Congressional Elections 2
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Jacobson
- increased spending helps the challenger more than the incumbent; inc. spending by incumbent lowers prob. of reelection
- Green and Krasno
- marginal effect of incumbent spending equal the challenger; Jacobson omitted challenger quality, reciprocal causation, and diminishing marginal returns
- Abramowitz et al.
- decline in marginal districts result of demographic change and ideological realignment, not redistricting
- Steen
- spending money not enough- have to know how and when to spend it; potential vs. actual self-financing; benefits of fundraising besides money
- Campbell
- presidential surge and midterm decline
- Lublin
- Senate similar to House, decreased importance of name recognition
- Gerber
- Estimating Senate elections through instrumental variables: challenger wealth, state population, lagged spending
- Rothenberg and Sanders
- members behave differently when there is no electoral connection; increased shirking of retiring members
- Bianco et al.
- evidence of electoral connection in 1800s: Compensation Act 1816
- Carson and Engstrom
- evidence of electoral connection in 1800s: Corrupt Bargain election of 1824 (JQA vs. Jackson) and midterms in 1826