No matter how you want to slice and dice the numbers, there is only one example over the last ten years and 81 repeat candidates that have gotten the job done. No matter how we parse down the larger set of 81, the original theory proves accurate. Counting any of the seven candidates that have won with something significantly different is attempting to count anomalies as normal when the norm clearly shows that repeat candidates are poor performers.

Second, two (2) of the candidates on this list–John Malan and Tyler Gough–moved and ran in completely different house seats. Malan ran one Primary cycle against Bob Kuzman then moved and ran against Myron Sutton; Tyler Gough ran against Ed Mahern then moved and ran against John Barnes. By the same logic as my first point, both instances present voters with a completely different choice and their second candidacies should not be treated as giving the voters a chance to give them a second look as you are supposing.

Third, many of these candidates lost the race the day they chose to file their paperwork because they chose to run in unwinnable districts by the numbers alone. In fact, eighteen (18) candidates on this list of losing two generals ran in districts that no one could win given the candidate’s respective party affiliation. If you are going to use Democrats that ran in Carmel and Republicans that ran in East Chicago as the standard, then of course you are going to have an increased baseline. Many times these individuals are the only ones available to run.
Another fourteen (14) were individuals that perennially run and either lose their primaries repeatedly such as Michael Batz against Larry Buell; or make it out of their primary to lose their general in a district where the numbers are insurmountably stacked against them such as Greg Turley (a Democrat in Johnson County) that lost to Woody Burton. You are also erroneously assuming institutional support in these primaries which most, if not all, did not have.

Fourth, you are counting eleven (11) candidates multiple times. Individuals that have been the candidate in multiple successive cycles should, according to his logic that voters made the right choice the first time, not be counted more than once. It is redundant (thus inaccurate) to say that John Q. Candidate who ran and lost in 2002 and 2004 be counted as unique candidate again simply because he ran and lost in 2006 and 2008. Your point is that any time a loser resurfaces to run again the odds are against him winning, so it is illogical to assume the candidate starts over with a clean slate after two losses.

If the ultimate point you are trying to make is that there is some misguided force in these district’s local parties that instigate these rematches, then say that. If you believe that local party leaders or party networks continually put these candidates up because they have “paid their dues,” think they have name ID, are well liked, they know or are related to someone in the party, or are the only ones with a pulse they could find then state that point. Dick Hamm, Ben Newell, Floyd Coates, Karen Buyer-Burkhart, etc. These individuals fall into that category of repeat candidates (in potentially winnable districts) that should probably not have been repeat candidates. However, when you subtract from your bottom line of 81 the number of campaigns I listed above, you’re left with 28 logical repeats, of which 8 won. However, to come full circle to my original point that when you base your entire argument on candidates that lose successive generals, that leaves only 20 campaigns—8 of which won—for a 40% winning percentage.