Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 427–449 | Cite as

Nothing to Hide, Nowhere to Run, or Nothing to Lose: Candidate Position-Taking in Congressional Elections

  • Kerri Milita
  • John Barry RyanEmail author
  • Elizabeth N. Simas
Original Paper


If candidates do not state clear issue positions, then voters cannot anticipate how the candidates will govern if elected nor hold candidates accountable for breaking campaign pledges. Yet, previous research argues electoral incentives lead candidates to avoid discussing the key issues of the day. Even though silence on issues is the modal campaign strategy, this paper argues that candidates systematically make clear issue statements on occasion. We identify three variables that predict whether a candidate will address an issue and the clarity of the candidate’s stance on that issue: (i) the public salience of an issue; (ii) ideological congruence between candidate and district; and (iii) candidate quality. This argument is tested using data on candidate position-taking regarding the Iraq War and gay marriage collected from the campaign websites of U.S. House candidates in 2006 and 2008.


Congressional campaigns Issue positions Candidate strategy 



The authors wish to thank M. Scott Meachum, Aaron Embrey, Scott Liebertz, and Andrew Smith for their research assistance. We thank James Druckman, Gary Jacobson, and Walter J. Stone for making available some of the data used in this paper. We would also like to thank Bill Berry, Brad Gomez, David Peterson, and the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2011 meeting of the American Political Science Association in Seattle.

Supplementary material

11109_2013_9235_MOESM1_ESM.docx (104 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 104 kb)


  1. Adams, J., Merrill, S., I. I. I., Simas, E. N., & Stone, W. J. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates ‘waltz before a blind audience?’. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., & Cukierman, A. (1990). The Politics of Ambiguity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(4), 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere, S. (2006). CCES common content: 2006. Accessed 1 Mar 2011.
  6. Ansolabehere, S. (2008). CCES common content: 2008. Accessed 1 Mar 2011.
  7. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr., & Stewart, C., I. I. I. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arceneaux, K., & Kolodny, R. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arnold, R. D. (2004). Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burden, B. C. (2004). Candidate position in U.S. congressional elections. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. (1983a). Ambiguity in the issue positions of presidential candidates: A casual analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. (1983b). The electoral consequences of issue ambiguity. Political Behavior, 5, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caughey, D., & Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Elections and the regression-discontinuity design: Lessons from close U.S. house races, 1942–2008. Political Analysis, 19, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chappell, H., Jr. (1994). Campaign advertising and political ambiguity. Public Choice, 79, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. senate election. Political Psychology, 25(4), 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman, J., Kifer, M., & Parkin, M. (2007). The technological development of congressional candidate web sites: How and why candidates use web innovations. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Druckman, J., Kifer, M., & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Druckman, J., Kifer, M., & Parkin, M. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign web sites 2002–2006. Political Communication, 27(1), 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erikson, R., & Romero, D. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1103–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grose, C. R., & Oppenheimer, B. I. (2007). The Iraq war, partisanship, and candidate attributes: Variation in partisan swing in the 2006 U.S. house election. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 531–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haider-Markel, D. (2001). Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict: Same-sex marriage bans in the 1990s. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? a hierarchical model. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iyengar, S., & Valentino, N. (2000). Who says what? source credibility as a mediator of campaign advertising. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jacobson, G. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. house elections, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobson, G. C. (2009). The president, the war, and voting behavior in the 2006 house elections. In J. J. Mondak & D.-G. Mitchell (Eds.), Fault lines: Why the republicans lost congress. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J., Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, N., Park, D., & Ridout, T. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? an examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kriner, D. L., & Shen, F. X. (2007). Iraq casualties and the 2006 senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A. S., Piston, S., & Von Hagen-Jamar, A. (2010). Why state constitutions differ in their treatment of same-sex marriage. Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1222–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meirowitz, A. (2005). Informational party primaries and strategic ambiguity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Page, B. (1976). The theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 70(3), 742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrocik, J., Benoit, W., & Hansen, G. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pietryka, M. (2012). The roles of district and national opinion in 2010 congressional campaign agendas. American Politics Research, 40(5), 805–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ringquist, E., & Dasse, C. (2004). Lies, damned lies, and campaign promises? environmental legislation in the 105th congress. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 400–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saunders, K. L., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32(3), 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shepsle, K. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review, 66(2), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snyder, J., & Ting, M. (2003). Roll calls, party labels, and elections. Political Analysis, 11(4), 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stokes, D. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stone, W. J., & Simas, E. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positioning in house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sulkin, T. (2005). Issue politics in congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sulkin, T. (2009). Campaign appeals and legislative action. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1093–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sulkin, T., Moriarty, C. M., & Hefner, V. (2007). Congressional candidates’ issue agendas on- and off-line. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(2), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sulkin, T., & Swigger, N. (2008). Is there truth in advertising? campaign ad images as signals about legislative behavior. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tavits, M. (2007). Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. (2009a). Candidate inconsistency and voter choice. Stanford University Typescript.Google Scholar
  53. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. (2009b). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerri Milita
    • 1
  • John Barry Ryan
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elizabeth N. Simas
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations