STRATEGIC CALCULATIONS AND QUALITY CHALLENGERS IN UNITED STATES HOUSE ELECTIONS, 1986–1990

In the following analysis, we consider the decision of quality challengers to enter (or to not enter) into a campaign against a sitting incumbent. In addition to updating the literature on challenger quality, the analysis adds to the existing literature in the following ways: (1) it provides a more thorough examination of the determinants of challenger quality; (2) it pays special attention to the manner in which these factors influence the decision making of strategic politicians; and (3) it employs more than a single measure of challenger quality. We find that while the presence of a quality challenger appears to be determined primarily by the results of the previous election, the pool of quality candidates, national partisan tides, and the amount of money in the incumbent's campaign war chest also factor into the decision of a quality challenger to enter the electoral arena.

[1]  P. Squire Challenger Quality and Voting Behavior in U. S. Senate Elections , 1992 .

[2]  P. Squire Preemptive Fund-raising and Challenger Profile in Senate Elections , 1991, The Journal of Politics.

[3]  A. Abramowitz Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections , 1991, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  P. Squire Challengers in U. S. Senate Elections , 1989 .

[5]  Jeffrey S. Banks,et al.  Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections , 1989 .

[6]  G. Jacobson,et al.  Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86 , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[7]  P. Squire Competition and Uncontested Seats in U. S. House Elections , 1989 .

[8]  Donald P. Green,et al.  Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections , 1988 .

[9]  D. Green,et al.  Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections , 1988, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  A. Abramowitz Explaining Senate Election Outcomes , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[11]  T. Bledsoe,et al.  The Impact of Policy Voting on the Electoral Fortunes of Senate Incumbents , 1986 .

[12]  Gary King How Not to Lie with Statistics: Avoiding Common Mistakes in Quantitative Political Science , 1986 .

[13]  J. R. Bond,et al.  Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections , 1985, The Journal of Politics.

[14]  W. Bianco Strategic Decisions on Candidacy In U.S. Congressional Districts , 1984 .

[15]  J. R. Alford,et al.  The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who is Held Responsible? , 1981 .

[16]  S. Welch,et al.  The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982-1990 , 1980, The Journal of Politics.

[17]  Robert Weissberg Assessing Legislator-Constituency Policy Agreement , 1979 .

[18]  Richard F. Fenno,et al.  Representative-Constituency Linkages: A Review Article@@@Home Style: House Members in Their Districts@@@Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies@@@Congressmen's Voting Decisions , 1979 .

[19]  G. Black A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives , 1972, American Political Science Review.