Given the difficulty and expense of getting elected to a U.S. Senate seat, and given the enormous visibility and resources that an incumbent can marshal, Washington insiders have long quipped that that only way a sitting senator can lose re-election is if he or she is a fluke, a flake or a felon.

A flock of Illinois politicians, and wannabe senators, are eagerly applying that axiom to first-term Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican who will be seeking re-election in 2004. Democrats argue that Fitzgerald didn't really win in 1998; instead, they say that Illinois voters rejected controversial incumbent Carol Moseley-Braun, who lost to Fitzgerald by 98,545 votes, which allegedly makes Fitzgerald's election a fluke. And some Republicans argue that Fitzgerald, who has publicly feuded with outgoing Governor George Ryan and with U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, is a flake, a malcontent and a non-team player.

But, insider quips aside, the real historical criterion on which Senate incumbents are re-elected or rejected is a three-pack of scandal, ideology and arrogance. If there's no scandal, no noticeable trend against the party of the incumbent and no arrogance, the incumbent wins.

On the first criterion, if the incumbent is mired in any actual or alleged wrongdoing, he or she usually loses. Are there federal campaign contribution law violations? Are there newspaper headlines of self-serving or self-profit?

Moseley-Braun, in both her 1992 campaign and in her 6-year Senate tenure, was perceived as being ethically challenged. Her "misdeeds" included splitting her mother's assets while she was applying for Medicaid nursing home payments, using $281,000 in campaign contributions for personal consumption, praising Nigeria's despotic dictator, who had hired her boyfriend, Kgosie Matthews, as his lobbyist, and defending Matthews against allegations that he sexually harassed 1992 campaign workers. Moseley-Braun ran television ads in which she admitted that she "made some mistakes and disappointed some people." That didn't poison her support among her base vote of blacks and liberals, but it didn't diminish the estrangement in 1998 of many suburban independents and suburban women who had backed her in 1992. There was no major "scandal" involving the senator, but her multitude of ethical lapses were instrumental in her 1998 loss.

Second, on ideology, Moseley-Braun was an outspoken liberal, considerably outside the Illinois mainstream. Historically, Illinois prefers senators who are a bit mushy, and who rhetorically eschew political extremes -- like Everett Dirksen and Alan Dixon. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who was re-elected to his second term in 2002 with 60 percent of the vote, votes liberal on all key matters but carefully manages to craft a media image as facilitator rather than as an ideologue. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Durbin voted to block most of President's George Bush's judicial appointments, and he opposed the Bush tax cut and the Iraq war powers resolution, but his 2002 Republican opponent, Jim Durkin, was never able to paint Durbin as too extreme. Durbin gets headlines when he seeks to expand O'Hare Airport's runways and supports campaign finance reform, not when he opposes tax cuts or supports abortion rights and gun control.

To be sure, Moseley-Braun lost for many reasons, the most relevant being that she was too liberal, that she was from Chicago, and that she was black. In sum, Illinoisans were just not comfortable with her as their senator. In 2002 state voters were apparently comfortable with Durbin. Are they similarly comfortable with Fitzgerald? And, remember, a "sweep" in one election does not carry over to the next: Republicans swept in 1978, but Dixon won in 1980, and Republicans swept in 1994, but Durbin won in 1996. The Democrats' 2002 sweep need not presage Fitzgerald's demise in 2004.

And third, there's arrogance. It's the perception that that senator has "gone Washington," and that his or her interests and priorities lie with discharging their duties in Washington, rather than with articulating Illinoisans' views in Washington.

Three-term Republican Chuck Percy, the chairman of the prestigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee, lost to Democrat Paul Simon in 1984 because voters thought he had become too arrogant and disinterested in Illinois issues. Democrat Alan Dixon lost in in 1992 largely because Al Hofeld attacked him as being too conservative and because and Moseley-Braun attacked him for his vote for Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and in 1998 Moseley-Braun herself was perceived as having "gone Washington," enjoying her perks rather than listening to her constituents.

In the last half-century, only four sitting Illinois senators have been defeated: Democrat Paul Douglas by Percy in 1996, because he was perceived as too much of a liberal in a statewide Republican sweep, Percy in 1984, Dixon in the 1992 primary and Moseley-Braun in 1998.

Fitzgerald, heir to a Bank of Montreal family banking fortune, spent $18 million to win in 1998, of which $14 million came from his own pocket. After his win, Fitzgerald promised to be an "independent" senator and to serve only two terms. Fitzgerald supported the Clinton impeachment, supported the Bush tax cuts, opposed Alaska oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, backed a ban on "partial birth" abortions, supported a ban on political party "soft money" campaign contributions, and refused to defer to the governor or to Hastert in his choice of U.S. attorneys. He also bucked Ryan on the funding of the Lincoln Library.

Fitzgerald, age 42, has not been a Jesse Helms-type conservative, so he cannot be isolated as an "extremist." So, because of his unpredictability, he is being tabbed by his critics as a "flake." Others, however, might consider his record to be demonstrably "independent" -- of both his party and of pre-election perceptions.

A large field of Democrats is assembling to oppose Fitzgerald in 2004:

Moseley-Braun, age 55, of Chicago, was Bill Clinton's appointee as ambassador to New Zealand (and served until 2001) and now is teaching college and practicing law in Chicago. She says she may run in 2002. She spent $7.2 million in 1998, but she won't raise anything near that as a non-incumbent. Blacks make up between 25 and 30 percent of the Democratic primary vote, and she is well liked in her base. In a multi-candidate primary, with four or more white contenders, she could win a plurality. Establishment Democrats fervently hope he won't, because she'd be the easiest Democrat for Fitzgerald to beat.

State Senator Barack Obama (D-13), age 41, of Chicago, an African American from the South Side, ran against U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-1) in 2000 and got just 30 percent of the vote (to Rush's 61 percent). Obama won't run if Moseley-Braun does. If he does, he'd be lucky to get 25 percent of the vote -- not enough to win. Like Moseley-Braun, Obama would be a sure loser against Fitzgerald.

State Comptroller Dan Hynes, age 34, of Chicago, was first elected to his statewide post in 1998 by a 614,413-vote margin (getting 58.6 percent of the total), and he was re-elected in 2002 by 972,811 votes (63.9 percent). Hynes has been a critic of Ryan's fiscal policies; whether he will continue that role now that Democrat Rod Blagojevich is governor remains to be seen. Hynes' precinct political clout is attributable to his father, former Cook County assessor (and 19th Ward Democratic Committeeman) Tom Hynes, but his statewide visibility is attributable to his own efforts. With two statewide wins, Hynes is the early frontrunner. If he faces Fitzgerald, he'd be favored.

Investment banker Blair Hull, age 59, of Chicago, has never run for public office, but he wants to buy his way onto the 2004 political scene. He donated more than $500,000 to Blagojevich's campaign, and he has stated that he will spend up to $40 million of his fortune to win the Senate seat. Hull's brokerage firm was bought by the Goldman-Sachs Group in 1999 for $531 million. Hull expects that he will be endorsed by both Blagojevich and Mayor Rich Daley; if he has both those endorsements, and if he spends $20 million-plus in the primary, he will win.

But Hull could be another Al Hofeld, the big spender who split the white vote and caused Dixon to lose the 1992 Senate race to Moseley-Braun, and who lost for attorney general in 1994. Hull has no public record to defend, but he could be isolated as a Chicago liberal, which would be poisonous Downstate and in the Collar Counties.

Gery Chico, age 45, of Chicago, the former Chicago Board Of Education president, hopes to be the first Hispanic to serve in the U.S. Senate since 1977. Chico has an $8 million campaign budget, and he had raised $510,000 by mid-year 2002. Chico can't count on Daley's support, the Hispanic turnout in most elections is anemic, and he won't get much black support, so he has to find some issue to appeal to white suburban and Downstate voters.

Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, age 53, of Chicago, won her second term in 2002, and she is highly popular among white independents. However, her "reforms" of the treasurer's office could become an issue, with her foes arguing that they haven't been effective. If she runs, Pappas will take votes away from Hull, not Hynes.

The bottom line: Fitzgerald has recused himself from voting on any banking bills, since he and his family own bank stock. Unless the Democrats can show some self-interest voting, there's no scandal factor in 2004. Fitzgerald has a credible legislative record, which cannot be characterized as extreme or minimal, so he's no flake. His criticisms of Ryan are an asset. And his 1998 victory was no fluke, as his foe had significant backing.

My early prediction: In 1984 Percy lost to Simon by 89,264 votes even though President Ronald Reagan carried Illinois by 620,604 votes. Percy lost because huge numbers of Republican-leaning voters thought him to be arrogant. Fitzgerald does not have that impediment. Bush will likely carry Illinois in 2004 by around 200,000 votes, and Fitzgerald has at least a 50-50 chance of squeaking out a second term.