Does Gomez Have a Real Chance in Massachusetts?

A common cognitive bias in political analysis is what Daniel Kahneman calls the availability heuristic: the tendency to focus on recent or familiar examples as opposed to the broader course of history and the richer volume of precedents.

There is some risk of this in Massachusetts, where the Democrat Martha Coakley lost a special United States Senate election in January 2010 to the Republican Scott Brown. The state is holding another special Senate election in June, in which the Republican candidate, Gabriel Gomez, is drawing comparisons to Mr. Brown, and Republicans are hopeful that they can win again.

The problem with using the 2010 race as a precedent is that it may have been an outlier. Republicans won a net of 63 seats in the House of Representatives that November, but none came in places as blue as Massachusetts. (The one comparable G.O.P. victory was in a Senate race in Illinois, where the Republican Mark Kirk defeated the Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.) Mr. Brown himself was defeated in 2012 by a Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, whose margin of victory, 7.5 percentage points, was reasonably large for a non-incumbent candidate. A number of unusual factors may have come together to allow Mr. Brown to win in 2010.

My purpose here is not to dismiss Mr. Gomez’s chances. The most recent poll shows a fairly close race in Massachusetts, with Mr. Gomez trailing the Democratic candidate, Representative Edward J. Markey, by just four percentage points. But I want to examine Mr. Gomez and this special election in a broader context. The 2010 Senate race in Massachusetts is one point of comparison â€" but so are the 2012 elections, and so is the evidence from the dozens and dozens of Senate races across the country in recent years.

Our model for forecasting Senate races looks at a number of “fundamental” factors along with the polls. As the election date draws closer and the volume of polling increases, the model puts more weight on the polls, even if they are in defiance of the fundamentals. Early in a race, however, when the campaign has not begun in earnest, the polls may not be very reliable.

The fundamentals calculation is based on an analysis of all November Senate elections from 1990 to 2010. It includes seven factors, although two are specific to elected incumbent candidates and do not apply to the Massachusetts race. Another factor reflects a coattail effect from presidential voting in the state, which is also not applicable in a midterm or special election, when there is no presidential race. A fourth factor is the national political environment, as measured by the generic Congressional ballot. However, this environment appears to be roughly neutral right now: neither party has had a consistent lead on the generic ballot.

That leaves three factors to consider: the candidates’ ideological positioning relative to the voters in their state, their fund-raising totals and their history of being elected to public office.

The bad news for Mr. Gomez is that these factors suggest he is a significant underdog in the race. In fact, the fundamentals calculation would project him to lose the special election by about 15 percentage points â€" considerably larger than his current deficit in the polls.

The good news for Mr. Gomez, in addition to the fact that the fundamentals calculation gets its share of close races wrong, is that this is a preliminary estimate. Two of the three factors are malleable to some degree: he has time to raise more money and build a better infrastructure, and he may have more room than most candidates to calibrate his ideological positions. His lack of experience running for elected office is a problem, but it’s possible that Mr. Gomez has other strengths that might outweigh it. Let’s examine each of these factors in more detail:

Fund-raising. Of the 15-point lead that the fundamentals model assigns to Mr. Markey, eight points are attributable to his edge in public fund-raising. Mr. Gomez reported raising about $600,000 in individual contributions before the special primary. By contrast, Mr. Markey reported raising $4.2 million in individual contributions as of April 10.

Mr. Gomez, a successful private equity investor, loaned about $600,000 to his campaign in addition to his public fund-raising. Our models for forecasting Congressional results, however, focus on public contributions only, as opposed to self-financing, independent expenditures or transfers from other candidates or party committees.

The reason for this is that, in addition to enabling candidates to spend more money on their races, fund-raising totals are a useful indicator of their overall strength as a candidate. Robust individual contribution totals are a measure of grass-roots support in a way that self-funding is not. Candidates who rely heavily on self-funding have a poor electoral track record. In addition, raising large amounts of money from individuals usually requires a professional campaign infrastructure, so these public funding figures can serve as an indicator of a campaign’s organizational strength.

This is not to say that Mr. Gomez’s ability to contribute money from his own pocket will be of no help to him. But if there is one thing to watch in the next couple of weeks, it will be how much financial support he receives from rank-and-file Republicans. In 2010, Mr. Brown’s fund-raising was spectacular after he became the Republican nominee. He had raised about $15 million in individual contributions by the special election date, roughly double Ms. Coakley’s $7.3 million. That was a sign that something special was going on.

Electoral Experience. Our analysis of Senate races suggests that electoral experience has some predictive power, even after controlling for other factors like fund-raising. Specifically, the model rates candidates on a four-point scale based on the highest office they have been elected to in the past. The highest tier is for candidates who have been senators or governors. The second highest tier is for United States representatives like Mr. Markey and for holders of elected statewide offices other than governor, like secretaries of state and attorneys general.

The lowest rank is for candidates like Mr. Gomez who have never won elected office. (Indeed, Mr. Gomez has never run before.) In the fundamentals model, the experience gap is worth roughly five percentage points for Mr. Markey.

Republicans can hope that Mr. Gomez is a quick study. But his inexperience increases the risk of gaffes and missteps, and he will be under more pressure now that the race is attracting more scrutiny. There are some attractive components to Mr. Gomez’s biography: in addition to his business experience, he is a former Navy SEAL. Still, there have been plenty of candidates with impressive military credentials (like retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark) or business credentials (like the former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman) who fell flat on the campaign trail. Mr. Gomez’s favorability ratings are good so far â€" in part because of his biography, no doubt â€" but he might not maintain them if he struggles through interviews, stump speeches or debates.

Ideological Positioning. Isn’t all of this focus on Mr. Gomez’s fund-raising and experience obscuring a more basic problem: that he is a Republican seeking election in Massachusetts?

Certainly, Mr. Gomez would have little chance of winning if he were running on a conventional Republican platform. However, he has quite explicitly positioned himself as a moderate: he has endorsed same-sex marriage, for instance, and taken views to the left of much of his party on gun control and immigration reform. By contrast, Mr. Markey is a fairly conventional Massachusetts Democrat, which means that he is quite liberal.

The way we evaluate a candidate’s ideological position is by comparison to the voters in his state. In each state, we calculate an “ideal point” â€" where a candidate would position himself on the left-right spectrum if he wanted to maximize his chances of winning the general election, other factors being equal. (The ideal point can also be thought of as an estimate of where the median voter is in the state.) The further a candidate is from this point, the more harm he does himself.

In Massachusetts, the ideal point is quite a bit to the left of the rest of the country. Still, it is slightly to the right of Mr. Markey and most other Democrats. In more precise terms, we estimate it to be -0.277 on the scale used by the statistical system DW-Nominate, where a score of negative one represents an extremely liberal candidate and positive one an extremely conservative candidate.

Our method of calculating Mr. Markey’s ideology, which reflects a combination of DW-Nominate and two other systems, puts him at -0.458. This isn’t especially far from the median voter in Massachusetts, but Representative Stephen F. Lynch â€" the more conservative Democrat, with a score of -0.349, whom Mr. Markey defeated in the primary â€" would have been somewhat closer to it.

What about Mr. Gomez? Only one of the three systems that we use to evaluate ideology, his public statements as evaluated by the Web site OnTheIssues.org, is available in his case, and it puts him in the exact middle of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Markey is slightly closer to the Massachusetts ideal point, but the difference is minor, and translates into only a two-percentage-point advantage for Mr. Markey, other factors being equal.

We need to acknowledge, however, that Mr. Gomez’s ideology is hard to pinpoint. As I mentioned, only one of the three statistical systems is available in his case, and that score is based on a relatively thin record of public statements.

In some ways, this makes Mr. Gomez’s task easier than Mr. Brown’s was last year, and more like Mr. Brown’s in 2010. Mr. Gomez does not have a Congressional record to defend in a state where almost any history of Republican party-line voting could harm him.

So how can Mr. Gomez win? First, he needs to continue to run toward the center, or even the center-left, of the ideological spectrum. Next, he must overcome his inexperience and avoid gaffes on the campaign trail. Finally, it would be a positive indicator if he had at least some of the fund-raising surge that Mr. Brown had in 2010. Mr. Gomez is very unlikely to match Mr. Brown’s $15 million, but if he were able to bring in one-half or one-third of that amount, it would be a sign that he was tapping into some of the same enthusiasm as Mr. Brown. It would also help him achieve more parity in advertising and, perhaps, build more of a voter targeting and turnout operation.

This is not an easy set of tasks for Mr. Gomez. Among other problems, positioning himself more toward the center-left could make it harder for him to win financial support from Republican activists.

But what Mr. Brown’s victory in 2010 shows is that Republicans can win Congressional elections in blue states if just about everything goes right. That Mr. Brown’s election also came in Massachusetts, or that it also came in a special Senate election, is not especially relevant: the same principle would apply to a November Senate election in Illinois or to a House race in a Democratic district in California.

However, these instances are rare. Mr. Gomez is capable of winning, but his roughly five-point deficit to Mr. Markey in the polls now could also prove to be a high-water mark.

Suit Claims Monster Beverage Markets to Children

Suit Claims Monster Markets to Children

The city attorney of San Francisco sued Monster Beverage Corporation, the nation’s biggest maker of highly caffeinated energy drinks, claiming Monday that it was marketing its products to children who might suffer ill effects from them.

In a statement, Dennis J. Herrera, the city attorney, said he had acted because Monster Beverage, unlike some competitors, specifically marketed its products to children and younger teenagers.

“Monster Energy is unique among energy drink makers for the extent to which it targets children and youth in its marketing, despite the known risks its products pose to young people’s health and safety,” Mr. Herrera said on Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, aims to restrict the way the company markets its drinks, and seeks civil penalties.

It follows a recent lawsuit against Mr. Herrera by Monster Beverage that seeks to block an inquiry into the company by his office, arguing that he lacks authority to regulate it.

Michael Sitrick, a spokesman for Monster Beverage, called the allegations in the suit filed Monday “demonstrably false,” and said the company, which is based in Corona, Calif., had repeatedly stated that it did not market to children.

Beverage makers typically define children as younger than 12 years old.

Monday’s lawsuit is the latest of several brought against the energy drink industry by public officials and others. The Food and Drug Administration recently said that it would investigate potential risks to teenagers from excessive caffeine in energy drinks and other products to which companies are adding the stimulant, like chewing gum and snacks.

Monster Beverage and other energy drink producers have defended themselves by pointing out that the level of caffeine in a cup of coffee sold by chains like Starbucks is often higher than in a similarly sized can of an energy drink.

Some officials, however, like Mr. Herrera, said that they were particularly concerned that Monster Beverage was aiming its marketing at younger teenagers, a group more sensitive to caffeine’s effects than adults.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Herrera said the company ran marketing programs like the “Monster Energy Drink Player of the Game,” which showed photographs of high school athletes holding the beverage.

“As the industry’s worst offender, Monster Energy should reform its irresponsible and illegal marketing practices before they’re forced to by regulators or courts,” Mr. Herrera said in his statement.

Until early this year, Monster Beverage and another energy drink producer, Rockstar Inc., marketed their products as dietary supplements. But both companies have told the F.D.A. that they are now marketing them as beverages, a category of products governed by a different set regulations than dietary supplements.

Suit Claims Monster Beverage Markets to Children

Suit Claims Monster Markets to Children

The city attorney of San Francisco sued Monster Beverage Corporation, the nation’s biggest maker of highly caffeinated energy drinks, claiming Monday that it was marketing its products to children who might suffer ill effects from them.

In a statement, Dennis J. Herrera, the city attorney, said he had acted because Monster Beverage, unlike some competitors, specifically marketed its products to children and younger teenagers.

“Monster Energy is unique among energy drink makers for the extent to which it targets children and youth in its marketing, despite the known risks its products pose to young people’s health and safety,” Mr. Herrera said on Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, aims to restrict the way the company markets its drinks, and seeks civil penalties.

It follows a recent lawsuit against Mr. Herrera by Monster Beverage that seeks to block an inquiry into the company by his office, arguing that he lacks authority to regulate it.

Michael Sitrick, a spokesman for Monster Beverage, called the allegations in the suit filed Monday “demonstrably false,” and said the company, which is based in Corona, Calif., had repeatedly stated that it did not market to children.

Beverage makers typically define children as younger than 12 years old.

Monday’s lawsuit is the latest of several brought against the energy drink industry by public officials and others. The Food and Drug Administration recently said that it would investigate potential risks to teenagers from excessive caffeine in energy drinks and other products to which companies are adding the stimulant, like chewing gum and snacks.

Monster Beverage and other energy drink producers have defended themselves by pointing out that the level of caffeine in a cup of coffee sold by chains like Starbucks is often higher than in a similarly sized can of an energy drink.

Some officials, however, like Mr. Herrera, said that they were particularly concerned that Monster Beverage was aiming its marketing at younger teenagers, a group more sensitive to caffeine’s effects than adults.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Herrera said the company ran marketing programs like the “Monster Energy Drink Player of the Game,” which showed photographs of high school athletes holding the beverage.

“As the industry’s worst offender, Monster Energy should reform its irresponsible and illegal marketing practices before they’re forced to by regulators or courts,” Mr. Herrera said in his statement.

Until early this year, Monster Beverage and another energy drink producer, Rockstar Inc., marketed their products as dietary supplements. But both companies have told the F.D.A. that they are now marketing them as beverages, a category of products governed by a different set regulations than dietary supplements.

Suit Claims Monster Beverage Markets to Children

Suit Claims Monster Markets to Children

The city attorney of San Francisco sued Monster Beverage Corporation, the nation’s biggest maker of highly caffeinated energy drinks, claiming Monday that it was marketing its products to children who might suffer ill effects from them.

In a statement, Dennis J. Herrera, the city attorney, said he had acted because Monster Beverage, unlike some competitors, specifically marketed its products to children and younger teenagers.

“Monster Energy is unique among energy drink makers for the extent to which it targets children and youth in its marketing, despite the known risks its products pose to young people’s health and safety,” Mr. Herrera said on Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, aims to restrict the way the company markets its drinks, and seeks civil penalties.

It follows a recent lawsuit against Mr. Herrera by Monster Beverage that seeks to block an inquiry into the company by his office, arguing that he lacks authority to regulate it.

Michael Sitrick, a spokesman for Monster Beverage, called the allegations in the suit filed Monday “demonstrably false,” and said the company, which is based in Corona, Calif., had repeatedly stated that it did not market to children.

Beverage makers typically define children as younger than 12 years old.

Monday’s lawsuit is the latest of several brought against the energy drink industry by public officials and others. The Food and Drug Administration recently said that it would investigate potential risks to teenagers from excessive caffeine in energy drinks and other products to which companies are adding the stimulant, like chewing gum and snacks.

Monster Beverage and other energy drink producers have defended themselves by pointing out that the level of caffeine in a cup of coffee sold by chains like Starbucks is often higher than in a similarly sized can of an energy drink.

Some officials, however, like Mr. Herrera, said that they were particularly concerned that Monster Beverage was aiming its marketing at younger teenagers, a group more sensitive to caffeine’s effects than adults.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Herrera said the company ran marketing programs like the “Monster Energy Drink Player of the Game,” which showed photographs of high school athletes holding the beverage.

“As the industry’s worst offender, Monster Energy should reform its irresponsible and illegal marketing practices before they’re forced to by regulators or courts,” Mr. Herrera said in his statement.

Until early this year, Monster Beverage and another energy drink producer, Rockstar Inc., marketed their products as dietary supplements. But both companies have told the F.D.A. that they are now marketing them as beverages, a category of products governed by a different set regulations than dietary supplements.

Suit Claims Monster Beverage Markets to Children

Suit Claims Monster Markets to Children

The city attorney of San Francisco sued Monster Beverage Corporation, the nation’s biggest maker of highly caffeinated energy drinks, claiming Monday that it was marketing its products to children who might suffer ill effects from them.

In a statement, Dennis J. Herrera, the city attorney, said he had acted because Monster Beverage, unlike some competitors, specifically marketed its products to children and younger teenagers.

“Monster Energy is unique among energy drink makers for the extent to which it targets children and youth in its marketing, despite the known risks its products pose to young people’s health and safety,” Mr. Herrera said on Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, aims to restrict the way the company markets its drinks, and seeks civil penalties.

It follows a recent lawsuit against Mr. Herrera by Monster Beverage that seeks to block an inquiry into the company by his office, arguing that he lacks authority to regulate it.

Michael Sitrick, a spokesman for Monster Beverage, called the allegations in the suit filed Monday “demonstrably false,” and said the company, which is based in Corona, Calif., had repeatedly stated that it did not market to children.

Beverage makers typically define children as younger than 12 years old.

Monday’s lawsuit is the latest of several brought against the energy drink industry by public officials and others. The Food and Drug Administration recently said that it would investigate potential risks to teenagers from excessive caffeine in energy drinks and other products to which companies are adding the stimulant, like chewing gum and snacks.

Monster Beverage and other energy drink producers have defended themselves by pointing out that the level of caffeine in a cup of coffee sold by chains like Starbucks is often higher than in a similarly sized can of an energy drink.

Some officials, however, like Mr. Herrera, said that they were particularly concerned that Monster Beverage was aiming its marketing at younger teenagers, a group more sensitive to caffeine’s effects than adults.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Herrera said the company ran marketing programs like the “Monster Energy Drink Player of the Game,” which showed photographs of high school athletes holding the beverage.

“As the industry’s worst offender, Monster Energy should reform its irresponsible and illegal marketing practices before they’re forced to by regulators or courts,” Mr. Herrera said in his statement.

Until early this year, Monster Beverage and another energy drink producer, Rockstar Inc., marketed their products as dietary supplements. But both companies have told the F.D.A. that they are now marketing them as beverages, a category of products governed by a different set regulations than dietary supplements.

‘Cops’ Is Moving to Spike TV

Long a Staple of Fox, ‘Cops’ Lands in the Eager Arms of Spike TV

“Cops,” one of the original reality shows on television, is moving to cable after 24 years on network television.

Starting in September, new episodes of the show will be televised exclusively on Spike TV, the president of Spike, Kevin Kay, announced on Monday. Spike will also have the rights to some past episodes of the series.

The announcement came two days after “Cops” had its hourlong season finale on the Fox network, which introduced the series in 1989 and has carried it ever since. Fox signaled to the producers of “Cops” that it likely wouldn’t renew the show for another season, thereby giving it time to sell it elsewhere.

Mr. Kay of Spike told TV Guide that for several years he had been interested in picking up “Cops” and the opportunity arose this spring. “It’s the perfect show for Spike,” Mr. Kay said. “We want the fans to just shift over hopefully effortlessly.”

Spike said the episodes would be shown Saturdays at 8 p.m., as they have been on Fox for years. In a statement, the creator of “Cops,” John Langley, praised Spike for sticking with the time slot. He added, “It may be bold to say, but we are looking for yet another record-breaking run with Spike!”

“Cops” helped to distinguish Fox when it was a relatively new network in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the network ordered fewer episodes of “Cops” this season, and it televised sporting events on many Saturdays instead. The network will continue to play up sports programming on Saturdays next season.

Fox similarly canceled the “America’s Most Wanted” in 2011, after pairing that show with “Cops” for over a decade. John Walsh, the host and producer of “America’s Most Wanted,” moved it to the Lifetime cable channel, but Lifetime cancelled it in March. Mr. Walsh is now said to be shopping the show, or a spin-off of it, to other channels.

Other series have moved to cable from broadcast with more success.

TBS, for instance, continues to televise “Cougar Town,” a sitcom that it picked up from ABC.

“Cops” is a logical fit for Spike, which has a number of other crime-oriented reality shows and has positioned itself as a channel for 18- to 49-year-old men. The channel, while relatively small, can repeat the episodes many more times than a network like Fox ever could.

It is expected to use “Cops” as an anchor on Saturday nights to introduce new shows in the time slot immediately after it.

Harper Lee Sues Agent Over Copyright on ‘Mockingbird’

Harper Lee, who skillfully chronicled courtroom drama in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” is tangled in a legal drama of her own. Ms. Lee, 87, filed a lawsuit last week accusing her literary agent, Samuel Pinkus, of improperly collecting royalties from “Mockingbird” since 2007. According to the complaint, filed in federal court in New York, Mr. Pinkus “engaged in a scheme to dupe Harper Lee, then 80 years old with declining hearing and eyesight,” into assigning the book’s copyright to his company. Ms. Lee does not recall signing the document or discussing it with Mr. Pinkus, the complaint said.

Ms. Lee, who suffered a stroke in June 2007 that has limited her mobility, lives in an assisted living facility in Monroeville, Ala. “To Kill a Mockingbird” was first published in 1960 and won a Pulitzer Prize. It is her only published book.

Q. and A. With Stuart Elliott

Stuart Elliott, the advertising columnist, answers questions from readers each week. Questions can be sent to stuarte@nytimes.com.

Q. I’ve been madly Googling, trying to find the name of the actor in one of KFC’s new boneless chicken commercials, who cries out, “I ate the bones!” No success. I think he’s the same actor from an ad a few years ago who bemoans to his family, “Dad got hosed!” I would love to see more of him, maybe in movies.

A. The commercials for KFC, part of Yum Brands, are created by DraftFCB, part of the Interpublic Group of Companies. According to Melanie Perez, a spokeswoman at DraftFCB, the name of the actor in the spot titled “Dad Ate the Bones” is Dorien Wilson. She does not believe he is the same actor from the “Dad Got Hosed” commercial, which was for Verizon Wireless.

Q. Can you tell me the name of the young actor playing the high school student who enjoys a memorable prom night in the current commercial for the Audi S6? He is very expressive, not to mention cute.

A. According to Genesa Garbarino at PMK-BNC, the public relations agency for Audi of America, the actor is named Shane Coffey and he is 26 years old. Mr. Coffey is perhaps best known for his work in the ABC Family series “Pretty Little Liars.”

The Audi commercial, called “Prom,” was created by Venables Bell & Partners in San Francisco.

Colbert Busch Might Win, but Could She Last?

A survey released Sunday by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat, down a single percentage point against former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, 46 percent to 47 percent, in the special election to represent South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

South Carolina’s first district has been held by a Republican for over three decades, and Mitt Romney carried the district by 18 percentage points in 2012. But Mr. Sanford’s personal baggage â€" his 2009 excursion in Argentina with a woman who was not his wife, and a recent accusation of trespassing at his former wife’s home â€" is helping make the race competitive.

Still, even if Ms. Colbert Busch does win on Tuesday, how long might she be able to hold on to such a solidly Republican seat?

If recent history is any guide, not that long.

Since 1997 (which is as far back as records of special elections go on history.house.gov), candidates who won a special election in a district carried by the opposing political party in the preceding presidential election have had fleeting tenures in Congress.

There have been 59 special elections since 1997, and just 14 candidates have carried districts that leaned away from their political party (a Republican representing a Democratic-leaning seat or vice versa). Of those 14, 13 no longer hold those seats.1 The lone exception is Representative Ron Barber, who won a full term in Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District in 2012 after winning a special election to replace former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Most of those 14 special election upsets occurred in districts that are less partisan than South Carolina’s first district. The following chart shows every special election since 1997, arranged by each district’s partisanship as measured by the preceding presidential vote.

Nine of the 14 upsets occurred in districts with a lean of less than 15 percentage points. The partisan makeup of South Carolina’s First Congressional District â€" an 18 percentage point advantage for the G.O.P. in 2012 â€" would make a Colbert Busch victory one of the biggest special election upsets in recent history, but not quite in the top tier. Five candidates have won special elections since 1997 while overcoming more severe partisan headwinds.2

But no matter the magnitude of the partisan lean, representatives who have won special elections in districts that leaned toward the opposite political party â€" even if the lean was slight â€" have had trouble winning re-election.

Here are the 14 special election upsets since 1997, and whether that candidate won the following two elections:

Of the 14 representatives who carried unfriendly districts, nine went on to win a full term. But just six won a second term. Four won three terms, three won four terms, two won five terms and zero won six terms (Mr. Barber is still serving his first full term).

In contrast, the average tenure for all House members has been roughly five terms, or 10 years, in recent Congresses. Incumbent members of Congress are re-elected, when they run, the vast majority of the time.

The fact that special election winners who carry districts that tilt toward the opposing party have shorter tenures in Congress shouldn’t be surprising. Special elections often occur under special circumstances, like after a scandal, death and or resignation. Those circumstances often fade.

In addition, House elections have become increasingly nationalized, and ticket-splitting (voting Republican for the House but Democratic for president, or vice versa) has decreased sharply.

Ms. Colbert Busch may be able to beat the odds. Others have, including other Democrats like former Representatives Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Vito Fossella of New York, both of whom earned several terms.

Of course, in order to have that chance, Ms. Colbert Busch will first have to defeat Mr. Sanford, which by itself would be one of the bigger special-election upsets in many years.

1: Representative Bill Foster won a special election in the Illinois 14th Congressional district in early 2008, won a full term that November, lost re-election in 2010, then returned to Congress representing the state’s 11th district in 2012.

2: That includes former Representative Charles Djou, a Republican, who won a 2010 special election in Hawaii’s First Congressional Cistrict, which President Obama carried by 42 percentage points in 2008.

Colbert Busch Might Win, but Could She Last?

A survey released Sunday by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat, down a single percentage point against former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, 46 percent to 47 percent, in the special election to represent South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

South Carolina’s first district has been held by a Republican for over three decades, and Mitt Romney carried the district by 18 percentage points in 2012. But Mr. Sanford’s personal baggage â€" his 2009 excursion in Argentina with a woman who was not his wife, and a recent accusation of trespassing at his former wife’s home â€" is helping make the race competitive.

Still, even if Ms. Colbert Busch does win on Tuesday, how long might she be able to hold on to such a solidly Republican seat?

If recent history is any guide, not that long.

Since 1997 (which is as far back as records of special elections go on history.house.gov), candidates who won a special election in a district carried by the opposing political party in the preceding presidential election have had fleeting tenures in Congress.

There have been 59 special elections since 1997, and just 14 candidates have carried districts that leaned away from their political party (a Republican representing a Democratic-leaning seat or vice versa). Of those 14, 13 no longer hold those seats.1 The lone exception is Representative Ron Barber, who won a full term in Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District in 2012 after winning a special election to replace former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Most of those 14 special election upsets occurred in districts that are less partisan than South Carolina’s first district. The following chart shows every special election since 1997, arranged by each district’s partisanship as measured by the preceding presidential vote.

Nine of the 14 upsets occurred in districts with a lean of less than 15 percentage points. The partisan makeup of South Carolina’s First Congressional District â€" an 18 percentage point advantage for the G.O.P. in 2012 â€" would make a Colbert Busch victory one of the biggest special election upsets in recent history, but not quite in the top tier. Five candidates have won special elections since 1997 while overcoming more severe partisan headwinds.2

But no matter the magnitude of the partisan lean, representatives who have won special elections in districts that leaned toward the opposite political party â€" even if the lean was slight â€" have had trouble winning re-election.

Here are the 14 special election upsets since 1997, and whether that candidate won the following two elections:

Of the 14 representatives who carried unfriendly districts, nine went on to win a full term. But just six won a second term. Four won three terms, three won four terms, two won five terms and zero won six terms (Mr. Barber is still serving his first full term).

In contrast, the average tenure for all House members has been roughly five terms, or 10 years, in recent Congresses. Incumbent members of Congress are re-elected, when they run, the vast majority of the time.

The fact that special election winners who carry districts that tilt toward the opposing party have shorter tenures in Congress shouldn’t be surprising. Special elections often occur under special circumstances, like after a scandal, death and or resignation. Those circumstances often fade.

In addition, House elections have become increasingly nationalized, and ticket-splitting (voting Republican for the House but Democratic for president, or vice versa) has decreased sharply.

Ms. Colbert Busch may be able to beat the odds. Others have, including other Democrats like former Representatives Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Vito Fossella of New York, both of whom earned several terms.

Of course, in order to have that chance, Ms. Colbert Busch will first have to defeat Mr. Sanford, which by itself would be one of the bigger special-election upsets in many years.

1: Representative Bill Foster won a special election in the Illinois 14th Congressional district in early 2008, won a full term that November, lost re-election in 2010, then returned to Congress representing the state’s 11th district in 2012.

2: That includes former Representative Charles Djou, a Republican, who won a 2010 special election in Hawaii’s First Congressional Cistrict, which President Obama carried by 42 percentage points in 2008.

Colbert Busch Might Win, but Could She Last?

A survey released Sunday by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat, down a single percentage point against former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, 46 percent to 47 percent, in the special election to represent South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

South Carolina’s first district has been held by a Republican for over three decades, and Mitt Romney carried the district by 18 percentage points in 2012. But Mr. Sanford’s personal baggage â€" his 2009 excursion in Argentina with a woman who was not his wife, and a recent accusation of trespassing at his former wife’s home â€" is helping make the race competitive.

Still, even if Ms. Colbert Busch does win on Tuesday, how long might she be able to hold on to such a solidly Republican seat?

If recent history is any guide, not that long.

Since 1997 (which is as far back as records of special elections go on history.house.gov), candidates who won a special election in a district carried by the opposing political party in the preceding presidential election have had fleeting tenures in Congress.

There have been 59 special elections since 1997, and just 14 candidates have carried districts that leaned away from their political party (a Republican representing a Democratic-leaning seat or vice versa). Of those 14, 13 no longer hold those seats.1 The lone exception is Representative Ron Barber, who won a full term in Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District in 2012 after winning a special election to replace former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Most of those 14 special election upsets occurred in districts that are less partisan than South Carolina’s first district. The following chart shows every special election since 1997, arranged by each district’s partisanship as measured by the preceding presidential vote.

Nine of the 14 upsets occurred in districts with a lean of less than 15 percentage points. The partisan makeup of South Carolina’s First Congressional District â€" an 18 percentage point advantage for the G.O.P. in 2012 â€" would make a Colbert Busch victory one of the biggest special election upsets in recent history, but not quite in the top tier. Five candidates have won special elections since 1997 while overcoming more severe partisan headwinds.2

But no matter the magnitude of the partisan lean, representatives who have won special elections in districts that leaned toward the opposite political party â€" even if the lean was slight â€" have had trouble winning re-election.

Here are the 14 special election upsets since 1997, and whether that candidate won the following two elections:

Of the 14 representatives who carried unfriendly districts, nine went on to win a full term. But just six won a second term. Four won three terms, three won four terms, two won five terms and zero won six terms (Mr. Barber is still serving his first full term).

In contrast, the average tenure for all House members has been roughly five terms, or 10 years, in recent Congresses. Incumbent members of Congress are re-elected, when they run, the vast majority of the time.

The fact that special election winners who carry districts that tilt toward the opposing party have shorter tenures in Congress shouldn’t be surprising. Special elections often occur under special circumstances, like after a scandal, death and or resignation. Those circumstances often fade.

In addition, House elections have become increasingly nationalized, and ticket-splitting (voting Republican for the House but Democratic for president, or vice versa) has decreased sharply.

Ms. Colbert Busch may be able to beat the odds. Others have, including other Democrats like former Representatives Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Vito Fossella of New York, both of whom earned several terms.

Of course, in order to have that chance, Ms. Colbert Busch will first have to defeat Mr. Sanford, which by itself would be one of the bigger special-election upsets in many years.

1: Representative Bill Foster won a special election in the Illinois 14th Congressional district in early 2008, won a full term that November, lost re-election in 2010, then returned to Congress representing the state’s 11th district in 2012.

2: That includes former Representative Charles Djou, a Republican, who won a 2010 special election in Hawaii’s First Congressional Cistrict, which President Obama carried by 42 percentage points in 2008.

Colbert Busch Might Win, but Could She Last?

A survey released Sunday by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat, down a single percentage point against former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, 46 percent to 47 percent, in the special election to represent South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

South Carolina’s first district has been held by a Republican for over three decades, and Mitt Romney carried the district by 18 percentage points in 2012. But Mr. Sanford’s personal baggage â€" his 2009 excursion in Argentina with a woman who was not his wife, and a recent accusation of trespassing at his former wife’s home â€" is helping make the race competitive.

Still, even if Ms. Colbert Busch does win on Tuesday, how long might she be able to hold on to such a solidly Republican seat?

If recent history is any guide, not that long.

Since 1997 (which is as far back as records of special elections go on history.house.gov), candidates who won a special election in a district carried by the opposing political party in the preceding presidential election have had fleeting tenures in Congress.

There have been 59 special elections since 1997, and just 14 candidates have carried districts that leaned away from their political party (a Republican representing a Democratic-leaning seat or vice versa). Of those 14, 13 no longer hold those seats.1 The lone exception is Representative Ron Barber, who won a full term in Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District in 2012 after winning a special election to replace former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Most of those 14 special election upsets occurred in districts that are less partisan than South Carolina’s first district. The following chart shows every special election since 1997, arranged by each district’s partisanship as measured by the preceding presidential vote.

Nine of the 14 upsets occurred in districts with a lean of less than 15 percentage points. The partisan makeup of South Carolina’s First Congressional District â€" an 18 percentage point advantage for the G.O.P. in 2012 â€" would make a Colbert Busch victory one of the biggest special election upsets in recent history, but not quite in the top tier. Five candidates have won special elections since 1997 while overcoming more severe partisan headwinds.2

But no matter the magnitude of the partisan lean, representatives who have won special elections in districts that leaned toward the opposite political party â€" even if the lean was slight â€" have had trouble winning re-election.

Here are the 14 special election upsets since 1997, and whether that candidate won the following two elections:

Of the 14 representatives who carried unfriendly districts, nine went on to win a full term. But just six won a second term. Four won three terms, three won four terms, two won five terms and zero won six terms (Mr. Barber is still serving his first full term).

In contrast, the average tenure for all House members has been roughly five terms, or 10 years, in recent Congresses. Incumbent members of Congress are re-elected, when they run, the vast majority of the time.

The fact that special election winners who carry districts that tilt toward the opposing party have shorter tenures in Congress shouldn’t be surprising. Special elections often occur under special circumstances, like after a scandal, death and or resignation. Those circumstances often fade.

In addition, House elections have become increasingly nationalized, and ticket-splitting (voting Republican for the House but Democratic for president, or vice versa) has decreased sharply.

Ms. Colbert Busch may be able to beat the odds. Others have, including other Democrats like former Representatives Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Vito Fossella of New York, both of whom earned several terms.

Of course, in order to have that chance, Ms. Colbert Busch will first have to defeat Mr. Sanford, which by itself would be one of the bigger special-election upsets in many years.

1: Representative Bill Foster won a special election in the Illinois 14th Congressional district in early 2008, won a full term that November, lost re-election in 2010, then returned to Congress representing the state’s 11th district in 2012.

2: That includes former Representative Charles Djou, a Republican, who won a 2010 special election in Hawaii’s First Congressional Cistrict, which President Obama carried by 42 percentage points in 2008.