Well, doesn't HI has a strong incumbent bent?
I don't understand the argument that someone counts as an incumbent if the large majority of voters never voted for him, but actually voted for members of the other party, and he's only been in office a few months.
I don't understand what's your point being. A large plurality did vote for him, and the fact is Hawaii never had never turfed an "incumbent" from federal office.
Because he needs to win over lots of people who didn't vote for him. A traditional incumbent has already gotten a majority of people to vote for him once before who are then validating their previous choice or feel they have some personal investment in his performance. What other reason could there be for an incumbent to have an advantage?
His plurality was not that impressive, either. 45% would have been better, but at 40%, he clearly only won because the Dems split their votes.
