Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T00:27:32.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Presidential Campaigning on Midterm U.S. Senate Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jeffrey E. Cohen ,
Michael A. Krassa  and
John A. Hamman
Jeffrey E. Cohen
Affiliation:
University of Illinois Urbana
Michael A. Krassa
Affiliation:
University of Illinois Urbana
John A. Hamman
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The conventional wisdom about presidential campaigning in midterm Senate elections is that presidential efforts lack impact or have negative impact. We discuss conceptual problems with the conventional view and offer an alternative that views presidential campaigning as strategic. We test this alternative and find support for it. Further, we find that presidential campaign efforts have a positive impact on the vote through the mobilization of nonvoters. Finally, in a significant number of cases, presidential campaigning may have been the margin of victory for candidates of the president's party. We discuss the implications of these findings on assessments of the president and relations with Congress during the second half of the term.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 165 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 1985. “Economic Conditions, Presidential Popularity, and Voting Behavior in Midterm Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47:31–43.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan, Cover, Albert, and Norpoth, Helmut. 1986. “The President's Party in Midterm Elections: Going from Bad to Worse.” American Journal of Political Science 30:562–76.Google Scholar
Broder, David. 1986. “Reagan on the Campaign Trail: Right in Every Way.” New Orleans Times-Picayune, 5 November.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1984. “Presidents As Midterm Campaigners.” In Presidents and Their Parties, ed. Harmel, Robert. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1960. “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change.” Public Opinion Quarterly 24:397–418.Google Scholar
Campbell, James. 1985. “Explaining Presidential Losses in Midterm Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47:1140–57.Google Scholar
Campbell, James. 1987. “The Revised Theory of Surge and Decline.” American Journal of Political Science 31:965–79.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1966. “Reaction to Election.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 11 November.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1970. “Extensive Nixon-Agnew Campaigns Have Mixed Results.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 6 November.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1974. “Ford's Election Impact.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9 November.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1978. “Another Stubborn Democratic Congress.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 4 November.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1982. “Personalities, Local Issues.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 6 November.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert. 1985. “Surge and Decline in Congressional Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 38:606–19.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert. 1986. “Presidential Evaluations and Voting for Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 30:786–801.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Losses.” Journal of Politics 50:1011–29.Google Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1981. Congressional Elections. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Hunter, Marjorie. 1974. “Ford's Impact Is Called Minimal.” New York Times, 7 November.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72:469–91.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, and Kernell, Samuel. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President's Party.” American Political Science Review 71:44–66.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald. 1970. “The Effects of Precinct Level Canvassing on Voter'Behavior.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34:560–72.Google Scholar
Krassa, Michael. 1988. “Context and the Canvass: The Mechanisms of Interaction.” Political Behavior 10:233–46.Google Scholar
Light, Paul. 1982. The President's Agenda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Piereson, James. 1975. “Presidential Popularity and Midterm Voting at Different Electoral Levels.” American Journal of Political Science 19:683–94.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, Lyn. 1980. “The Fiction of Congressional Elections As Presidential Events.” American Politics Quarterly 8:375–98.Google Scholar
Roberts, Steven V. 1970. “Four Moderate Democrats in the Mountain States Survive Republican Efforts To Replace Them in the Senate.” New York Times, 5 November.Google Scholar
Stanley, Harold W., and Niemi, Richard G.. 1988. Vital Statistics on American Politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1975. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69:812–26.Google Scholar
Weaver, Warren. 1966. “GOP Finds ′68 Outlook Brighter.” New York Times, 10 November.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.