Freshman House Republicans running for reelection in 1996 outperformed predictions of vulnerability that were based upon their conservative roll call records and reputed lack of attentiveness to traditional constituency concerns. In this study, we find that perceptions of these freshmen’s ideology and ability to keep in touch with constituents were not, in fact, out of line with analogous perceptions of veterans in 1996 or of freshmen or veterans in other elections. Members of the class of 1994 did stand out, however, in how the determinants of voting behavior in their races compared with the determinants in races of these other groups. Constituent evaluations of the job performance of Congress were closely linked to ballot choice, whereas ideological proximity to the member made no difference. Thus, it seems that the Republican freshmen succeeded in shifting the 1996 reelection battle to electorally favorable terrain, because Congress evaluations that year had rebounded from the low levels existing earlier in the 1990s.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahuja, S. (2000). Freshman elections in the 1990s [Typescript]. Department of Political Science, Seton Hall University.
2.
Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (1981). Increased incumbency advantage in the House. Journal of Politics, 43, 1042-1061.
3.
Americans for Democratic Action. (1995). 1995 ADA House of Representatives voting record. Retrieved from http://www.adaction.org/vr95/htm
4.
Americans for Democratic Action. (1996). 1996 ADA House of Representatives voting record. Retrieved from http://www.adaction.org/vr1996.html
5.
Babson, J. (1995). House rejects term limits; GOP blames Democrats. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 53, 918-919.
6.
Balz, D., & Brownstein, R. (1996). Storming the gates: Protest politics and the Republican revival. Boston: Little, Brown.
7.
Born, R. (1979). Generational replacement and the growth of incumbent reelection margins in the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 73, 811-817.
8.
Brady, D., Cogan, J. F., & Rivers, D. (1997). The 1996 House elections: Reaffirming the conservative trend. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, & Peace.
9.
Ceaser, J. W., & Busch, A. E. (1997). Losing to win: The 1996 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Davidson, R. H. (1999). Building the Republican regime: Leaders and committees. In C. C. Campbell & N. C. Rae (Eds.), New majority or old minority? The impact of Republicans on Congress (pp. 69-90). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
Drew, E. (1998). Whatever it takes: The real struggle for political power in America (Updateded.). New York: Penguin Books.
14.
Erikson, R. S. (1972). Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 66, 1234-1245.
15.
Evans, C. L., & Oleszek, W. (1997). Congress under fire: Reform politics and the Republican majority. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16.
Fenno, R. F., Jr. (1997). Learning to govern: An institutional view of the 104th Congress. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17.
Gimpel, J. G. (1996). Fulfilling the contract: The first 100 days. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
Hershey, M. R. (1997). The congressional elections. In G. M. Pomper, W. D. Burnham, A. Corrado, M. R. Hershey, M. R. Just, S. Keeter, W. C. McWilliams, & W. G. Mayer (Eds.), The election of 1996: Reports and interpretations (pp. 205-239). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
19.
Hibbing, J. R. (1991). Congressional careers: Contours of life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina.
20.
Hibbing, J. R., & Tiritilli, E. (2000). Public disapproval of Congress can be dangerous to majority party candidates: The case of 1994. In D. W. Brady, J. F. Cogan, & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Continuity and change in House elections (pp. 110-129). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
21.
House votes on GOP“Contract.” (1996). Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 54, 501-503.
22.
Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The electoral origins of divided government: Competition in U.S. House elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
Jacobson, G. C. (1997a). The 105th Congress: Unprecedented and unsurprising. In M. Nelson (Ed.), The elections of 1996 (pp. 143-166). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
24.
Jacobson, G. C. (1997b, April). Reversal of fortune: The transformation of U.S. House elections in the 1990s. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
25.
Jacobson, G. C. (1999). The effects of the AFL-CIO’s “voter education” campaigns on the 1996 House elections. Journal of Politics, 61, 185-194.
26.
Killian, L. (1998). The freshmen: What happened to the Republican revolution? Boulder, CO: Westview.
27.
Mondak, J. J., McCurley, C., & Millman, S. R. L. (1999). The impact of incumbents’ levels of competence and integrity in the 1994 and 1996 U.S. House elections. In H. F. Weisberg & J. M. Box-Steffensmeier (Eds.), Reelection 1996: How Americans voted (pp. 213-235). New York: Seven Bridges.
28.
Owens, J. E. (1998). Taking power? Institutional change in the House and Senate. In D. McSweeney & J. E. Owens. (Eds.), The Republican takeover of Congress (pp. 33-70). New York: St. Martin’s.
29.
Patterson, S. C., & Barr, M. K. (1995). Congress bashing and the 1992 congressional elections. In H. F. Weisberg (Ed.), Democracy’s feast: Elections in America (pp. 263-291). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
30.
Patterson, S. C., & Monson, J. Q. (1999). Reelecting the Republican Congress: Two more years. In H. F. Weisberg & J. M. Box-Steffensmeier (Eds.), Reelection 1996: How Americans voted (pp. 183-212). New York: Seven Bridges.
31.
Rae, N. C. (1998). Conservative reformers: The Republican freshmen and the lessons of the 104th Congress. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
32.
Rae, N. C., & Campbell, C. C. (1999). From revolution to evolution: Congress under Republican control. In C. C. Campbell & N. C. Rae (Eds.), New majority or old minority? The impact of Republicans on Congress (pp. 1-17). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
Taylor, A. (1996). GOP pet projects give boost to shaky incumbents. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 54, 2169-2173.
