Post on 27-Aug-2020
Congressional Candidates
17.251/252 Fall 2016
1
The Hierarchical Structure of Running for Office
2
1982-1990 1992-2000
2002-2010 2012-2020 Moulton
Clark
Lynch
Kennedy
Tson
gas
Keating 3Data via US Department of the Interior. These images are in the public domain.
8th District 1998 Geography
Watertown
Belmont
Cambridge
Somerville
Boston
Chelsea
4
8th District 1998 Candidates
• Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) • Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) • George Bachrach (former state sen. & almost-Rep.) (12,166) • John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) • Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio personality) (10,358) • Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) • Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) • Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) • Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150) • Alex Rodriguez (1,799)
5
8th District 1998 Schematic of support
Bachrach
Tracy
O’Connor? Claprood? Gabrieli? Rodriguez?
Alex Rodriguez (1,799)
Watertown
Belmont
Cambridge
Somerville
Boston
Chelsea
Capuano
Flynn
Yancy Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) George Bachrach (former state sen.) (12,166) John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio
personality) (10,358) Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150)
6
8th District 1998 E
xpr1
Expr2 -71.2037 -71.0043
42.2618
42.4106
B
B
B
B B
B
B
B B
B
B
B B B
B
B
B
B
BB
BBB
B
B
B
B B
B
B B
B B
B B
B
B
B
B
A A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A A
A
L
LL L LL
L LL L
L
L
L
L LL L
L
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
FF
F F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
KKK
O
O
O O O
O
O
O OO
O
O
O
O
R R
T
T T
YY
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
YY
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
YY
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y
District Support
Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) George Bachrach (former state sen.) (12,166) John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio
personality) (10,358) Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150) Alex Rodriguez (1,799)
7
CAMBRIDGE
SOMERVILLE
MEDFORD
EVERETT
8
Capuano Support
9
Strategic Choice and Political Careers
E(a ) PU C i i i i
E(a j ) PjU j C j
10
Some important considerations
• Variations in variable values – across time – cross-sectionally
• Factors that affect the calculus of progressive ambition
E(a ) PU Ci i i i 11
Factors that Affect the CalculuI of Progressive Ambition UL vs. UH PL vs. PH CL vs. CH
-Scope of legislative authority -Political and policy resources within the institution -Pay and perquisites -Springboard effects
-National forces -Party identification in the districts -Redistricting -Scandal
-Opportunities foregone -Number and quality of challengers -Fund-raising efficiency -Efficiency of translating money and volunteer time into votes
12
Pay and Perquisites of state legislatures (some examples)
State Stipend Travel allowance Alabama $10/day (C) $4,308/month plus $50/day for three days during each week that
the legislature actually meets during any session (U).
California $90,526/year $141.86 per day for each day they are in session Georgia $17,341/yr $173/day (U) set by the Legislative Services Committee. Massachusetts $60,032.6 /year From $10/day-$100/day, depending on distance from State House
(V) set by the legislature. New Hampshire $200/two-year term No per diem is paid. Rhode Island $14,947.34/yr No per diem is paid. West Virginia $20,000/yr $131/day during session (U) set by compensation commission
U = Unvouchered V – Vouchered C = Calendar Day
Source: National Conference on State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/2014-ncsl-legislator-salary-and-per-diem-table.aspx
13
Quote removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Mehta, Seema. "L.A. County Board of Supervisors: 5 jobs politicians especially covet." Los Angeles Times. September 6, 2013.
14
Variation in state legislative capacities
Category of Legislature
Time on the
Job Compensation Total Staff/ legislature
Green (Used to be
Red)
82% $81,079 1,340
Gray (Used to be
White)
70% $43,429 479
Gold (Used to be
Blue)
54% $19,197 169
© National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://
ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/
Source: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx
15
Mid
term
cha
nge
National tides 40%
30%
20%
10%
%
House
Senate-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
Election year
16
The National Tide in 2006, 2010, 2014
• Retiring from the Senate– 1994: 0R, 3D (+8R)– 1998: 1R, 3D (0)– 2002: 4R, 1D (+2R)– 2006: 6R, 0D (+6D)– 2010: 5R, 3D (+6D)– 2014: 2R, 5D (+9R)
• Retiring from the House– 1994: 0R, 34D (+52R)– 1998: 10R, 12D (+5D)– 2002: 12R, 6D (+8R)– 2006: 21R, 0D (+30D)– 2010: 8R, 11D (+63R)– 2014: 14R, 10D (+13R)
17
Why the midterm loss?
• Surge and decline effect • Strategic voters • Strategic politicians
18
Surge and decline effect*
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
Good Dem. Midterm Good Rep. Midterm Pres’l Year Pres’l Year
*Similar to Erikson & Wright’s “withdrawn coattails” effect 19
Strategic voters*† (not to scale)
Ticket-splitters
Pres’l D R election year Dd Dr Rd Rr
DMidterm w/ Dem. pres. Dd Dr *Policy = w(President’s ideal point) + (1-w)(Congress’s ideal point) †Similar to Erikson and Wright’s “ideological balancing,” but more precise.
20
Strategic voters (not to scale)
Pres’l D R election year Dd Dr Rd Rr
DMidterm w/ Dem. pres. Dd Dr
21
Strategic Candidates House Senate
1954
1962
1970 1978
1982
1986 1990
-10
0 10
20
30
P
ct. l
oss
in p
resi
dent
's p
arty
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1
-10
0 10
20
30
P
ct. l
oss
in p
resi
dent
's p
arty
2014
1958 2010 1974 1958
1994
1966 2014 1994 1986
1954
1966
1970
1974
1978
1990 1998
20062010 2006
1998 2002 1982 1962 2002
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1
R2=.28R2 = .38
22
Strategic Candidates House Senate
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986 1990
1994
1998 2002
2006
2010
-10
0 10
20
30
P
ct. l
oss
in p
resi
dent
's p
arty
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1
-10
0 10
20
30
P
ct. l
oss
in p
resi
dent
's p
arty
2014
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1
R2=.28R2 = .38
1958
1954
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1990 1998
2002
20062010
1994 2014 1986
23
Incumbents, challengers, and open seat candidates
• Incumbents – Incumbency advantage
• Challengers – Challenger quality
• Open seat candidates – The free-for-all
24
.2
.4
.6
.8
1 D
em p
ct. 2
010
.2 .4 .6 .8 1 Dem pct., 2008
A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010
Dem. pct., 2008 = 56.0% Dem. pct., 2010 = 48.5% Diff = -7.5%
25
A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010--incumbents
.2
.4
.6
.8
1 D
em p
ct. 2
010
Dem. pct., 2008 = 56.6% Dem. pct., 2010 = 49.0% Diff = -7.6%
.2 .4 .6 .8 1 Dem pct., 2008
26
A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010---Dem. open
.2
.4
.6
.8
1 D
em p
ct. 2
010
Dem. pct., 2008 = 68.5% Dem. pct., 2010 = 53.1% Diff = -15.4%
.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 Dem pct., 2008
27
A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010—Rep. open
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6D
em p
ct. 2
010
Dem. pct., 2008 = 37.4% Dem. pct., 2010 = 36.8% Diff = 0.6%
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Dem pct., 2008
28
Dem
. pct
. 201
0 -D
em. p
ct. 2
008
-.3
-.2
-.1
0 .1
.2
2010 summary (compared to 2008)
+0.6%
-7.6%
--15.4%
Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10
ddempct mean_ddempct
29
Dem
. pct
. 201
0 -D
em. p
ct. 2
008
-.3
-.2
-.1
0 .1
.2
2010 summary (compared to 2008)
+7.6%
--7.8%
Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10
ddempct mean_ddempct
30
Dem
. pct
. 201
0 -D
em. p
ct. 2
008
-.3
-.2
-.1
0 .1
.2
2010 summary (compared to 2008)
Inc adv. =(7.6+7.8)/2 = 7.7
+7.6%
--7.8%
Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10
ddempct mean_ddempct
31
Incumbency Advantage: Primaries
Figure 2 from Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder. "Theincumbency advantage in US primary elections." Electoral Studies 26, no. 3 (2007): 660-668.
Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.32
Incumbency advantage
• Why does it exist? – Audience participation
33
Incumbency advantage
• Why does it exist? – Franking, etc. – Constituency service – Redistricting – Smarter candidates – Spending advantage
34
Incumbent-protection gerrymandering
• Frank Wolf (Figure 4.1 in Analyzing Congress)
35
Geography of Northern Virginia
36
© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
2001-2010 districts
37
© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
2011-2020 districts
38
© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
2011-2020 districts
39
© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
2011-2020 districts
40
© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
Effect of 2011 Redistricting
District Republican before
Republican after
Difference
10 (Wolf) 46% 50% +4% 7 (Cantor) 53% 56% +3%
41
But…
© The New York Times. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
42
The Incumbency Spending Advantage
(Update of Fig. 4.2) Figure 4.2: Average Campaign Fund Raising in House
Races, 1974-2014 (2014 dollars) 2000000
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
Spen
ding
Incumbents Open seats Challengers
Year
43
(Challenger) Candidate Quality: 2010
Table 4.4 Dem. Challenger against
Rep. Incumbent Rep. Challenger against Dem.
Incumbent No prior
office Held prior
office No prior
office Held prior
office Challenger won 0% 13% 12% 56% Total challengers 111 23 179 52
44
Candidate Positioning Add-on
45
Ca
ndida
te's
Posit
ion
1
.75
.5
.25
0
.25 .5 .75
DDDD D
R
D
D
RR
D
R
DDD
R R
D
R
R
R
DD
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D D
R
D D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D D
R
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
DD
D
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
DD
R
R
D
R
D
D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
RR
D
D
R
R
R
D
R
D
DR
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
D D
R
R
D
R
D
D
RD
R
D
RR
D
D
D
R
DD
R
R
D
R
D
D
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
D
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
RR
D
R
D
R R
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
RR
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
RR
R
D
R
R
D
R
D D
R
R
D
D
R
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R R
R
D
R
D
RR
D
R
R
D
R
DD
R
R
D D
R
D
R
R
D D
R R
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
R
D
D R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
RR
D
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
R
DD
D R
D
R
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
RR
D
D
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
DD
R
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
RR
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
R
D
R D
D
R
D
D
R
R
R
D
R
D D
R
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
RR
D
R
R
D D
R
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R R
D
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D D
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R D
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R R
R
D
D
R R
D
D
R
D
R
R
DD
R
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
RR
R
R
D
D
RR
D
R
DD
R
D D
R R
D
D
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
RR
D
R
D
R
D
RR
D
D
R
R
D
D
D
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
RR
R
D
R
District Conservatism
46
Can
dida
te c
onse
rvat
ism
R
D
District conservatism
47
Can
dida
te c
onse
rvat
ism
R
D
District conservatism
48
Effect of candidates leaving, 2012
Leaving
RetiringHigher office
Def. in primary
0 .0
5 .1
.1
5 .2
.2
5
-1 -.5 0 .5 1 score
49
Effect of candidates leaving, 2014
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
Leaving Def. in gen.
Retiring
Higher office
-1 -.5 0 .5 1 dw1
50
Effect of candidates leaving, 2016
.2
0
.05
.1
.15
Leaving
Retiring Higher office
-1 -.5 0 .5 1 1st dim. dw-nominate
51
MIT OpenCourseWarehttps://ocw.mit.edu
17.251 Congress and the American Political System IFall 2016
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: https://ocw.mit.edu/terms.