And in 1994, the Republicans picked up 7 seats in the Senate, but only two of those were defeated incumbents. Of 35 seats in question (there were two special elections because of resignations), ten were open seats, and five of these switched parties. So the incumbency rate in the US Senate in 1994 was 92%.

Comparatively speaking, the incumbency rate in 2006 was a bit higher (+4%) in the house than in 1994, and the incumbency rate in the Senate was considerably lower (-11%) in 2006 than in 1994.

Then again, the Senate is an entirely different matter. The incumbency rate there was less than 80%. (There were four open seats in the 33 races, but all four of them stayed with the same party affiliation. Six of the remaining 29 incumbents were defeated.) I’m guessing that’s why CATO left the Senate out of their post. (And, of course, gerrymandering is meaningless in Senate races…)

This year’s incumbency rate of 94% is actually considerably lower than 2000’s 98% incumbency rate. In 2002, incumbency was 99%. In other words, prior to McCain-Feingold, incumbency was trending upward. Now I’m not arguing that McCain-Feingold is responsible for the downward trend, but you’ve offered zero evidence other than your say-so that M-F does anything to further protect incumbents or to put challengers at a further disadvantage. You haven’t given a single example of a provision which favors incumbents. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Near as I can tell, you just like saying “Incumbent Protection Act.”

Also, CATO’s math is flawed. There are 435 seats total in the House. Not all of them were incumbents running for re-election. TN-9 (mine), for example, was an open seat. I’m sure it wasn’t the only one.

Finally, Manish is right about gerrymandering being a FAR bigger factor.

Just don’t forget to send ‘thank you’ cards to Senators McCain, Feingold, and all the gerrymandering folks who helped make your reelection possible.

I think the gerrymandering is a larger factor than McCain-Feingold.