• Corpus ID: 40249434

Midterm Wave Elections: The Effects of Candidate Quality and Ideology on Reelection *

@inproceedings{Simpson2011MidtermWE,
  title={Midterm Wave Elections: The Effects of Candidate Quality and Ideology on Reelection *},
  author={Jonathan Simpson},
  year={2011}
}

• J. Simpson
• Published 2011
• Political Science

The causes of seat change in midterm elections have been debated for decades. Some political scientists believe seat change is caused by heightened national conditions; others argue seat change is a result of conditions within districts. Political scientists agree however that candidate quality affects election outcomes. In general, the party that recruits the highest quality candidates and runs them in the most strategic districts will win the most seats. As this study reveals, when national conditions are favorable for one party, quality candidates from that party will run, while those from the other party will wait for a more opportune time. This “strategic politician theory” is particularly evident in wave elections. Large seat turnovers result in the election of quality candidates for the favored party, but because so many seats are won, non-quality candidates get elected as well. This study explains high seat turnover means for subsequent contests. There is no doubt that the 1994 and 2006 midterm elections were non-typical. The 1994 “Republican Revolution” was the first time in 40 years that Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives, with the Democrats losing a whopping 52 seats. Indeed, the 1994 midterm results were more devastating to the president’s party than any midterm since 1946 (Campbell 1997). Similarly, the 2006 midterm election was a major defeat for Republicans who lost control of both bodies of Congress after losing 31 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. Elections like 1994 and 2006 are commonly referred to as wave elections because the turnover of seats from one party to the other is significantly higher than in normal years. Political scientists disagree on the causes of wave elections. Some believe wave elections occur as a result of permanent partisan shifts in the electorate. More likely, wave elections are the result of national conditions enhanced by the decision-making process of politicians. According to Jacobson and Kernell’s “strategic politician theory,” when a party is favored by national conditions, that party will be able to recruit high-quality candidates (1981). High-quality candidates bring massive funding with them, and run highly visible campaigns that stress salient issues. In other words, candidates respond to national issues, and voters respond to candidates and campaigns. Not surprisingly, wave years result in the election of higher quality candidates for the favored party, but because there are so many new members that get elected, there are also a higher number of non-quality candidates that ride the wave to victory. Because non-quality candidates, by definition, lack political experience, they may be more likely to lose than their quality counterparts. Moreover, there is evidence that freshmen elected in wave years are ideologically more extreme than other candidates, which may make them more vulnerable to defeat in subsequent elections. Strategic politician theory suggests that the party on the upswing will recruit top quality candidates in wave election years, but did this theory hold true in 2006? More importantly, because past wave elections resulted in a higher percentage of non-quality and ideologically extreme candidates, did the election of Democrats’ non-quality candidates in 2006 plant the seeds for the Republican comeback in 2010?