Prior studies of challenger entry in Senate and gubernatorial elections provide inconclusive evidence that challengers consider incumbents' electoral vulnerability when deciding whether to run. The reason for this is primarily methodological: These studies analyze only general-election challengers, and in so doing overlook the dominant share of candidates who enter races. Additionally, the manner in which incumbent vulnerability affects challenger entry varies with the challenger's party status and electoral strength. Incumbent-party challengers run against incumbents who did poorly in the previous primary election, whereas out-party challengers run against incumbents who did poorly in the previous general election. Finally, the entry decisions of weak out-party challengers are not directly related to incumbent vulnerability; rather, they avoid facing strong out-party challengers in the primary election. These hypotheses are tested using data from Senate and gubernatorial elections from 1976 to 1998; the hypotheses are supported.
Adams, G.D., & Squire, P. (1997). Incumbent vulnerability and challenger emergence in Senate elections. Political Behavior, 19, 97-110.
2.
Banks, J.S., & Kiewiet, D.R. (1989). Explaining patterns of candidate competition in Congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science , 33, 997-1015.
3.
Bardwell, K. (2002). Money and challenger emergence in gubernatorial primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 653-668.
4.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1997). The almanac of American politics, 1998. Washington, DC: National Journal.
5.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1999). The almanac of American politics, 2000. Washington, DC: National Journal.
6.
Berry, W.D., & Canon, B.C. (1993). Explaining the competitiveness of gubernatorial primaries. Journal of Politics, 55, 454-471.
7.
Black, G.S. (1972). A theory of political ambition: Career choices and the role of structural incentives. American Political Science Review, 66, 144-155.
8.
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (1996). A dynamic analysis of the role of war chests in campaign strategy. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 352-371.
9.
Canon, B.C. (1978). Factionalism in the South: A test of theory and a revisitation of V. O. Key. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 833-848.
10.
Canon, D.T. (1990). Actors, athletes, and astronauts: Political amateurs in the Unites States Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Canon, D.T. (1993). Sacrificial lambs or strategic politicians? Political amateurs in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1119-1141.
12.
Carson, J. (2005). Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in U.S. House and Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 67, 1-28.
13.
Congressional Quarterly. (1992). Congressional ethics: History, facts, and controversy. Washington, DC : Author.
14.
Duverger, M. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Ehrenhalt, A. (1992). The United States of ambition: Politicians, power, and the pursuit of office. New York: Times Books.
16.
Fenno, R.F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
17.
Fox, R.L., & Lawless, J.L. (2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 264-280.
18.
Goodliffe, J. (2001). The effect of war chests on challenger entry in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science , 45, 830-844.
19.
Goodliffe, J. (in press). Campaign war chests and challenger quality in Senate elections . Legislative Studies Quarterly.
20.
Hogan, R.E. (2001). Campaign warchests and challenger emergence in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly , 54, 815-830.
21.
Jacobson, G.C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review , 83, 773-793.
22.
Jacobson, G.C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 334-364.
23.
Jacobson, G.C. (2001). The politics of Congressional elections (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Jacobson, G.C., & Kernell, S. (1981). Strategy and choice in Congressional elections . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
Jewell, M.E., & Morehouse, S.M. (2001). Political parties and elections in American states. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
Key, V.O. (1949). Southern politics. New York : Knopf.
27.
Krasno, J.N., & Green, D.P. (1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections . Journal of Politics, 50, 920-936.
28.
Lublin, D.I. (1994). Quality, not quantity: Strategic politicians in U.S. Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 56, 228-241.
29.
Maisel, L.S., & Stone, W.J. (1997). Determinants of candidate emergence in U.S. House elections: An exploratory study. Legislative Studies Quarterly , 22, 79-96.
30.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6, 295-317.
31.
Mullaney, M.M. (1989). Biographical directory of the governors of the United States, 1983-1988. Westport, CT: Meckler.
32.
Mullaney, M.M. (1994). Biographical directory of the governors of the United States, 1988-1994. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
33.
Rice, T.W. (1985). Gubernatorial and Senatorial primary elections: Determinants of competition. American Politics Quarterly, 13, 427-446.
34.
Roberds, S.C., & Roberts, J.M. (2002). Are all amateurs equal? Candidate quality in the 1992-1998 house elections. Politics & Policy, 30, 482-501.
35.
Squire, P. (1989). Challengers in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 531-547.
36.
Squire, P. (1991). Preemptive fund-raising and challenger profile in Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 53, 1150-1164.
37.
Squire, P. (1992). Challenger profile and gubernatorial elections . Western Political Quarterly, 45, 125-142.
38.
Stewart, C., III. (1989). A sequential model of U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 567-601.
39.
Stone, W.J., & Maisel, L.S. (2003). The not-so-simple calculus of winning: Potential House candidates' nomination and general election prospects. Journal of Politics, 65, 951-977.
40.
Thompson, D.F. (1995). Ethics in congress: From individual to institutional corruption. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
41.
Van Dunk, E. (1997). Challenger quality in state legislative elections . Political Research Quarterly, 50, 793-807.
42.
Wright, S.G., & Riker, W.H. (1989). Plurality and runoff systems and numbers of candidates . Public Choice, 60, 155-175.
