Campaign costs

Here’s a question: at what level of popularity does a Governor or Senator not need to bother to run for reelection? Alex Oveis mentions the story of William Proxmire’s 1982 campaign, on which he purportedly spent $145.10. An icon by this point, he won with 64% of the vote. In the same post, Alex notes CT Governor Jodi Rell’s top aide is under investigation for some possible illegal campaign solicitations. Elsewhere in the blogosphere today I learned that Rell is the nation’s most popular governor, with a staggering 77/16 approval/disapproval rating. A scandal seems like the easiest way to bring those numbers closer together. But with those kind of numbers, unless there’s a very well known and popular Democrat being groomed for the race, it’s hard to see why Rell is bothering much at all with fundraising, let alone legally questionable fundraising, especially fundraising that might appear to conflict with her earlier pledge about not taking money from the Republican Party. I’m not suggesting many incumbents could get away with a non-campaign, but those with the political icon-status and/or approval ratings above 70% seem like they certainly might be able to. Have political campaigns changed so much since 1982 that Proxmire’s approach is untenable in all statewide races? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for Rell to have that campaign money go to state house races?