Early Money and Strategic Candidate Exit

This paper combines the Australian Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) micro-level data with its longitudinal continuation, the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth data, to measure the association between individual PISA scores and early school dropouts. We use multilevel modelling to distinguish between student and school factors when estimating school dropout propensity for 15–18-year olds. We model attrition and deal with the possibility that PISA scores are endogenous in the dropout decision. We find that PISA scores predict well early dropout, especially so for bottom achievers, and that individual and social disadvantage plays a crucial role in this relationship, both directly and indirectly.

Past experience in elective office has always been the best predictor of congressional candidate success in elections. These “quality” candidates come into elections with experience fundraising, name recognition, and general knowledge about how to run a successful campaign. Yet, recent congressional elections have seen an increase in the electoral success of inexperienced candidates. As past experience in office may no longer be valued as it once was, how are these experienced candidates marketing themselves to voters? Are they still leaning into their past experience in elected office or are they more likely to emphasize other occupations and experiences? We expect candidates brand themselves, emphasizing different experiences, based on the type of election they are in and who they are running against. In order to test these expectations, this paper examines all available biography pages of experienced candidates who ran in congressional primaries in 2022. We find clear partisan differences in what candidates past occupational backgrounds they highlight. We find mixed evidence that decisions about what occupations to emphasize vary based on electoral dynamics.

From the 1980s to the mid‐2010s, nearly three‐quarters of members newly elected to the US House of Representatives had previous elected experience; however, only half of the freshmen elected from 2016 to 2020 held prior office. In this article, we investigate emergence‐ and success‐driven explanations for the declining proportion of experienced officeholders entering Congress. In our analyses, we find that the advantages traditionally afforded to experienced candidates are waning. First, we show that inexperienced candidates’ emergence patterns have changed; amateurs are increasingly apt to emerge in the same kinds of contests as their experienced counterparts. We then show that experienced candidates have lost their fundraising edge and that—for certain kinds of candidates—the value of elected experience itself has declined. Lastly, we identify other candidate characteristics as strong predictors for success in modern elections. We demonstrate that these electorally advantageous identities overwhelmingly belong to candidates who lack elected experience.

Incumbent ideology, district ideology, and candidate entry in U.S. congressional elections, 1954–2008

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesRedistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962-72Charles S. BullockCharles S. Bullock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 37, Number 2May, 1975 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160004130X Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 21Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Matthew P. Dube, Jesse T. Clark, Richard J. Powell Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps, Journal of Computational Social Science 5, no.11 (Jul 2021): 449–475.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00131-xShingirirai Savious Mutanga Technology transformation and changing demographic patterns: Perspectives for Africa’s future elections, International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 12, no.11 (Aug 2017): 107–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2017.1333284Richard Powell, Jesse T. Clark, Matthew P. Dube Assessing the Causes of District Homogeneity in U.S. House Elections, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032604Mary E Adkins The Same River Twice: A Brief History of How the 1968 Florida Constitution Came to Be and What it Has Become, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2016).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2959628 The Study of Presidential–House Elections, (Dec 2012): 21–31.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139333733.004THEODORE S. ARRINGTON Affirmative Districting and Four Decades of Redistricting: The Seats/Votes Relationship 1972-2008, Politics & Policy 38, no.22 (Apr 2010): 223–253.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00236.xSeth C. McKee Redistricting and Familiarity With U.S. House Candidates, American Politics Research 36, no.66 (May 2008): 962–979.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08322881Jamie L. Carson, Erik J. Engstrom, Jason M. Roberts Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth-Century U.S. House Elections, American Journal of Political Science 50, no.22 (Apr 2006): 283–293.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00184.xMichael H. Crespin Using Geographic Information Systems to Measure District Change, 2000–2002, Political Analysis 13, no.33 (Jan 2017): 253–260.https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi016Robert G. Boatright Static Ambition in a Changing World: Legislators' Preparations for, and Responses to, Redistricting, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4, no.44 (Aug 2016): 436–454.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400405Marc J. Hetherington, Bruce Larson, and Suzanne Globetti The Redistricting Cycle and Strategic Candidate Decisions in U.S. House Races, The Journal of Politics 65, no.44 (Jul 2015): 1221–1234.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00134 Donald Ostdiek Congressional Redistricting and District Typologies, The Journal of Politics 57, no.22 (Oct 2015): 533–543.https://doi.org/10.2307/2960322Andrew Gelman, Gary King Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting, American Political Science Review 88, no.33 (Sep 2013): 541–559.https://doi.org/10.2307/2944794 John C. McAdams , and John R. Johannes Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections, The Journal of Politics 50, no.22 (Oct 2015): 412–439.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131801Harvey L. Schantz Inter-Party Competition for Congressional Seats: the 1960s and 1970s, Western Political Quarterly 40, no.22 (Sep 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000214Bruce E. Cain Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting, American Political Science Review 79, no.22 (Jun 1985): 320–333.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956652Charles S. Bullock The Inexact Science of Congressional Redistricting, PS: Political Science & Politics 15, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 431–438.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500060480J O'Loughlin District Size and Party Electoral Strength: A Comparison of Sixteen Democracies, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 12, no.33 (Jul 2016): 247–262.https://doi.org/10.1068/a120247Richard Born Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House, American Political Science Review 73, no.33 (Aug 2014): 811–817.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955406Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400259376Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesRedistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962-72Charles S. BullockCharles S. Bullock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 37, Number 2May, 1975 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160004130X Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 22Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:H. Benjamin Ashton, Michael H. Crespin, Seth C. McKee Dueling Incumbent House Elections, 1843-2018, American Politics Research 50, no.66 (Aug 2022): 735–742.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221116618Matthew P. Dube, Jesse T. Clark, Richard J. Powell Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps, Journal of Computational Social Science 5, no.11 (Jul 2021): 449–475.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00131-xShingirirai Savious Mutanga Technology transformation and changing demographic patterns: Perspectives for Africa’s future elections, International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 12, no.11 (Aug 2017): 107–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2017.1333284Richard Powell, Jesse T. Clark, Matthew P. Dube Assessing the Causes of District Homogeneity in U.S. House Elections, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032604Mary E Adkins The Same River Twice: A Brief History of How the 1968 Florida Constitution Came to Be and What it Has Become, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2016).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2959628 The Study of Presidential–House Elections, (Dec 2012): 21–31.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139333733.004THEODORE S. ARRINGTON Affirmative Districting and Four Decades of Redistricting: The Seats/Votes Relationship 1972-2008, Politics & Policy 38, no.22 (Apr 2010): 223–253.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00236.xSeth C. McKee Redistricting and Familiarity With U.S. House Candidates, American Politics Research 36, no.66 (May 2008): 962–979.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08322881Jamie L. Carson, Erik J. Engstrom, Jason M. Roberts Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth-Century U.S. House Elections, American Journal of Political Science 50, no.22 (Apr 2006): 283–293.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00184.xMichael H. Crespin Using Geographic Information Systems to Measure District Change, 2000–2002, Political Analysis 13, no.33 (Jan 2017): 253–260.https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi016Robert G. Boatright Static Ambition in a Changing World: Legislators' Preparations for, and Responses to, Redistricting, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4, no.44 (Aug 2016): 436–454.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400405Marc J. Hetherington, Bruce Larson, and Suzanne Globetti The Redistricting Cycle and Strategic Candidate Decisions in U.S. House Races, The Journal of Politics 65, no.44 (Jul 2015): 1221–1234.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00134 Donald Ostdiek Congressional Redistricting and District Typologies, The Journal of Politics 57, no.22 (Oct 2015): 533–543.https://doi.org/10.2307/2960322Andrew Gelman, Gary King Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting, American Political Science Review 88, no.33 (Sep 2013): 541–559.https://doi.org/10.2307/2944794 John C. McAdams , and John R. Johannes Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections, The Journal of Politics 50, no.22 (Oct 2015): 412–439.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131801Harvey L. Schantz Inter-Party Competition for Congressional Seats: the 1960s and 1970s, Western Political Quarterly 40, no.22 (Sep 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000214Bruce E. Cain Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting, American Political Science Review 79, no.22 (Jun 1985): 320–333.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956652Charles S. Bullock The Inexact Science of Congressional Redistricting, PS: Political Science & Politics 15, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 431–438.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500060480J O'Loughlin District Size and Party Electoral Strength: A Comparison of Sixteen Democracies, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 12, no.33 (Jul 2016): 247–262.https://doi.org/10.1068/a120247Richard Born Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House, American Political Science Review 73, no.33 (Aug 2014): 811–817.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955406Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400259376Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961

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.

A long-standing assumption among congressional election scholars is that traditional forms of party financial assistance to candidates - that is, coordinated expenditures and direct contributions - have little or no influence on the electoral performance of those candidates. Yet that assumption has never been tested directly. This paper attempts to determine whether or not candidates benefit from the financial support of their parties. It establishes a baseline for future studies of party financial activity by examining data from the 1990 and 1992 congressional election cycles. The results provide qualified evidence that party support can increase a candidate's share of the vote. Specifically, those candidates who face systematic electoral hurdles are likely to benefit from traditional forms of party assistance.

Theories involving coattails, surge and decline, presidential popularity, and the economy ascribe little importance to presidential efforts to influence congressional elections. Since such efforts do occur, we ask: What happens when a president campaigns for fellow partisans? We examined President George W. Bush's decisions to campaign for certain House candidates in 2002, and we assessed the effect of his visits on Republicans' electoral successes. Both the competitiveness of a race and the president's electoral self‐interest increased the likelihood of a visit on behalf of a candidate. Neither party loyalty nor presidential support in Congress had an effect. We conclude that presidential campaign visits significantly enhance candidates' electoral prospects.

Do issues matter? This article extends recent research on issue voting and campaign agenda-setting to voting decisions in congressional elections. We use a unique data set that includes information from a survey of candidates and campaign aides who competed in the 1998 House elections and a survey of individuals who voted in them. The study assesses the impact of campaign-specific variables on citizens’ voting decisions, while controlling for relevant attitudinal and demographic factors. We find that when a candidate and voter agree on what is the most important issue in the election, the voter is more likely to vote for that candidate if that candidate’s party “owns” the issue. The effects of shared issue priorities are especially strong for independent voters.

This paper tests Jacobson and Kernell's strategic decision-making theory by examining individual candidacy decisions in four congressional elections. The partisan balance in a district appears to be an important variable for predicting what type of challenger runs in either an open-seat or an incumbent election. The candidacy decisions of experienced challengers in incumbent elections appear to be influenced by changes in economic conditions, as predicted by the strategic decision-making theory. However, economic conditions do not appear to influence candidacy decisions in open-seat elections. This difference is probably a result of the differing prospects for challenger success in incumbent and open-seat elections. Jacobson and Kernell (1981) propose that the candidacy decisions of challengers are an important link between changes in economic conditions and the electoral fortunes of the party in power (the president's party). Their theory rests on various assumptions about the behavior of quality (i.e., politically experienced, office-holding) challengers in congressional elections. This essay examines these assumptions and subjects them to an empirical test. In Jacobson and Kernell's strategic decision-making model, congressional challengers believe voters hold candidates from the party in power responsible for changes in the state of the nation since the last election. Candidates assume that these evaluations influence the way people vote: if conditions have improved since the last election, voters are more likely to vote for candidates from the party in power; if conditions have gotten worse, then more people will vote for candidates from the party out of power. A challenger is more likely to run for Congress when conditions favor his party, because he thinks his chances of winning the election are higher than they would otherwise be. Conversely, if a party faces an unfavorable political climate and expects strong electoral opposition, candidates from the party will tend to be politically inexperienced, run underfinanced campaigns, and receive fewer votes. The overall effect of individual strategic decisions is to increase the aggregate vote for the party that is advantaged by changes in national conditions and to decrease the vote for the disadvantaged party. A president

This book is an extended argument about how people form political preferences. It seeks to show how news and political arguments diffuse through large populations, how individuals evaluate this information in light of their political values and other predispositions, and how they convert their reactions into attitude reports on mass surveys and vote decisions in elections. The argument of the book applies to a very wide range of problems in mass political behavior – among them, racial and political tolerance, support for American involvement in overseas wars, voting in presidential and congressional elections and in presidential primaries, presidential popularity, trust in government, and judgments about the economy. The dynamic element in the argument – the moving part, so to speak – is coverage of public affairs information in the mass media. This coverage may consist of ostensibly objective news reports, partisan argumentation, televised news conferences, or even paid advertisements, as in election campaigns. What matters for the formation of mass opinion is the relative balance and overall amount of media attention to contending political positions. Although the book deals with the formation of political preferences in numerous cases, it maintains a high level of generality. The aim is to integrate as much as possible of the dynamics of public opinion within a cohesive theoretical system.

Student-teachers’ dropout is a complicated and serious issue in the learning process, with its attendant negative implications on students, academic institutions, economic resources, and society. This study investigated the composite and relative impact of personal (student), academic and socioeconomic predictive variables on student-teacher dropout. The study improves the early identification of at-risk student-teachers by developing a model that optimizes predictability. We used questionnaires and adopted a four-step logistic regression procedure on a sample of 1723 student-teachers in public teachers training colleges (TTCs) of a least-developed country (LDC). The study confirmed twin academic performance and aspirations factors as the highest predictors of student-teacher attrition. Academic reasons for choosing TTC were significant, as vocational motivation and goals established by student-teachers early in their education help prevent dropout. Contrary to expectations, student-teachers’ cultural values, parents’ level of education, and cost of financing education had no significant impact on dropout decisions. This is most likely due to the Government’s financial support for student-teachers in LDCs and the widespread belief that higher education can improve one’s social and economic status. The findings indicate that early identification and dropout prevention efforts should integrate various support services to foster a healthy learning and retention environment.

Our article investigates the role of congressional candidates during the era of party ballots in nineteenth-century congressional elections. We examine how these candidates contributed to the overall quality of the party ballot and the means by which nationalization of elections served to mitigate candidate attributes. In our analysis, we take advantage of two unique features of elections during this era. First, election timing was quite variable before 1872, as many House races were not held concurrently with presidential elections. Second, House candidates' position on the ballot varied depending on whether a presidential or gubernatorial race was also being contested at the same time. To investigate these factors, we examine House elections prior to the adoption of the Australian ballot and find strong evidence of candidate effects during this period. Our findings raise important implications about candidate influence and electoral accountability in a more party-centered era.

In the context of congressional elections research on candidate competition, two lines of inquiry have received a considerable amount of scholarly attention. The first deals with the issue of strategic candidate emergence in seeking to identify the conditions under which experienced candidates will challenge incumbents. The second focuses on the question of incumbents' career choices, particularly in terms of their decisions to seek reelection or retire. While past research has treated these questions as mutually exclusive, I argue in this article that such explanations are incomplete due to the complementary nature of the approaches. To unify these related research agendas, I develop a theoretical model of strategic interaction between congressional challengers and incumbents and test the model with House and Senate elections data from 1976 to 2000 using a strategic probit technique. The results both confirm and challenge a number of findings in the literature on candidate competition.