journal article Show
The American Political Science Review Vol. 72, No. 2 (Jun., 1978) , pp. 469-491 (23 pages) Published By: American Political Science Association https://doi.org/10.2307/1954105 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1954105 Abstract Incomplete understanding of the connection between campaign spending and election outcomes has hindered evaluation of enacted and proposed congressional campaign finance reforms. Reanalysis of the 1972 and 1974 House and Senate campaign spending data using both OLS and 2SLS regression models shows that spending by challengers has a much greater impact on the outcome than does spending by incumbents. A similar analysis of the effects of spending on voters' recall of candidates in the 1972 and 1974 SRC surveys supports the explanation that campaign expenditures buy nonincumbents the necessary voter recognition already enjoyed by incumbents prior to the campaign. The 1974 survey questions on Senate candidates indicate that, although the inability to remember candidates' names does not preclude having opinions about them, voters recalling candidates are much more likely to offer evaluative comments, and these more frequently refer to candidates personally. Aware voters offer more negative as well as positive evaluations (though positive outnumber negative); familiarity is not automatically advantageous. And voters' evaluations of candidates strongly influence how they vote. The implications of these findings for congressional campaign finance policy are readily apparent. Journal Information The American Political Science Review (APSR) is the longest running publication of the American Political Science Association (APSA). APSR, first published in November 1906 and appearing quarterly, is the preeminent political science journal in the United States and internationally. APSR features research from all fields of political science and contains an extensive book review section of the discipline. In its earlier days, APSR also covered the personal and personnel items of the profession as had its predecessor, the Proceedings of the APSA. Publisher Information Founded in 1903, the American Political Science Association is the major professional society for individuals engaged in the study of politics and government. APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors. While most APSA members are scholars who teach and conduct research in colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad, one-fourth work outside academe in government, research, organizations, consulting firms, the news media, and private enterprise. For more information about the APSA, its publications and programs, please see the APSA website. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
Adam Jeffery | CNBC The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. It's being billed as one of the most consequential midterm elections in decades, with a wave of Democrats hoping to capitalize on widespread voter dissatisfaction to oust their GOP opponents and win control of Congress. They have their work cut out for them. Thirty-five senators and all 435 House members face the prospect of losing their jobs in November. But political analysts tracking the races say that only a relatively small number of races — fewer than 50 House seats and just a handful of Senate races — are truly competitive. A look at past election cycles helps explain why. Since 1964, voters have sent their incumbent House representative back to Washington 93 percent of the time. Senators enjoy only slightly less job security — 82 percent. Academics have speculated on the multiple reasons that congressional incumbents have enjoyed an advantage over the years. Incumbents have traditionally used their positions to win favor with voters by offering a variety of constituent services or by pointing to increased funding they've captured for the home state or district. More recently, some have argued that redistricting has created politically lopsided seats that strongly favor one party over another. Moreover, as the cost of mounting a political campaign has risen, incumbency in Congress has created an important financial advantage in attracting the money needed to win. Since 1990, the cost of a winning a House seat has roughly doubled, adjusted for inflation, to about $1.5 million. If you're looking to win a seat in the Senate, expect to raise more than $10 million.  This time, Democrats are hoping to win control of the House by picking up 23 seats from the GOP. Based on the amount of campaign cash both sides have raised so far, Republicans are in a better position to defend their majority in the House than the Democrats are in taking it away. As of the end of the first quarter, 221 House Republican incumbents had raised a total of about $262 million, or nearly $1.2 million each. Democratic incumbents had raised just under $950,000 each. And Democratic challengers had raised significantly less. In the Senate, Democrats face an even tougher job trying to win control. If the Senate's two independents continue to caucus with them, Democrats only need to pick up two seats to win a 51-49 majority. But of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in November, Democrats are defending 26 of them from GOP challengers. And five of the eight seats that are considered "toss-ups" by one or more of the political pundits rating the races are currently held by Democrats. That may be why Democrats in those races have been busy fundraising. So far, they've collected nearly $289 million, or about $11.6 million each, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. That's far more than the roughly $6.1 million raised, on average, by GOP incumbents. But Democratic challengers have also raised far less than the $10 million it has traditionally taken to win. More than 100 Democrats have entered races for open seats or to challenge an incumbent in Senate races. As a group, they've raised about $105 million, or a little over $1 million each. Based on past races, that's not even enough to win the average House seat. CNBC NEWSLETTERSGet the best of CNBC in your inbox Please choose a subscription Make ItA daily email for dreamers, seekers and game changers. Breaking NewsCNBC's latest news headlines Morning SquawkDaily before the bell news roundup
Evening BriefDaily recap of the day's top headlines Guest AlertsGuest information & reminders for your calendar Your WealthWeekly advice on managing your money Options ActionInsight from the Options Action panel Your Money Your VoteEverything you need to know about the coming election Please enter a valid email address Get these newsletters delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and service. Privacy Policy. ▲ What are 2 reasons why incumbents have an advantage in an election?For most political offices, the incumbent often has more name recognition due to their previous work in the office. Incumbents also have easier access to campaign finance, as well as government resources (such as the franking privilege) that can be indirectly used to boost the incumbent's re-election campaign.
What is one reason why incumbents have the advantage in elections quizlet?The incumbent often has more name recognition because of their previous work in the office they occupy. Incumbents have easier access to campaign finance and government resources that can be indirectly used to boost a campaign. In general, incumbents have structural advantages over challengers during elections.
What is an incumbency advantage what are the reasons for these advantages quizlet?The incumbency advantage is the advantage that the incumbent (individual currently holding office) candidate has over the challenger candidate.
How does fundraising help incumbents quizlet?In what two ways does fundraising help incumbents? It ensures that they will have enough money to run an aggressive campaign if they are challenged. Also, it deters opposition by intimidating challengers with a big war chest.
|
What is one reason that incumbents have a fundraising advantage over challengers?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 toptenid.com Inc.
