Senators who first reach office by gubernatorial appointment are successful at the polls at half the rate of incumbents in general. Outcomes of elections featuring appointed senators are affected by the incumbent's voting record in the Senate, the divisiveness of the primary, state partisanship, the size of the state, national political conditions, and the quality of the challenger. This last factor is the key to understanding the anomaly, as appointed senators face higher quality challengers than do senators who first gain office through the electoral process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, A. I.
(1980). A comparison of voting for U.S. Senator and Representative in 1978. American Political Science Review, 74, 633-640.
2.
Abramowitz, A. I.
(1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82, 385-404.
3.
Abramowitz, A. I.
, & Segal, J. A. (1992). Senate elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Bernstein, R. A.
(1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races, 1956-1972. American Political Science Review, 71, 540-545.
5.
Clem, A. L.
(1966). Popular representation and senate vacancies. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10, 52-77.
6.
David, P. T.
(1972). Party strength in the United States, 1872-1970. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
7.
Gaddie, R. K.
, Bullock, C. S. III, & Buchanan, S. E. (1999). What is so special about special elections?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 103-112.
8.
Hibbing, J. R.
, & Brandes, S. L. (1983). State population & the electoral success of U.S. Senators. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 808-819.
9.
Hinckley, B.
(1980). House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 441-460.
10.
Kohn, W.S.G.
(1974). Filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate: An undemocratic relic. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 294-297.
11.
Krasno, J. S.
(1994). Challengers, competition, and reelection: Comparing Senate and House elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Matthews, D. R.
(1960). U.S. Senators and their world. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
13.
Miller, A. H.
(1990). Public judgments of Senate and House candidates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15, 525-542.
14.
Morris, W. D.
, & Marz, R. H. (1981). Treadmill to oblivion: The fate of appointed senators. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 11, 65-80.
15.
Shaffer, S. D.
, & Chressanthis, G. A. (1991). Accountability & U.S. Senate elections: A multivariate analysis. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 625-639.
16.
Squire, P.
(1989). Challengers in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 531-547.
17.
Squire, P.
(1992). Challenger quality and voting behavior in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 247-263.
18.
Stanley, H. W.
, & Niemi, R. G. (1998). Vital statistics on American politics, 1997-1998. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
19.
Stewart, C. III.
(1989). A sequential model of U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 567-601.
20.
Whitby, K. J.
, & Bledsoe, T. (1986). The impact of policy voting on the electoral fortunes of Senate incumbents. Western Political Quarterly, 39, 690-700.
21.
Wright, G. C.
, & Berkman, M. B. (1986). Candidates and policy in United States Senate elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 567-588.
