In this article, we analyze a unique set of state-level monthly survey data covering the eighteen months preceding the 2006 election to estimate (1) the relative effects of national and local conditions on the strength of challenges to incumbent senators and governors and (2) the effects of these challenges on incumbent popularity and, ultimately, vote shares. The analysis confirms several of the basic components of the theory that the strategic behavior of candidates and campaign contributors amplifies the effects of local and national conditions on election results, thereby enhancing electoral accountability. But it also uncovers a striking difference between the two offices. Even taking the strongly pro-Democratic national climate into account, the election context had a strong tendency to reduce the approval ratings of Senators, while it had an equally strong tendency to increase the approval ratings of governors. We speculate as to what might account for this difference.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramowitzAlan I.SegalJeffrey A.. 1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.
2.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
AtkesonLonna RaePartinRandal W.. 1995. “Economic and Referendum Voting: A Comparison of Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review89: 99–107.
4.
AtkesonLonna RaePartinRandal W.. 2001. “Candidate Advertisements, Media Coverage, and Citizen Attitudes: The Agendas and Roles of Senators and Governors in a Federal System.” Political Research Quarterly54: 795–813.
5.
BaroneMichaelCohenRichard E.. 2007. The Almanac of American Politics 2008. Washington, D.C.National Journal.
6.
BondJon R.CovingtonCaryFleisherRichard. 1985. “Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections.” The Journal of Politics47: 510–29.
7.
BondJon R.FleisherRichardTalbertJeffrey C.. 1997. “Partisan Differences in Candidate Quality in Open Seat House Races, 1976-1994.” Political Research Quarterly50: 281–99.
8.
BrownAdam R.2007. Gubernatorial Approval and Strategic Entry in the 2006 Elections. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 2-15.
9.
BrownAdam R.2008. Strategic Politicians in Gubernatorial Elections. Ph.D. Diss. University of California, San Diego.
10.
BrownAdam R.JacobsonGary C.. 2007. Party, Performance, and Strategic Politicians: The Dynamics of Elections for Senator and Governor in 2006. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, August 30-September 2.
11.
CanonDavid T.1993. “Sacrificial Lambs or Strategic Politicians? Political Amateurs in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science37: 1119–41.
12.
CarseyThomas M.WrightGerald C.. 1998. “State and National Factors in Gubernatorial and Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science42: 994–1002.
13.
ChubbJohn. 1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections.” American Political Science Review82: 133–54.
14.
FowlerLinda L.McClureRobert D.. 1989. Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
GerberAlan. 1998. “Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables.” American Political Science Review92: 401–11.
16.
Holbrook-ProvowThomas. 1987. “National Factors in Gubernatorial Elections.” American Politics Quarterly15: 471–83.
17.
JacobsonGary C.1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
JacobsonGary C.1985. “Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections.” Public Choice47: 7–62.
19.
JacobsonGary C.1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-86.” American Political Science Review83: 773–93.
20.
JacobsonGary C.2006. Polarized Opinion in the States: Partisan Differences in Approval Ratings of Governors, Senators, and George W. Bush. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 20-23.
21.
JacobsonGary C.2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 7th ed.New York, NY: Longman.
22.
JacobsonGary C.KernellSamuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
KahnKim Fridkin. 1995. “Characteristics of Press Coverage in Senate and Gubernatorial Elections: Information Available to Voters.” Legislative Studies Quarterly20: 23–35.
24.
KazeeThomas A., ed. 1994. Who Runs for Congress: Ambition, Context, and Candidate Emergence. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
25.
KeyV. O.Jr.1964. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. 5th ed.New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.
26.
KrasnoJonathan S.1994. Challengers, Competition, and Reelection: Comparing Senate and House Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
LeydenKevinBorrelliStephen. 1995. “The Effect of State Economic Conditions on Gubernatorial Elections: Does Unified Government Make a Difference?” Political Research Quarterly48: 275–90.
28.
LublinDavid Ian. 1994. “Quality, not Quantity: Strategic Politicians in U.S. Senate Elections, 1952-1990.” The Journal of Politics56: 228–41.
29.
MaestasCherie D.Sarah FultonL. Sandy MaiselStoneWalter J.. 2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the House.” American Political Science Review100: 195–208
30.
MaiselL. SandyStoneWalter P.. 1997. “Determinants of Candidate Emergence in U.S. House Elections: An Exploratory Study.” Legislative Studies Quarterly22: 79–96.
31.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
NiemiRichard G.StanleyHarold W.VogelRonald J.. 1995. “State Economies and State Taxes: Do Voters Hold Governors Accountable?” American Journal of Political Science39: 936–57.
33.
SquirePeverill. 1989. “Challengers in U.S. Senate Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly14: 531–47.
34.
SquirePeverill. 1992. “Challenger Profile and Gubernatorial Elections.” Western Political Quarterly45: 125–42.
35.
SquirePeverillFastnowChristina. 1994. “Comparing Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” Political Research Quarterly47: 705–20.
36.
SteinRobert M.1990. “Economic Voting for Governor and U.S. Senator: The Electoral Consequences of Federalism.” The Journal of Politics52: 29–53.
37.
TidmarchCharles M.HymanLisa J.SorkinJill E.. 1984. “Press Issue Agendas in the 1982 Congressional and Gubernatorial Election Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics46: 1226–42.
38.
WestlyeMark C.1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
