Are all amateurs equal? Candidate quality in the 1992–1998 house elections

Politics and Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 482-501

  Roberds, Stephen C ^a   Roberts, Jason M ^b  

^a SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937385182     PISSN: 15555623     EISSN: 17471346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2002.tb00131.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ambramowitz, Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. Elections. Journal of Politics 53 (1): 34–56.
2. Ambramowitz, Alan I., and Jeffrey A. Segal 1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Ambramowitz 1986. “Determinants of the Outcomes of U.S. Senate Elections. Journal of Politics 48 (2): 433–39.
4. Banks, Jeffrey S., and D. Roderick Kiewiet 1989. “Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 63 (4): 997–1015.
5. Bond, Jon R., Cary Covington, and Richard, Fleisher. 1985. “Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 47 (2): 510–29.
6. Canon, David T. 1990. Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
7. Canon, David T. 1993. “Sacrificial Lambs or Strategic Politicians? Political Amateurs in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1119–41.
8. Carson, Jamie L. 2001. “Electoral and Partisan Forces in the Roosevelt Era: The U.S. Congressional Elections of 1938. Congress & the Presidency 28 (2): 161–83.
9. Carson, Jamie L., Jeffery A. Jenkins David W. Rohde, and Mark A. Souva 2001. “The Impact of National Tides and District-Level Effects on Electoral Outcomes: The U.S. Congressional Elections of 1862–63. American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 887–98.
10. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. (various issues).
11. Erikson, Robert S., and Thomas R. Palfrey 1998. “Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach. Journal of Politics 60 (2): 355–73.
12. Erikson 2000. “Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games. American Political Science Review 94 (3): 595–609.
13. Ezra, Marni. 1996. “The Benefits and Burdens of Congressional Primary Elections. Ph.D. dissertation, American University.
14. Ezra, Marni. 2000. Divisive Primaries, Campaign Resources, and the Outcomes Of House Elections. Paper read at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. April 27–30.
15. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary, King. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias. American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142–64.
16. Green, Donald Phillip, and Jonathan S. Krasno 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 884–907.
17. Green, Donald Phillip, and Jonathan S. Krasno 1990. “Rebuttal to Jacobson's ‘New Evidence for Old Arguments American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 363–72.
18. Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 72 (2): 769–83.
19. Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20. Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 334–62.
21. Jacobson, Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 54th edition New York: Longman.
22. Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel, Kernell. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23. Jacobson, Gary C., and Michael, Dimock. 1994. “Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 601–24.
24. Krasno, Jonathan S., and Donald Phillip Green. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections. Journal of Politics 50 (4): 920–36.
25. Mack, W.R. 1998. “Repeat Challengers: Are They the Best Challengers Around American Politics Quarterly 26 (3): 308–43.
26. Maisel, L. Sandy, Walter J. Stone, and Cherie, Maestas. 2001. “Quality Challengers to Congressional Incumbents: Can Better Candidates Be Found?” in Playing Hardball: Campaigning for the U.S. Congress edited by Paul S. Herrnson, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
27. Rohde, David W. 1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 23 (1): 1–26.
28. Schlesinger, Joseph. 1966. Ambition and Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.
29. Squire, Peverill. 1991. “Preemptive Fundraising and Challenger Profile in Senate Elections. Journal of Politics 53 (4): 1150–64.
30. Squire, Peverill. 1995. “Candidates, Money, and Voters—Assessing the State of Congressional Elections Research. Political Research Quarterly 48 (4): 891–917.
31. Stone, Walter, and L. Sandy Maisel 1998. “Candidate Emergence in U.S. House Elections. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. September 3–6.