Political Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 97–111 | Cite as

Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Emergence in Senate Elections

  • Greg D. Adams
  • Peverill Squire

Abstract

We examine challenger emergence in Senate elections by looking at the 1992 campaign in depth. We develop unproved measures of incumbent: vulnerability using data from the 1988 and 1990 NES Senate Election Studies. These measures are used to test the hypothesis that higher-quality challengers are more likely to challenge vulnerable incumbents. We find generally weak relationships between our incumbent vulnerability measures and challenger quality. Instead, challenger quality scores increase with the size of the pool of potential high-quality challengers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review 82: 385-403.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, Jon R., Covington, Cary, and Fleisher, Richard (1985). Explaining challenger quality in congressional elections. Journal of Politics 47: 510-529.Google Scholar
  3. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1982). The United States Senate. Washington DC: AEI.Google Scholar
  4. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1992). When Incumbency Fails: The Senate Career of Mark Andrews. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fowler, Linda L., and McClure, Robert D. (1989). Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hinckley, Barbara (1980). House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science 10: 441-460.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobson, Gary C. (1990). The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in U.S. House Elections, 1946–1988. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel (1981). Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobson, Gary C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E. (1989). Information and voting in California Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 509-529.Google Scholar
  10. Kazee, Thomas A., ed. (1994). Who Runs for Congress?: Ambition, Context, and Candidate Emergence. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  11. Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald Philip (1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections. Journal of Politics 50: 920-936.Google Scholar
  12. Lublin, David Ian (1994). Quality, not quantity: Strategic politicians in U.S. Senate elections, 1952–1990. Journal of Politics 56: 228-241.Google Scholar
  13. Squire, Peverill (1989). Challengers in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 531-547.Google Scholar
  14. Squire, Peverill (1991). Preemptive fundraising and challenger profile in Senate elections. Journal of Politics 53: 1150-1164.Google Scholar
  15. Squire, Peverill (1992a). Challenger quality and voting behavior in Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 247-263.Google Scholar
  16. Squire, Peverill (1992b). Challenger profile and gubernatorial elections. Western Political Quarterly 45: 125-142.Google Scholar
  17. Squire, Peverill, and Fastnow, Christina (1994). Comparing gubernatorial and senatorial elections. Political Research Quarterly 47: 705-720.Google Scholar
  18. Squire, Peverill, and Smith, Eric R. A. N. (1996). A further examination of challenger quality in Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21: 235-248.Google Scholar
  19. Stewart, Charles, III (1989). A sequential model of U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 567-601.Google Scholar
  20. Wright, Gerald C., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P. (1985). Measuring state partisanship and ideology with survey data. Journal of Politics 47: 469-489.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg D. Adams
  • Peverill Squire
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Political ScienceIowa City

Personalised recommendations