The role that challengers play in the electoral success of incumbents has long been a theme of research for students of congressional elections. This study focuses on the impact of a particular subset of challengers—repeat challengers. Through OLS and 2SLS analysis of electoral and personal candidate variables from House races in the 1980s, the influence of repeat challengers is assessed indirectly through their effect on challenger fundraising, as well as directly through changes in the shares of the district vote of challengers. The findings suggest that repeat challengers raise levels of campaign funds that are comparable to experienced first-time challengers in equally marginal or non-marginal districts. They also improve upon their previous vote totals, while experienced challengers (except those who presently hold statewide office) are not able to consistently add to the showing of the challenger from the previous election.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, A.I. (1984). National issues, strategic politicians, and voting behavior in the 1980 and 1982 congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 710-721.
2.
Abramowitz, A.I. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82, 385-403.
3.
Abramowitz, A.I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics , 53, 34-56.
4.
Alford, J.R., & Brady, D.W. (1993). Personal and partisan advantage in U.S. congressional elections, 1846-1990. In L. Dodd & B. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (5th ed., pp. 141-157). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
5.
Banducci, S.A., & Karp, J.A. (1994). Electoral consequences of scandal and reapportionment in the 1992 House elections. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 3-26.
6.
Banks, J.S., & Kiewiet, D.R. (1989). Explaining patterns of candidate competition in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science , 33, 997-1015.
7.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1985, 1987, 1989, 1991). The almanac of American politics. Washington, DC : National Journal.
8.
Bartels, L. (1991). Instrumental and quasi-instrumental variables . American Journal of Political Science, 35, 777-800.
9.
Bianco, W.T. (1984). Strategic decisions on candidacy in U.S. congressional districts. Legislative Studces Quarterly, 9, 351-364.
10.
Bond, J.R., Covington, C., & Fleisher, R. (1985). Explaining challenger quality in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 47, 510-529.
11.
Born, R. (1977). House incumbents and inter-election vote change . Journal of Politics, 39, 1008-1034.
12.
Born, R. (1986). Strategic politicians and unresponsive voters . American Political Science Review, 80, 599-612.
13.
Born, R. (1990). Surge and decline, negative voting, and the mid-term loss phenomenon. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 615-645.
14.
Bragdon, P. (1990). 2nd time may be the charm for House challengers: A "lose to win" campaign strategy in '90 might position Republicans for '92 . Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 48, 692-694.
15.
Cain, B.E., Ferejohn, J.A., & Fiorina, M.P. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Campbell, J.E. (1985). Explaining presidential losses in midterm decline in congressional elections, 1868-1988. Journal of Politics , 47, 1140-1157.
17.
Campbell, J.E. (1991). The presidential surge and its midterm decline in congressional elections, 1868-1988. Journal of Politics , 53, 477-487.
18.
Campbell, J.E. (1993). The presidential pulse of congressional elections . Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
19.
Canon, D.T. (1993). Sacrificial lambs or strategic politicians? Political amateurs in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1119-1141.
20.
Chappell, H.W., Jr., & Suzuki, M. (1993). Aggregate vote functions for the U.S. presidency, Senate, and House. Journal of Politics , 55, 207-217.
21.
Cook, R. (1992). Bush steps onto campaign stage against backdrop of his record. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 50, 361-371.
22.
Cover, A.D. (1977). One good term deserves another: The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 523-541.
23.
Cover, A.D. (1986). Presidential evaluations and voting for Congress . American Journal of Political Science, 30, 786-801.
24.
Cover, A.D., & Brumberg, B.S. (1982). Baby books and ballots: The impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 76, 347-359.
25.
Erikson, R.S. (1988). The puzzle of midterm loss. Journal of Politics, 50, 1011-1029.
26.
Fenno, R.J. (1977). U.S. House members in their constituencies. American Political Science Review, 71, 883-917.
27.
Ferejohn, J.A. (1977). On the decline of competitive congressional elections . American Political Science Review, 71, 166-176.
28.
Fiorina, M. (1989). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Fowler, L.L., & McClure, R.D. (1989). Political ambition: Who decides to run for Congress . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Garment, S. (1991). Scandal: The crisis of mistrust in American politics . New York: Random House.
31.
Goidel, R.K., & Gross, D.A. (1994). A systems approach to campaign finance in U.S. House elections. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 125-153.
32.
Green, D.P., & Krasno, C. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: Reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884-907.
33.
Green, D.P., & Krasno, C. (1990). Rebuttal to Jacobson's "New Evidence for Old Arguments ." American Journal of Political Science, 34, 363-372.
34.
Heidenheimer, A.J. (1970). Political corruption: Readings in comparative analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
35.
Hinckley, B. (1980). House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 441-460.
36.
Hook, J. (1991). Republicans looking to Bush to spread coattails . Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 49, 2281-2283.
37.
Jacobson, G.C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional spending. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-492.
38.
Jacobson, G.C. (1980). Money in congressional elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
Jacobson, G.C. (1990). Does the economy matter in midterm elections? American Journal of Political Science, 34, 400-404.
40.
Jacobson, G.C. (1992). The politics of congressional elections (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
41.
Jacobson, G.C., & Dimock, M.A. (1994). Checking out: The effects of bank overdrafts on the 1992 House elections. American Journal of Political Science , 38, 601-624.
42.
Jacobson, G.C., & Kernell, S. (1983). Strategy and choice in congressional elections (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
Kazee, T. (1980). Dealing with incumbency: Repeat candidacy and campaign money. Congressional Studies, 7, 43-53.
44.
Kazee, T. (1983). The deterrent effect of incumbency on recruiting challengers in U.S. House elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly , 8, 469-480.
45.
Kenny, C., & McBurnett, M. (1994). An individual-level multiequation model of expenditure effects in contested House elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 699-707.
46.
Krasno, J.S., & Green, D.P. (1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections . Journal of Politics, 50, 920-936.
47.
Lanoue, D.J. (1994). Retrospective and prospective voting in presidential-year elections. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 193-205.
48.
Lublin, D.I. (1994). Quality not quantity: Strategic politicians in U.S. Senate elections, 1952-1990. Journal of Politics, 56, 228-241.
49.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6, 295-317.
50.
Parker, G.R. (1986). Homeward bound: Explaining changes in congressional behavior. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
51.
Peters, J.G., & Welch, S. (1978). Political corruption in America: A search for definitions and a theory. American Political Science Review , 72, 974-984.
52.
Peters, J.G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74, 697-708.
53.
Radcliff, B. (1994). Reward without punishment: Economic conditions and the vote. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 721-731.
54.
Ragsdale, L. (1981). Incumbent popularity, challenger invisibility, and congressional voters. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6, 201-218.
55.
Ragsdale, L., & Cook, T.E. (1987). Representatives' actions and challengers' reactions . American Journal of Political Science, 31, 45-81.
56.
Rosenberg, S., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The image and the vote: The effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 108-127.
57.
Rundquist, B.S., Strom, G.S., & Peters, J.G. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some theoretical and empirical observations. American Political Science Review, 71, 954-963.
58.
Scott, J. (1972). Comparative political corruption. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
59.
Squire, P. (1989). Challengers in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 531-548.
60.
Squire, P. (1992). Challenger quality and voting behavior in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 247-264.
61.
Squire, P., & Smith, E.R.A.N. (1984). Repeat challengers in congressional elections. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 51-70.
62.
Stewart, C. (1989). A sequential model of U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 567-601.
63.
Tufte, E.R. (1978). Political control of the economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
Waterman, R.W., Oppenheimer, B.I., & Stimson, J.A. (1991). Sequence and equilibrium in congressional elections: An integrated approach. Journal of Politics, 53, 372-393.
