
"All in all, do you think things in the nation are
generally headed in the right direction, or do
you feel that things are off on the wrong
track?" NBC Nov 1-2
– 11% right direction, 76% wrong direction

"How well are things going in the country
today: very well, fairly well, pretty badly or
very badly?“ CNN Oct 17
– 42% pretty badly, 33% very badly

73% Disapprove of how Congress is handling its
job
And yet..

Few incumbents lose
– 16 House (12 R, 4 D)
– 2 Senate (R- NH, NC)

Partisan swing
– 5 GOP Senate seats lost (NH, NC, CO, NM, VA)
 OR, AK, MN undecided
– Democrat gains 20 in House
Context of Congressional
Elections

Single member districts
 Roughly equal size (650,000 souls)
 First Tuesday in November in even # years
 Australian ballot
 Must win 2 elections
Same Place, Same Voters
Three Maps, Three Outcomes

Basic Rules
– each square same population.
– All squares in the same district must touch
– R squares have a majority of Republican
voters
– D squares have a majority of Democratic
voters.

Each set of squares with the same color
represent a single election district
Map 1
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D


How many Ds and Rs
elected?
How many competitive
elections?
five desirable less safe, more competitive districts,
where the winner of the election may be either a
Republican or a Democrat
Map 2
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D


How many Ds and Rs
elected?
How many competitive
elections?
three Republican and two Democratic majority
districts, all safe 55 percent or better districts for
incumbents of the respective parties. Note the very
safe pink D district
Map 3
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D


How many Ds and Rs
elected?
How many competitive
elections?
two Republican and three Democratic majority
districts, all safe 55 percent or better districts for
incumbents of the respective parties:
Florida

Florida's 22nd District
– 90 miles long
– Less than 3 miles wide.
– every beach house
lining Route A1A along
Florida's Gold Coast
from West Palm Beach
to Miami Beach
– 52% Dem in 2000, 55%
R in 2002
Social & Political Contexts

Amazing Variation
– geographic size
– Population
– Economic base
– Ethnicity
– Age
– Partisanship
Incumbency Reelection Rates 1832-1996
100
80
60
40
% of Incumbs Seeking Reelection
% of Incumbs retained
-8
8
19
84
-8
0
19
72
-6
0
19
52
-4
0
19
32
-2
0
19
12
0
-1
90
18
92
-8
0
18
72
-6
0
18
52
18
32
-4
0
20
0
% of Incumbs defeated
Incumbency

93% of House incumbents are reelected
– 1994, 84% of House Democrats were reelected

77% of Senate incumbents are reelected
 #1 question to ask for congressional
elections, Is there an incumbent?
Sources of Incumbent
advantage

Institutions are designed by members who
want to get reelected.
 Amazing array of resources
– Free mail, trips to district, staff
– Free facilities for TV and radio ads
– Casework
# of Senate Staff, 1830 –1993
Senate Staff
4500
40754138
4000
3554
3500
3000
2500
2426
2000
Senate Staff
1749
1500
1115
1000
500
82
39
0
1
280 424
2
3
4
5
590
6
7
8
9
10
11
# of Annual Trips Home
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1962
1966
1968
1973
1975
1977
Pieces of Mail in Millions
1000
800
600
400
200
0
54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
Puzzle
Is it the Money?

Average incumbent gets 64.3% of vote
 For every $100,00 spent, lose 1.17% of vote
 For every $100,00 spent by party, lose
2.73% of vote
 incumbent House winner spends $700,00
 incumbent House loser spends 1,300,000
% of respondents who can recall
name
Incumbency Status and Voters' Familiarity with
Congressional Candidates, 1980-1994
60
50
54
51
46
45
30
32
32
20
21
40
29
26
43
42
46
45
43
36
33
26
18
13
10
23
16
22
15
10
0
1980
1982
1984
Incumbents
1986
1988
Challengers
1990
1992
Open Seats
Jacobsen, The Politics of Congressional Elections, 1996
1994
20
0
14
1990
1994
65
Family/friend
had contact
63
Saw on TV
80
Read in
newspaper
Received
mail
15
Saw at
Meeting
40
Met
Personally
100
Any
% of Voters
Voters’ Contact with Incumbents
90
61
60
32
Voters’ Contact with Candidates, 1990
100
92
70
80
67
51
60
20
19
2
3
Saw at
Meeting
20
38
Met
Personally
40
29
12
20
16
7
Incumbent
Challenger
Family/friend
had contact
Saw on TV
Read in
newspaper
Received
mail
Any
0
Voters’ Contact with Candidates, 1990
100
90
80
60
52
40
15
20
65
63
4
14
25
61
34
34
32
9
3
Incumbent
Challenger
Family/friend
had contact
Saw on TV
Read in
newspaper
Received
mail
Saw at
Meeting
Met
Personally
Any
0
3 3
Saw at
Meeting
34
1990
1994
20
12
Family/friend
had contact
25
Saw on TV
29
Read in
newspaper
Received
mail
2 4
Met
Personally
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Any
Challengers 1990, 1994
52
34
16
7 9
% of Voters
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10,000
50,000
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Campaign Spending
Any Contact
Recognize Name
Incumbent Name
Things Liked about Incumbents
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
39
28
25
19
23
22
17
12
1
Personal
Experience
District Service
1978
1994
4
Party
Ideology
Things Disliked about
Incumbents
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
35
28
22
15
17
12
9
5
Personal
Experience
District Service
1978
1994
7
Party
Ideology
Things Liked about Challengers
70
60
58
50
40
38
35
27
30
20
13
6
10
7
3
3
4
0
Personal
Experience
District Service
1978
1994
Party
Ideology
Characteristics of Winning and Losing Challengers
Voters Responses, 1994
100
80
60
40
20
0
80
55
56
49
18
Recall
Name
27
Saw
challenger
on TVv
38
14
Likes
something
about
challenger
Won
likes
something
about
incumbent
Lost
47
24
11
dislikes
something
about
challenger
26
dislikes
something
about
incumbent
Corporate PACs/Trade
Associations 60% of all PAC
$, 1994
Noninc GOP
12%
Noninc Dem
3%
Incumbent Dem
51%
Incumben GOP
34%
The Incumbent’s Strategy

Discourage serious electoral competition
– Hilary Clinton - who doesn’t she want to face!

Use casework, trips home, mailings to
create perception of invulnerability
 Ambitious career politicians and campaign
funders are rational

Montana- McCain 50%, Baucus 73%
 Arkansas McCain 59%, Mark Pryor, 80%
Who does Kirsten Gillibrand want to
run against?
John Faso, GOP nominee
for governor, 16 years state
assembly
Jim Tedisco, Minority
Leader of Assembly, 26
years state assembly
Sandy Treadwell, Appointed chair of New
York GOP, wealth $50 million
Who is a marginal incumbent

Less than 60% of vote in previous election
 Scandal in last term
 Republican in a democratic leaning district
 First term representative
Electoral Competition and
Challenger Spending in 1994
Challenger’s party vote in last House
election, spending by non-incumbent house
candidate
 <40%, $105,000
 40-45%, $322,000
 45-49.9%, $433 ,000
 Open seat $580,000

Races for the US House
140
129
117
120
80
65
62
60
40
22
19
20
20
Le
D
an
in
g
D
To
ss
Le up
an
in
g
R
Li
ke
ly
R
S
af
e
R
el
y
Li
k
af
e
D
0
S
Seats
100
House of Representatives

61 “competitive” races in 2000
– 193 GOP incumbents won, 4 lost
– 199 Dem incumbents won, 2 lost
– GOP wins 20 of 25 open seats
– Dems with 4 of 10 open seats

17 changes of 435
fe
ly
g
R
R
R
1
Sa
ke
in
7
Li
an
up
D
D
D
3
Le
s
g
ly
in
To
s
an
ke
fe
10
8
6
4
2
0
Le
Li
Sa
Senate
Races for the US Senate
9
6
7
2
Senate in 2000

12 toss up races out of 33
– GOP 13 of 18 incumbents win
– Dems 10 of 11 incumbents win
– GOP 0 of 1 on open seats
– Dems 3 of 4 on open seats

7 changes
Former
Officeholders
(%)
Quality of House Challengers
60
40
20
0
50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70+
Incumbent's vote in last election (%)
Expectations Game

Better the electoral odds, better the
challenger and more money
 Weak incumbents and open seats attract
well funded quality challengers
 Strong incumbents attract weak, poorly
funded candidates
Strategic Politician Hypothesis

Best candidates, most money go to marginal
incumbents, open seats
 2nd tier candidates, some money go
 Hopeless, poorly funded candidates run
against strong incumbents
Rational Targeting in 2004

DCC identifies top races; direct $$ there
 In 2004,
– 33 challengers spent over $2 million
– 200 spent less than $100,000
– 30 House elections decided by <10%

Bad for Public?
 Bad for Party?
Expand the Field in 2006?

30 races or a 100
 Campaign Spending diminishing returns
($1 million)
 Extra $500k  10 races

How would you vote in your
congressional district if the election
"were being held today?"
– 52% of registered voters Dem
– 37% for Republican candidates

Who would you like to see "in control of
Congress after the congressional
elections a year from now?
– 55% Dems
– 37% Republicans.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll
Strategic Politician Model
Natl Political and Economic Conditions
Calculations of Strategic politicians and funders
Quality of Challengers
Electoral Results
Implication candidates decide elections, not voters
Campaigns

½ of all money is wasted, high uncertainty
 What issues are important
 Low turnout
– 35% turnout in midterm elections
 Who votes? seniors and partisans!

Random terror and running scared
– Tom Foley, speaker of the house, 15 terms
Why do incumbents win?

Better known (90% vs 40%
 Better liked (more familiar)
 Better funded
Why do challengers win?
Make voters aware of incumbents’
shortcomings, their own virtues via mass
media
 Are well funded
 Implications???

NY’s 21st District

55% Bush
– Gillibrand
Reforming the System

Term limits
– Federal level
– State level

Increase competitiveness of elections
– Campaign finance reform

Key Issue, how to get more people to run
for office!!!
“Race to the Base”

1980 60% Reagan
 1996 60% Clinton
 2004 51% Kerry
Electoral Replacement
The Death of the Gypsy Moth
Marge Roukema
Scott Garrett
Candidate Certification in Open Primaries

216 House members, 42 senators
Declare War on Rinos

Republican In Name Only
– Arlen Specter (PA)
– Lincoln Chafee (RI)
– George Voinvich (OH)
– Olympia Snowe (ME)
Primary Challengers for
Moderates

War on Rinos
– Senator Chafee (R-RI) vs Steve Laffey
Safe Electoral Strategy

Cater to partisan and ideological GOP base
– 10 competitive races in 2004
– 35 competitive races in 2006
Why Incumbents Win

Table 5.3, high name recognition
 Table 5.7, Voters Contact with Candidates
 Table 5.15
– Personal
– Performance/experience
– District service
– Ideology/Policy
Challengers Strategy

Table 5.3 name recognition
 Table 5.11, Campaign expenditures and
name recognition
 Table 5.7, Voters Contact with Candidates
– Where do voters learn about challengers

Table 5.15, Things liked about challengers
– What is #1?