Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-cnwzk Total loading time: 0.223 Render date: 2021-08-05T19:17:07.055Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Explaining Senate Election Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Alan I. Abramowitz
Affiliation:
Emory University

Abstract

Aggregate-level data are used in this analysis to explain the outcomes of Senate elections between 1974 and 1986. Using the individual Senate contest as the unit of analysis permits estimating the relative influence of a wide variety of factors on Senate election results including political characteristics of states, characteristics of the candidates, and national political conditions. Of these factors candidate characteristics had the strongest impact on the outcomes of Senate elections. The importance of candidate characteristics has had two major consequences for Senate elections. First, two-party competition has spread to every region of the country: in Senate elections, no state can be considered safe for either party. Second, money is probably now more important than ever, especially for challengers and candidates for open seats.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

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. 1980. A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative. American Political Science Review 74:633–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., Cover, Albert D., and Norpoth, Helmut. 1986. The President's Party in Midterm Elections: Going from Bad to Worse. American Journal of Political Science 30:562–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1986. Determinants of the Outcomes of U.S. Senate Elections. Journal of Politics 48:433–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Peter, and Evans, Susan. 1983. Covering Campaigns: Journalism in Congressional Elections. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert D. 1986. Presidential Evaluations and Voting for Congress. American Journal of Political Science 30: 786801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Froman, Lewis A. 1967. The Congressional Process: Strategies. Rules, and Procedures. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Glantz, Stanton A., Abramowitz, Alan I., and Burkart, Michael P.. 1976. Election Outcomes: Whose Money Matters? Journal of Politics 38:1033–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Krasno, Jonathan S.. 1986. Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. University of California, Berkeley. Typescript.Google Scholar
Hess, Stephen. 1986. The Ultimate Insiders: U.S. Senators in the National Media. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Brandes, Sara L.. 1981. State Population and the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators. American Journal of Political Science 25:808–19.Google Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1980. House Reelections and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger. British Journal of Political Science 10:441–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, John D., and Robinson, John P.. 1978. Ideological Identification and the American Voter. Public Opinion Quarterly 42:235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 72:469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kemell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, 2d edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1987. Context and Choice in Two Senate Elections. Delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kenney, Patrick J., and Rice, Tom W.. 1984. The Effect of Primary Divisiveness in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections. Journal of Politics 46:904–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President's Party. American Political Science Review 71:4466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review 65:131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, Teresa E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1979. Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review 73:751–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Rice, Tom W.. 1985. Are Senate Election Outcomes Predictable? PS 18:745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1980. Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 74:617–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J. 1981. The House and the Senate in a New Congress. In The New Congress, ed, Mann, Thomas E. and author. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Peters, John G., and Welch, Susan. 1980. The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 74:697708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1975. Determinants of the Out-comes of Midterm Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 69:812–26.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
Wright, Gerald C., Erikson, Robert S., and Mclver, John P.. 1985. Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data. Journal of Politics 47:479–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
197
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Explaining Senate Election Outcomes
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Explaining Senate Election Outcomes
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Explaining Senate Election Outcomes
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *