IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v8y2019i4p114-d220262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Incumbent Scandals on Senate Elections, 1972–2016

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Chad Long

    (Department of Political Science, Global Studies, Environmental Science and Policy, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences, St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX 78704, USA)

Abstract

In recent decades, a growing body of literature focused on the effects of scandals on congressional elections. The studies concluded that scandals decrease candidates’ vote totals, and that certain types of scandals have a more deleterious effect than others. Virtually all of these studies focus on House elections. The obvious differences between the two chambers calls into question the applicability of these findings for Senate elections. This study examines the impact that incumbent scandals had on senatorial elections from 1972 to 2016. Scandals are categorized based on the nature of the transgression in order to determine if the type of scandal made a difference. The results reveal that senators seeking reelection while confronting a scandal suffered a 4% decrease in the popular vote. Scandals involving political misdeeds, financial improprieties, and controversial statements hurt incumbents the most. Scandals also attracted challengers who spent more money against the incumbents.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Chad Long, 2019. "The Impact of Incumbent Scandals on Senate Elections, 1972–2016," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:4:p:114-:d:220262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/4/114/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/4/114/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodrigo Praino & Daniel Stockemer & Vincent G. Moscardelli, 2013. "The Lingering Effect of Scandals in Congressional Elections: Incumbents, Challengers, and Voters," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1045-1061, December.
    2. Peters, John G. & Welch, Susan, 1980. "The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 697-708, September.
    3. Beth Miller Vonnahme, 2014. "Surviving Scandal: An Exploration of the Immediate and Lasting Effects of Scandal on Candidate Evaluation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1308-1321, December.
    4. Jacobson, Gary C., 1978. "The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 469-491, June.
    5. Rundquist, Barry S. & Strom, Gerald S. & Peters, John G., 1977. "Corrupt Politicians and Their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(3), pages 954-963, September.
    6. Paul Heywood, 1997. "Political Corruption: Problems and Perspectives," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 45(3), pages 417-435, August.
    7. Kenny, Christopher & McBurnett, Michael, 1994. "An Individual-Level Multiequation Model of Expenditure Effects in Contested House Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 699-707, September.
    8. Abramowitz, Alan I., 1988. "Explaining Senate Election Outcomes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 385-403, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rienks, Harm, 2023. "Corruption, scandals and incompetence: Do voters care?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," SciencePo Working papers hal-03384143, HAL.
    2. Jeffrey Milyo, 1998. "The Electoral Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: A Natural Experiment Approach," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 9806, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    3. Jacobsson, Adam, 2002. "Political Media Contests and Confirmatory Bias," Research Papers in Economics 2002:3, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    4. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Marsh, 2008. "The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 874-890, October.
    5. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    6. Robert E. Hogan, 2008. "Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 858-873, October.
    7. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel Wilner, 2016. "Using Political Financing Reforms to Measure Campaign Spending Effects on Electoral Outcomes," CESifo Working Paper Series 6232, CESifo.
    8. Christopher Magee, 2000. "Why Do Political Action Committees Give Money to Candidates? Campaign Contributions, Policy Choices, and Election Outcomes," Macroeconomics 0004038, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    10. Yasmine Bekkouche & Julia Cage, 2019. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03393084, HAL.
    11. Matthew T. Cole & Ivan Pastine & Tuvana Pastine, 2018. "Incumbency Advantage in an Electoral Contest," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(4), pages 419-436.
    12. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Awojobi, Oladayo Nathaniel, 2016. "Electoral Verdicts: Incumbent President Defeated for Re-election in Nigeria," Noble International Journal of Social Sciences Research, Noble Academic Publsiher, vol. 1(1), pages 21-30, December.
    14. Cañete-Straub, Rumilda & Miquel-Florensa, Josepa & Straub, Stéphane & Van der Straeten, Karine, 2020. "Voting corrupt politicians out of office? Evidence from a survey experiment in Paraguay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 223-239.
    15. Yasmine Bekkouche & Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2022. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from Multiparty Systems, 1993-2017," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03389172, HAL.
    16. Hoyong Jung, 2022. "Examining the relationship between political spending and legislative activities," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 539-568, April.
    17. Levitt, Steven D, 1994. "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 777-798, August.
    18. Cagé, Julia & Bekkouche, Yasmine, 2018. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," CEPR Discussion Papers 12614, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel Wilner, 2022. "The petit effect of campaign spending on votes: using political financing reforms to measure spending impacts in multiparty elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 29-57, July.
    20. Freille, S. & Avramovich, C. & Moncarz, P. & Sofietti, P., 2019. "Inside the revolving door: campaign finance, lobbying meetings and public contracts. An investigation for Argentina," Research Department working papers 1392, CAF Development Bank Of Latinamerica.
    21. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    22. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03384143, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:4:p:114-:d:220262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.