Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:00:22.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Thomas E. Mann  and
Raymond E. Wolfinger
Thomas E. Mann
Affiliation:
American Enterprise Institute
Raymond E. Wolfinger
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1978 CPS national election study, which includes many new questions about congressional candidates, is analyzed to discern what voters know about congressional candidates and why House incumbents are so successful at getting reelected by wide margins. Scholars have underestimated the level of public awareness of congressional candidates, primarily because of faulty measures. Voters are often able to recognize and evaluate individual candidates without being able to recall their names from memory. Incumbents are both better known and better liked than challengers, largely because they have the resources enabling them to communicate with their constituents frequently and directly. Yet the seriousness of the challenger is equally important for understanding the advantages of incumbency and why incumbency is less valuable in the Senate than in the House. Finally, public assessments of the president provide a national dynamic to congressional voting, but the effect is modest compared to the salience of the local choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 617 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. (1975). “Name Familiarity, Reputation, and the Incumbent Effect in a Congressional Election.” Western Political Quarterly 27: 668–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arseneau, Robert B., and Wolfinger, Raymond E. (1973). “Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A. (1976). “Communication.” Amencan Political Science Review 70: 924–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Albert D. (1977). “One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Politica Science 21: 523–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Albert D. and Mayhew, David R. (1977). “Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Congressional Elections.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.), Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
CPS 1974 American National Election Study (1975). Ann Arbor: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1975). “If, As Ralph Nader Says, Congress Is The Broken Branch' How Come We Love Our Congressmen So Much?” In Ornstein, Norman J. (ed.), Congress in Change: Evolution and Reform. New York: Praeger, pp. 275–87.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1978). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. (1977). “On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 71: 166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977). Congress, Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. (1978). “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72: 469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., et al. (1977). “The Myth of the Independent Voter.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kernell, Sam H. (1977). “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President's Party.” American Political Science Review 71: 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. (1978). Unsafe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. (1980). “Congressional Elections.” In Mann, Thomas E. and Ornstein, Norman J. (eds.), The New Congress. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974a). “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals” Polity 6: 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974b). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Candice J. (1978). “The Effect of Incumbency on Voting in Congressional Elections, 1964–1974.” Political Science Quarterly 93: 665–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., et al. (1976). The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Michael (1980). “The Three Faces of Congressional Media.” In Mann, Thomas E. and Ornstein, Norman J. (eds.), The New Congress. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E. (1962). “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1975). “Determinants of the Outcome of Midterm Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69: 812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1978). Political Control of the Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar