A House and Senate divided: The Clinton legacy and the congressional elections of 2000

Political Science Quarterly

Volumn 116, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 5-27

  Jacobson, Gary C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041404153     PISSN: 00323195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2657818     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. "Final Vote Tally Shows 105 Million Voted," Los Angeles Times, 19 December 2000.
2. The two remaining members are independents who split on which party they routinely support.
3. The data on presidential approval are from CBS News/New York Times and Gallup polls; the data on congressional approval are from CBS News/New York Times, Gallup, NBC/Washington Post, ABC/ Wall Street Journal, CNN/Time, and Los Angeles Times polls, all at http://www.pollingreport.com.
4. The congressional approval question was not asked during the second quarter of 1994, so I interpolated the data point for that quarter.
5. nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), chap. 3.
6. Three other incumbents, two Democrats and a Republican, lost primary elections.
7. Gary C. Jacobson, "Congress: Elections and Stalemate" in Michael Nelson, The Election of 2000 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001), forthcoming.
8. Gary C. Jacobson, "Public Opinion and the Impeachment of Bill Clinton," British Elections and Parties Review 10 (2000), forthcoming.
9. Bob Benenson, "Proudly Worn Party Label Missing in Key Contests," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 22 September 2000, 2182-2185.
10. Andrew Taylor, "Sound Like a Moderate, Vote Like a Conservative," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 5 August 2000, 1930-1934; Mike Christensen, "Congress' Cornucopia: A Sampler of Spending Add-Ons," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 7 October 2000, 2322-2323.
11. Andrew Taylor, "Sound Like a Moderate, Vote Like a Conservative," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 5 August 2000, 1930-1934; Mike Christensen, "Congress' Cornucopia: A Sampler of Spending Add-Ons," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 7 October 2000, 2322-2323.
12. This procedure is, of course, premised on my argument that the parties enjoy rough parity in the electorate; but any reasonable procedure for making these comparisons across time would show a comparable pattern.
13. Gary C. Jacobson, "The 1994 House Elections in Perspective," Political Science Quarterly 111 (Summer 1996): 203-223.
14. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, "Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate," Journal of Politics 60 (August 1998): 639-642.
15. But only on average; reelection rates of senators vary widely from year to year, ranging in post-World War II elections from a high of 97 percent in 1990 to a low of 55 percent in 1980.
16. Mark C. Westlye, Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 25.
17. In at least one instance, a presidential campaign gave decisive help to a Senate candidate: the huge effort to get out the union and minority vote that swung Michigan into the Gore column was essential to Debbie Stabenow's victory over Spencer Abraham. See "Michigan," New York Times, 9 November 2000.
18. The South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; the Plains include Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; the Mountain West includes Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
19. The Northeast includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; the Midwest includes Illinois. Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, and West Virginia; the West Coast includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. I have placed Alaska in the Mountain West because it has far more in common - geographically, culturally, and politically - with the Mountain states than with the West Coast states.
20. Figures 4 and 5 show how much the share of votes cast for Republican House candidates deviated from 50 percent for each category of respondents.
21. Gary C. Jacobson, "The Elections of 2000 and Beyond," A Supplement to Gary C. Jacobson and Samuel Kernell, The Logic of American Politics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 23-25.
22. In the House, 98 percent of the Republicans had voted for at least one of the four articles of impeachment, and 98 percent of the Democrats had voted against every one of them. In the Senate, 91 percent of the Republicans voted to convict Clinton on at least one article, while not a single Democrat voted for conviction on any article.
23. Andrew Taylor, "First Test of Promised Comity is Late Lame-Duck Session," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 18 November 2000, 2723.
24. Polls that report responses broken down by party identification rather than presidential preference replicate the results reported in Table 3. For example, a Gallup Poll taken 15-17 December found 85 percent of Republicans saying that Bush won "fair and square," while 49 percent of Democrats thought he had won on a technicality, and 37 percent said he stole the election. See http://www.gallup. com/poll/release/pr001220.asp. [28 December 2000.]
25. Jacobson, "Public Opinion and Impeachment."
26. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
27. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
28. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
29. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
30. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
31. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chap. 7; David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chaps. 3 and 5; Barbara Sinclair, "Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s" in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 137-140; Gary C. Jacobson, "Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection" in Bond and Fleisher, Polarized Politics, 9-15; Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1997), chaps. 2 and 3; Richard Fleisher and Jon R. Bond, "The President in a More Partisan Arena," Political Research Quarterly 49 (December 1996): 729-48.
32. For an explanation of the methodology for computing these scores and justification for their interpretation as measure of liberal-conservative ideology, see Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), chaps. 3 and 10; DW-Nominate Scores are updated versions of their D-Nominate measure.
33. Gary C. Jacobson, "The Electoral Basis of Partisan Polarization in Congress" (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 31 August-3 September 2000), 1-2.
34. McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal, Income Distribution and Realignment, 16.
35. Jacobson, "Electoral Basis of Partisan Polarization," 6-7.
36. Ibid., 7-9.
37. Conservative political columnist George Will, for example, ended his wrap-up on the Clinton administration with this sentiment: "Clinton is not the worse president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president"; see "Clinton's Mark," Washington Post, 11 January 2001.
38. The same trend appears in both the House and Senate.
39. George C. Edwards III, "George Bush and the Public Presidency: The Politics of Inclusion" in Colin Campbell, S.J. and Bert A. Rockman, The Bush Presidency: First Appraisals (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1991), 136-138.
40. Minority voters are primarily Democrats; packing them into minority-majority districts thus makes neighboring districts more Republican. See Gary C. Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001), 10.
41. Gary C. Jacobson, "Reversal of Fortune: The Transformation of U.S. House Elections in the 1990s" in David Brady, John Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina, Continuity and Change in Congressional Elections (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 11-12.
42. Arizona, Texas, Florida, and Georgia gain two seats each; California, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina gain one each; New York and Pennsylvania lose two each; Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin lose one each.
43. Karen Foerstel, "Gephardt's Charge," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 4 November 2000, 2578.