." Indeed, the most recent survey by Quinnipiac University had shown the Connecticut Democrat trailing potential Republican opponent Rob Simmons by 11 percentage points (38 percent to 49 percent). Yet Dodd said the tough impending race was not the sole cause of his decision. "Any certain prediction about an election victory or defeat nearly a year from now, " he said, "would be absurd."
To be fair, Quinnipiac has fielded other surveys this year showing slightly closer margins, and two recent surveys by Dodd's campaign and by the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling showed Dodd trailing by just 5 and 4 percentage points, respectively. Still, Dodd trailed on all 10 of the public polls released since May, and our Pollster.com trend estimate based on all the polls put Dodd's deficit at 9 points (48 percent to 39 percent).
What can recent history tell us about the odds Dodd faced? How many incumbent senators have trailed by margins that big this early and battled back to win?
Not many.
One of the most notable examples involves an incumbent who was not technically seeking re-election: Harris Wofford (D), appointed in 1991 to fill the seat of Pennsylvania Sen. John Heinz (R), who had died in a plane crash. Wofford remained virtually unknown even after his appointment, and he faced a challenge from popular former Republican Gov. Dick Thornburgh. Wofford's first internal poll in July 1991 showed him trailing by a whopping 47 points (67 percent to 20 percent), yet he was able to rally back and ultimately defeat Thornburgh, 55 percent to 44 percent.
Wofford's lack of name recognition -- a major factor in his early deficit -- is a challenge that previously elected senators facing re-election do not share. Still, the Wofford example is an important lesson on the limits of early trial heat polling. When one or more of the candidates begins with little recognition, those early trial heat results can be very deceiving.
Examples of comebacks from double-digit deficits by incumbent senators seeking re-election are very rare. I conducted an informal canvass of a handful of Twitter followers, campaign pollsters and my colleagues at the Cook Political Report. Here are the best examples:
Sen. Alphonse D'Amato, R-N.Y. -- First elected in 1980, D'Amato looked vulnerable in his run for a third term in 1992. Attorney General Bob Abrams led D'Amato by margins of 11 to 12 percentage points on three public polls conducted between March and July of that year. Yet the combination of a hotly contested three-way Democratic primary in September and a bruising negative campaign by D'Amato against Abrams helped the incumbent squeak through with a 49 percent to 48 percent victory.
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C. -- Helms drew a formidable opponent in 1984 in popular former Gov. Jim Hunt, and their nearly two-year battle set a new record as the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history. I am told a poll conducted in February 1983 showed Hunt leading by double digits with Helms just barely under 40 percent, although Helms television advertising in late 1983 quickly narrowed the gap, and the race remained close throughout 1984. Helms ultimately defeated Hunt by a 4 point margin, 52 percent to 48 percent.
Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va. -- Robb ultimately faced two prominent opponents in November 1994, Republican nominee Oliver North and J. Marshall Coleman, a former Republican attorney general who ran as an independent. In the wake of a series of controversies, Robb's unfavorable rating had climbed to 46 percent in a survey that conducted by the Richmond Times Dispatch in December 1993. The same poll showed Robb running 9 points behind North (39 percent to 30 percent) in three-way matchup that also included former Democratic Gov. Douglas Wilder (at 21 percent).
Robb's total never exceeded 40 percent in public polls testing the three-way contest before Labor Day 1994, but he ultimately prevailed by a 46 percent to 43 percent margin over North, with Coleman receiving 11 percent.
So while my search may have missed a contest or two, recent history yields very few salient examples of Senate incumbents who came back from double-digit deficits to win re-election. And D'Amato is really the only one who trailed as consistently as Dodd did during the latter half of 2009.
On the other hand, remember that our sample size is small. It is also hard to find examples of previously elected incumbent senators who trailed by double digits early, opted to run and still lost. For example, of the 11 incumbent senators turned out of office in the last two election cycles -- a much higher than average number -- only two, Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum in 2006 and New Hampshire's John Sununu in 2008, lost after trailing by double digits at the outset of their races (Conrad Burns in Montana in 2006 and Ted Stevens in Alaska in 2008 also trailed early but by typically narrower margins).
Was Chris Dodd likely to lose next October? Yes. But history says he was also right to insist that a "certain prediction" this far out would have been impossible.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion