![]() He argues this is not surprising because Trump himself told supporters to “Pretend I’m on the ballot” (12). As for 2018, Jacobson (2019) argues that the presidential approval and economic model predicts the outcome well. Campbell ( 1991) claims the effects are conditional, and finds merit in a combination of theories. Contextual theories focus on presidential popularity to explain the magnitude of the effect and the health of the economy (Tufte 1975). With Democrats as the out-party in 2018, a significant pickup of seats fits this theory (Erikson 2017). Erikson ( 2017) argues that the out-party has a better midterm showing in years when it does not control the presidency than in years when it does control the presidency, as voters move government back toward the median (Erikson 1988). Today, with declining presidential coattails, others suggest the idea of a presidential penalty, where voters penalize the party in power, which results in congressional seats lost (Erikson 1988). ![]() One of the structural explanations for this was “surge and decline” where turnout drops in midterm elections and results in less support for the president’s party because of reduced coattail effects (Campbell 1966). Political scientists have long puzzled over explaining the midterm loss, and developed a range of theoretical expectations. There have also been some more recent exceptions as in 19, where losses did not occur (Streb and Howard 2017). ![]() Some are small losses others, as in 1994, more momentous. Most are familiar with the idea of midterm loss, where the president’s party loses seats in Congress during off-year elections. At the same time, the president’s visits to states are also driven by self-interest, heading to states with more electoral votes (Sellers and Denton 2006). Combined with the nationalization of congressional elections, this means that the president can focus efforts on the small number of competitive races, in districts where the president is popular, to assist with partisan electoral goals (Herrnson and Morris 2007 Mellen and Searles 2013). At the same time, presidential campaigning can impact Senate electoral outcomes (Cohen, Krassa, and Hamman 1991 Hoddie and Routh 2004). When it comes to the campaign, presidential approval can drive presidents to be more or less absent from the campaign trail. In contrast, midterm elections, although missing presidential candidates from the ballot, demonstrate today how closely elections for Congress are linked to the president. Gary Jacobson (2019) notes that this trend was exacerbated in 2018 by the election being a referendum on the Trump administration. However, we are now in an era where midterm elections are “nationalized, partisan, and president centered” (Jacobson 2019, 9). Midterm elections are those where the presidential candidates are not on the ballot, and therefore they are traditionally considered as having a different electoral environment, with less media coverage and potentially different challengers than in presidential years (Campbell 1966 Cann 2014 Jacobson 1985). Whereas midterm elections are quite different in many ways from their more popular presidential election cousins, they are still overshadowed by the president in many ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |