Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:27:22.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Charles H. Franklin
Charles H. Franklin
Affiliation:
Washington University University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Campaigns play a central role in a democracy. I examine the effect of campaigns on the perception of the ideological positions of incumbent senators. The results demonstrate that incumbents affect voter perception both through their actions in office and on the campaign trail. Using the 1988 Senate Election Study, I find that the perceived location of incumbents depends on their roll call voting records, the perceived position of their party and the voter's own position. More crucial is the finding that candidates can affect the clarity of these perceptions through their campaign strategies. Incumbents who stress issues increase the clarity of voter perceptions, while challengers' attacks on incumbents reduce clarity. While elections alone increase clarity, these effects are small in comparison to the effect due to candidate campaign strategies. The results remind us that to understand the politics of elections we must incorporate candidate strategy in our models.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 1193 - 1214
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991

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. 1980. “A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative in 1978.” American Political Science Review 74:633–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan. 1981. “Choices and Echoes in the 1980 U.S. Senate Elections: A Research Note.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 112–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1986. “Issue Voting under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.” American Journal of Political Science 30:709–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79:1061–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.” American Journal of Political Science 25:483–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Homestyle: Members of Congress in Their Constituencies. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. 1986. “Structural Estimation with Limited Variables.” In Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, Herbert F.New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Hinkley, Barbara. 1980. “House Reelection and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger.” British Journal of Political Science 10:441–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72:469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Wolfinger, Raymond E. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74:617–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.” American Political Science Review 76:538–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66:979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1981. “Dimensions of Interest Group Evaluation of the U.S. Senate 1969–1978.” American Journal of Political Science 25:49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66: 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, B. W. 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Westlye, Mark C. 1983. “Competitiveness of Senate Seats and Voting Behavior in Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 27:253–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Halbert. 1982. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models.” Econometrica 50:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., and Berkman, Michael B. 1986. “Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections.” American Political Science Review 80:567–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.