Congressional Candidates

17.251/252 Fall 2016

1

The Hierarchical Structure of Running for Office

2

1982-1990 1992-2000

2002-2010 2012-2020 Moulton

Clark

Lynch

Kennedy

Tson

gas

Keating 3Data via US Department of the Interior. These images are in the public domain.

8th District 1998 Geography

Watertown

Belmont

Cambridge

Somerville

Boston

Chelsea

4

8th District 1998 Candidates

• Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) • Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) • George Bachrach (former state sen. & almost-Rep.) (12,166) • John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) • Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio personality) (10,358) • Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) • Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) • Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) • Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150) • Alex Rodriguez (1,799)

5

8th District 1998 Schematic of support

Bachrach

Tracy

O’Connor? Claprood? Gabrieli? Rodriguez?

Alex Rodriguez (1,799)

Watertown

Belmont

Cambridge

Somerville

Boston

Chelsea

Capuano

Flynn

Yancy Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) George Bachrach (former state sen.) (12,166) John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio

personality) (10,358) Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150)

6

8th District 1998 E

xpr1

Expr2 -71.2037 -71.0043

42.2618

42.4106

B

B

B

B B

B

B

B B

B

B

B B B

B

B

B

B

BB

BBB

B

B

B

B B

B

B B

B B

B B

B

B

B

B

A A

A

A

A

A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AA

AA

A

A

A

A

A

A A

A

A A

A

L

LL L LL

L LL L

L

L

L

L LL L

L

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

FF

F F

F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

KKK

O

O

O O O

O

O

O OO

O

O

O

O

R R

T

T T

YY

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

YY

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

YY

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

District Support

Mike Capuano (Somerville mayor) (19,439) Ray Flynn (former Boston Mayor) (14,829) George Bachrach (former state sen.) (12,166) John O’Connor (rich husband) (11,035) Marjorie Claprood (former state rep & radio

personality) (10,358) Chris Gabrieli (rich guy) (5,732) Chris Yancy (Boston city council) (4,460) Susan Tracy (former state. Sen.) (2,855) Tom Keane (Boston city council) (2,150) Alex Rodriguez (1,799)

7

CAMBRIDGE

SOMERVILLE

MEDFORD

EVERETT

8

Capuano Support

9

Strategic Choice and Political Careers

E(a ) PU C i i i i

E(a j ) PjU j C j

10

Some important considerations

• Variations in variable values – across time – cross-sectionally

• Factors that affect the calculus of progressive ambition

E(a ) PU Ci i i i 11

Factors that Affect the CalculuI of Progressive Ambition UL vs. UH PL vs. PH CL vs. CH

-Scope of legislative authority -Political and policy resources within the institution -Pay and perquisites -Springboard effects

-National forces -Party identification in the districts -Redistricting -Scandal

-Opportunities foregone -Number and quality of challengers -Fund-raising efficiency -Efficiency of translating money and volunteer time into votes

12

Pay and Perquisites of state legislatures (some examples)

State Stipend Travel allowance Alabama $10/day (C) $4,308/month plus $50/day for three days during each week that

the legislature actually meets during any session (U).

California $90,526/year $141.86 per day for each day they are in session Georgia $17,341/yr $173/day (U) set by the Legislative Services Committee. Massachusetts $60,032.6 /year From $10/day-$100/day, depending on distance from State House

(V) set by the legislature. New Hampshire $200/two-year term No per diem is paid. Rhode Island $14,947.34/yr No per diem is paid. West Virginia $20,000/yr $131/day during session (U) set by compensation commission

U = Unvouchered V – Vouchered C = Calendar Day

Source: National Conference on State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/2014-ncsl-legislator-salary-and-per-diem-table.aspx

13

Quote removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Mehta, Seema. "L.A. County Board of Supervisors: 5 jobs politicians especially covet." Los Angeles Times. September 6, 2013.

14

Variation in state legislative capacities

Category of Legislature

Time on the

Job Compensation Total Staff/ legislature

Green (Used to be

Red)

82% $81,079 1,340

Gray (Used to be

White)

70% $43,429 479

Gold (Used to be

Blue)

54% $19,197 169

© National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://

ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/

Source: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx

15

Mid

term

cha

nge

National tides 40%

30%

20%

10%

%

House

Senate-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

Election year

16

The National Tide in 2006, 2010, 2014

• Retiring from the Senate– 1994: 0R, 3D (+8R)– 1998: 1R, 3D (0)– 2002: 4R, 1D (+2R)– 2006: 6R, 0D (+6D)– 2010: 5R, 3D (+6D)– 2014: 2R, 5D (+9R)

• Retiring from the House– 1994: 0R, 34D (+52R)– 1998: 10R, 12D (+5D)– 2002: 12R, 6D (+8R)– 2006: 21R, 0D (+30D)– 2010: 8R, 11D (+63R)– 2014: 14R, 10D (+13R)

17

Why the midterm loss?

• Surge and decline effect • Strategic voters • Strategic politicians

18

Surge and decline effect*

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

Good Dem. Midterm Good Rep. Midterm Pres’l Year Pres’l Year

*Similar to Erikson & Wright’s “withdrawn coattails” effect 19

Strategic voters*† (not to scale)

Ticket-splitters

Pres’l D R election year Dd Dr Rd Rr

DMidterm w/ Dem. pres. Dd Dr *Policy = w(President’s ideal point) + (1-w)(Congress’s ideal point) †Similar to Erikson and Wright’s “ideological balancing,” but more precise.

20

Strategic voters (not to scale)

Pres’l D R election year Dd Dr Rd Rr

DMidterm w/ Dem. pres. Dd Dr

21

Strategic Candidates House Senate

1954

1962

1970 1978

1982

1986 1990

-10

0 10

20

30

P

ct. l

oss

in p

resi

dent

's p

arty

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1

-10

0 10

20

30

P

ct. l

oss

in p

resi

dent

's p

arty

2014

1958 2010 1974 1958

1994

1966 2014 1994 1986

1954

1966

1970

1974

1978

1990 1998

20062010 2006

1998 2002 1982 1962 2002

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1

R2=.28R2 = .38

22

Strategic Candidates House Senate

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986 1990

1994

1998 2002

2006

2010

-10

0 10

20

30

P

ct. l

oss

in p

resi

dent

's p

arty

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1

-10

0 10

20

30

P

ct. l

oss

in p

resi

dent

's p

arty

2014

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pct. change in real disposable income, Q4 to Q1

R2=.28R2 = .38

1958

1954

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1990 1998

2002

20062010

1994 2014 1986

23

Incumbents, challengers, and open seat candidates

• Incumbents – Incumbency advantage

• Challengers – Challenger quality

• Open seat candidates – The free-for-all

24

.2

.4

.6

.8

1 D

em p

ct. 2

010

.2 .4 .6 .8 1 Dem pct., 2008

A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010

Dem. pct., 2008 = 56.0% Dem. pct., 2010 = 48.5% Diff = -7.5%

25

A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010--incumbents

.2

.4

.6

.8

1 D

em p

ct. 2

010

Dem. pct., 2008 = 56.6% Dem. pct., 2010 = 49.0% Diff = -7.6%

.2 .4 .6 .8 1 Dem pct., 2008

26

A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010---Dem. open

.2

.4

.6

.8

1 D

em p

ct. 2

010

Dem. pct., 2008 = 68.5% Dem. pct., 2010 = 53.1% Diff = -15.4%

.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 Dem pct., 2008

27

A simple look at incumbent advantage in 2010—Rep. open

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6D

em p

ct. 2

010

Dem. pct., 2008 = 37.4% Dem. pct., 2010 = 36.8% Diff = 0.6%

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Dem pct., 2008

28

Dem

. pct

. 201

0 -D

em. p

ct. 2

008

-.3

-.2

-.1

0 .1

.2

2010 summary (compared to 2008)

+0.6%

-7.6%

--15.4%

Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10

ddempct mean_ddempct

29

Dem

. pct

. 201

0 -D

em. p

ct. 2

008

-.3

-.2

-.1

0 .1

.2

2010 summary (compared to 2008)

+7.6%

--7.8%

Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10

ddempct mean_ddempct

30

Dem

. pct

. 201

0 -D

em. p

ct. 2

008

-.3

-.2

-.1

0 .1

.2

2010 summary (compared to 2008)

Inc adv. =(7.6+7.8)/2 = 7.7

+7.6%

--7.8%

Open, Rep. Incumbent Open, Dem. open10

ddempct mean_ddempct

31

Incumbency Advantage: Primaries

Figure 2 from Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder. "Theincumbency advantage in US primary elections." Electoral Studies 26, no. 3 (2007): 660-668.

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.32

Incumbency advantage

• Why does it exist? – Audience participation

33

Incumbency advantage

• Why does it exist? – Franking, etc. – Constituency service – Redistricting – Smarter candidates – Spending advantage

34

Incumbent-protection gerrymandering

• Frank Wolf (Figure 4.1 in Analyzing Congress)

35

Geography of Northern Virginia

36

© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

2001-2010 districts

37

© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

2011-2020 districts

38

© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

2011-2020 districts

39

© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

2011-2020 districts

40

© Source Unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

Effect of 2011 Redistricting

District Republican before

Republican after

Difference

10 (Wolf) 46% 50% +4% 7 (Cantor) 53% 56% +3%

41

But…

© The New York Times. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our CreativeCommons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.

42

The Incumbency Spending Advantage

(Update of Fig. 4.2) Figure 4.2: Average Campaign Fund Raising in House

Races, 1974-2014 (2014 dollars) 2000000

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

Spen

ding

Incumbents Open seats Challengers

Year

43

(Challenger) Candidate Quality: 2010

Table 4.4 Dem. Challenger against

Rep. Incumbent Rep. Challenger against Dem.

Incumbent No prior

office Held prior

office No prior

office Held prior

office Challenger won 0% 13% 12% 56% Total challengers 111 23 179 52

44

Candidate Positioning Add-on

45

Ca

ndida

te's

Posit

ion

1

.75

.5

.25

0

.25 .5 .75

DDDD D

R

D

D

RR

D

R

DDD

R R

D

R

R

R

DD

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

D D

R

D D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D D

R

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

DD

D

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

DD

R

R

D

R

D

D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

RR

D

D

R

R

R

D

R

D

DR

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

D D

R

R

D

R

D

D

RD

R

D

RR

D

D

D

R

DD

R

R

D

R

D

D

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

D

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

RR

D

R

D

R R

D

R

D

R

R

D

D

RR

D

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

RR

R

D

R

R

D

R

D D

R

R

D

D

R

R

R

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R R

R

D

R

D

RR

D

R

R

D

R

DD

R

R

D D

R

D

R

R

D D

R R

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

R

D

D R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

RR

D

R

D

R

R

R

D

R

R

DD

D R

D

R

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R R

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

RR

D

D

R

R

D

R

R

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

DD

R

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

RR

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

R

D

R D

D

R

D

D

R

R

R

D

R

D D

R

R

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

D

RR

D

R

R

D D

R

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R R

D

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D D

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R D

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R R

R

D

D

R R

D

D

R

D

R

R

DD

R

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

R

D

RR

R

R

D

D

RR

D

R

DD

R

D D

R R

D

D

R

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

D

RR

D

R

D

R

D

RR

D

D

R

R

D

D

D

R

D

R

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

R

D

D

R

D

R

D

R

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

R

D

RR

R

D

R

District Conservatism

46

Can

dida

te c

onse

rvat

ism

R

D

District conservatism

47

Can

dida

te c

onse

rvat

ism

R

D

District conservatism

48

Effect of candidates leaving, 2012

Leaving

RetiringHigher office

Def. in primary

0 .0

5 .1

.1

5 .2

.2

5

-1 -.5 0 .5 1 score

49

Effect of candidates leaving, 2014

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

0

Leaving Def. in gen.

Retiring

Higher office

-1 -.5 0 .5 1 dw1

50

Effect of candidates leaving, 2016

.2

0

.05

.1

.15

Leaving

Retiring Higher office

-1 -.5 0 .5 1 1st dim. dw-nominate

51

MIT OpenCourseWarehttps://ocw.mit.edu

17.251 Congress and the American Political System IFall 2016

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: https://ocw.mit.edu/terms.