Roundtable: Backlash, Bailiwicks, and Beacons: Unpacking the 2025 Philippine Midterm Elections

Pornography-seeking behaviors following midterm political elections in the United States: A replication of the challenge hypothesis

Models of aggregate vote change in midterm congressional elections have largely ignored the role of short-term party evaluations. This paper argues in favor of including such evaluations in the analysis of midterm voting change. We find that short-term party evaluations link both presidential popularity and economic conditions with election results and help to account for the gap between the outcomes of first and subsequent midterm elections: since 1945 the president's party has done considerably worse in subsequent midterm elections than in first midterm elections after taking control of the White House. Analysis of survey data from the 1974, 1978, and 1982 midterm elections corroborates the influential role of short-term party evaluations.

Midterm congressional elections have been subjected to relatively little analysis. This is surprising because these elections exhibit three quite striking features which, when taken together, call for further explanation. First, every midterm House election since the Civil War, with the exception of 1934, has brought a net loss of seats to the President's party. Second, in the large majority of elections the net loss has approximated the gross loss. The in-party (i.e., the President's party) seldom has captured seats from the other party to offset its own loss. And third, although the in-party's loss has been persistent, the number of seats lost has varied widely.Attempts to incorporate midterm elections into a broader interpretive framework of American election studies usually stress one of the first two features outlined above. The fact that only the in-party loses—and that its losses are mainly in marginal districts—has led commentators such as V. O. Key Jr. and the authors of The American Voter to interpret these midterm elections as part of the stable, long-term trends in voters' party allegiance.

Race and ethnicity group identity also shape participation in politics, with non-Hispanics whites being the most likely to vote in U.S. elections over time. Can accessible elections shrink turnout inequality between non-Hispanic whites and racial/ethnic minorities (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans)? Chapter 6 empirically evaluates the impact of convenience voting laws and election administration on the change in the probably of voting in midterm and presidential elections comparing across racial subgroups. The results show that same day registration boosts turnout among non-Hispanics whites, as well as Asian Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans, in presidential and midterm elections. Early in-person voting especially advantages blacks and Hispanics in midterm elections, while absentee/mail voting is found to have similar effects for Asian Americans. Both non-Hispanic whites and racial and ethnic minorities benefit from quality state election administration.

Morris P. Fiorina once observed that a naive reading of the literature on congressional elections would lead one to conclude that if the incumbents spends less money, go home less often, abolish their district offices, fire their staffs, and cut down on constiuency services activities, they will do just as well or better electorally than they do at present.

An explanatory model for the outcomes of midterm congressional elections is developed. Midterms are a referendum on the performance of the President and his administration's management of the economy. The explanatory model of midterm congressional elections is sufficiently powerful so as to yield honest and accurate pre-election predictions of the national two-party vote in midterm elections. These predictions have usually outperformed pre-election forecasts based on survey data. The model is extended by considering the translation of votes into seats, models of the electorate as a whole and of the individual voter, and the causes of the off-year loss by the President's party.

The surprising 1994 midterm congressional election gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades and offers an opportunity to study the dynamics of a referendum on the president. District-level contextual data on Republicans’ anti-Clinton campaign themes are used to demonstrate the dynamic of creating a presidential referendum in a midterm election. Making President Clinton a focus of the campaign within the constituency decreased the probability of an individual voter casting a ballot for the Democratic congressional candidate, heightened the impact of Clinton’s popularity on individual vote choice; and decreased the aggregate vote percentages for the Democratic candidates. It is unmistakable that highlighting the president’s job performance and his policies at the district level transformed the midterm congressional election into a presidential referendum.

Horses in Midstream breaks the mold of midterm election literature by focusing on the consequences of midterm elections rather than on the causes of the anti-administration pattern of those elections. The book concludes that the midterm pattern has two primary consequences: it stymies the President and provides an opportunity for the revitalization of the opposition party and that numerical losses by the President's party is really only a small part of the equation. Consequently, midterm elections can be considered an additional check in the U.S. political system, acting as a mechanism that helps to assure rough two party balance. In examining the historical results from midterm elections dating back to 1894 and extending to the surprising result of 1994 and 1998, Busch has uncovered seven consistent ways in which the president and his party are harmed by midterm elections. These elections unfavorably alter the composition of congress, both between the parties and within the President's own party; they deprive the President of the plebiscitary power derived from his original electoral mandate; they give an intangible sense of momentum to the opposition party, leading to renewed opportunities for the opposition to put forward new leaders and to develop winning issues; they exacerbate splits within the President's own party; and they provide the opposition party with expanded party-building opportunities at the state level. Busch also places the midterm elections into four categories: preparatory midterms, which contribute to a subsequent change in party control of the Presidency; calibrating midterms in which voters slow but do not reverse extraordinary periods of Presidentially-driven change; normal midterms when midterm elections stymie the President without contributing to a White House takeover; and the rare creative exceptions when an administration escapes the midterm curse at the polls and find themselves invigorated rather than weakened. Busch's new approach to midterm elections, his well supported conclusions, and his clear, consistent style will certainly be of interest to political scientists and will translate well to the classroom.

Journal Article Referendum: The 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections Get access Gary C. Jacobson Gary C. Jacobson GARY C. JACOBSON is professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on congressional elections. His most recent book is A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Political Science Quarterly, Volume 122, Issue 1, Spring 2007, Pages 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2007.tb00589.x Published: 15 February 2013

At the height of the 2014 US midterm elections, the Pew Research Center published a report on polarization in the American public (Dimock, Doherty, Kiley, & Oates, 2014). In their report, they argued that ideological division and party antipathy between Democrats and Republicans is higher now than at any point in the past few decades. Though political science has long debated whether ideological polarization is on the rise (Abramowitz, 2010; Fiorina, Abrams, & Pope, 2011), Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes (2012) have demonstrated a rise in affective polarization, or the extent to which feeling (affect) toward candidates and political parties is separating such that people increasingly like their own party and dislike (or even hate) the opponent. A great deal of research has demonstrated the role of partisan media in fostering polarization (Feldman, Myers, Hmielowski, & Leiserowitz, 2014; Garrett et al., 2014; Levendusky, 2013; Stroud, 2010), and some have examined the effects of campaign communication on affective polarization (Iyengar et al., 2012; Warner & Greenwood, 2014; Warner & McKinney, 2013). However, as with much of political communication research, these studies have neglected midterm and down-ballot elections. This chapter offers a corrective to this by exploring the role of political communication in three hotly contested campaigns for the US Senate in the 2014 midterm elections. Residents of Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia were surveyed to assess the relationships among political communication, political interest, political confidence, and affective polarization toward the candidates for US Senate.

When does inequality demobilize? New evidence from the American states

Do citizens turnout to vote because of changes in their personal financial situation or are they influenced by the nation’s economic performance? Previous research on this question is far from united. We attempt to unify the disparate literature on the effects of pocketbook and sociotropic evaluations on voter turnout in midterm and presidential elections. Our analysis of ANES data from 1978 to 2004, based on a reference-dependent model of voter turnout, indicates that both pocketbook and sociotropic considerations affect individuals’ decision of whether to vote in midterm elections. Those who perceive that over the last year their own financial situation has improved relative to the economy are less likely to vote than those who view the economy as outperforming their own financial situation.

An intriguing phenomenon in American electoral politics is the loss of seats by the president's party in midterm congressional elections. Between 1862 and 1990, the president's party lost seats in the House of Representatives in 32 of the 33 midterm elections. In his new study, James Campbell examines explanations for these midterm losses and explores how presidential elections influence congressional elections. After reviewing the two major theories of midterm electoral change - the surge and decline theory and the theory of midterms as referenda on presidential performance - Campbell draws upon each to propose and test a new theory. He asserts that in the years of presidential elections congressmen ride presidential coattails into office, while in midterm elections such candidates are stranded. An additional factor is the strength of the presidential vote, which influences the number of seats that are won, only to be lost later. Finally, Cambell examines how the presidential pulse may affect electoral accountability, the relationship between Congress and the president, and the relative strength of Congress, the president, and political parties. He explores the implications of the presidential pulse for understanding electoral change, evaluating the American voter's competence, and assessing the importance of split-ticket voting. Including both election returns and survey data, this work offers a fresh perspective on congressional elections, voting behavior, Congress, and the presidency.

Previous research has found that the campaigns of candidates running for office provide information to voters and can increase turnout. Scholarly research has also found that states with initiatives and referendums appearing on the ballot have higher voter turnout, especially in midterm elections. However, actual initiative campaigns are rarely measured. Drawing on national survey data and state contextual factors, we use a multilevel modeling strategy to test whether Americans are more likely to vote in recent midterm and presidential elections when there is increased spending in initiative and candidate campaigns, as well as more frequent use of direct democracy. The research includes a number of methodological advancements from earlier work on turnout and direct democracy (including a control for endogeneity) by restricting the analysis to initiative states only. The analysis suggests initiative campaigns not only increase individual level turnout but also especially benefit the lower educated.

The effects of changes in per capita real GDP, real taxes and real government transfer payments on midterm congressional election outcomes during the 1946–2002 period are examined. Voters are found to take all of these, except taxes and transfers at the state and local government levels, into account in casting their ballots. However, the weights they place on each are found not to be the same. Consequently, the common practice of summarizing the economic conditions faced by voters through disposable income seems to be inappropriate. Also, omission of tax and transfer variables from the vote equation, and using vote swing rather than vote share as the dependent variable is found to result in underestimation of the coefficient of per capita GDP growth.