With the political landscape altered for at least the next two years as a result of the midterm elections, many citizens have started to take a closer look at exactly what strategies led to victory in the various contested seats throughout the country. While most point to dissatisfaction with the Bush regime as the greatest pitfall for most Republicans, some scholars have looked past the current elections to find trends that have held true in determining success or spelling out failure for political office hopefuls.
Jennifer Steen, a professor of political science at Boston College, has been investigating the impact of funds, and more specifically the source of these funds, on the outcome of a race. In her recently published book, Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections, Steen discusses the success of candidates for political office who fund their own campaigns.
Statistics complied by Steen after years of research show that the election rate of non-incumbent candidates who provide at least $5 million for their own campaign is only 36.4 percent, compared to the 49.2 percent of candidates who are elected after raising at least $5 million through donations.
According to Steen, there are many reasons for this inherent disadvantage. One primary cause is the general lack of experience that such candidates tend to have.
"The majority of candidates who rely on personal funds have no experience in elected office, and many have very little experience in politics generally. … [They] have not had the chance to develop skills that are often necessary to wage a successful campaign," said Steen. "Practice makes perfect, as they say, and most self-financers have little practice in politics."
But Steen believes that self-financed candidates, even those without political experience, do not do a disservice to voters.
"More choices are usually better. Many respectable public servants have taken office without political experience," she said.
