The Importance of Candidate Characteristics and Local Political Conditions in the 1994 US Mid-Term Elections
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00166 |
| Author | John E. Owens |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Importance of Candidate Characteristics
and Local Political Conditions in the 1994
US Mid-Term Elections
JOHN E. OWENS*
University of Westminster
An electoral earthquake hit the American political landscape in 1994. For the
®rst time since 1954, the Republican Party won control of the House of Repr-
esentatives ending the longest uninterrupted period of single party rule in the
entire history of Congress. Not for 40 years then had Republicans controlled
both houses of Congress; and only for the third time in the 94 years since the
beginning of the century had Republicans won both houses of Congress with a
Democrat in the White House. Republicans gained 52 seats from Democrats in
the House, including those of 34 incumbents. Democratic losses in the House
were the heaviest for either party in any mid-term election since President Harry
Truman's Democratic Party lost 55 seats in the 1946 elections. For the ®rst time
since 1952, the Democrats' percentage of the vote fell below 50%. Among the
Democratic casualties were House Speaker Tom Foley (D.WA) ± the ®rst
speaker to lose his seat since 1862 ± former Ways and Means Committee chair
Dan Rostenkowski (D.IL), and Judiciary Committee chair Jack Brooks
(D.TX). Not a single one of the 157 Republican incumbents seeking re-election
lost ± a feat not achieved by any party since 1948. Two-thirds of the open
seats previously held by Democrats fell to Republicans ± an accomplishment
unprecedented since 1790.1
Before the mid-term elections of 1994, a consensus had evolved in the scholarly
literature that elections to the United States House of Representatives were not
only referendums on the president's popularity2 and/or the state of the economy3
* I am grateful to Kirstie Godwin of the US Elections Project at the University of Westminster
for research assistance and to the School of Social and Policy Sciences for ®nancial support.
1 Walter Dean Burnham, `Realignment Lives: The 1994 Earthquake and Its Implications' in
Colin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman (eds), The Clinton Presidency: First Appraisals (Chatham
NJ, Chatham House, 1995), p. 369.
2 Angus Campbell, `Surge and decline: a study of electoral change', Public Opinion Quarterly, 24
(1960), 397±418; Samuel Kernell, `Presidential popularity and negative voting', American Political
Science Review, 71 (1977), 44±66; and James E. Campbell, The Presidential Pulse of Congressional
Elections (Lexington KY, University of Kentucky Press, 1993); and Edward R. Tufte, Political
Control of the Economy (Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1978).
3 Francisco Arcelus and Allan Meltzer, `The eect of aggregate economic variables on congres-
sional elections', American Political Science Review, 69 (1975), 1232±39; Howard S. Bloom and
H. Douglas Price, `Voter response to short-term economic conditions: the asymmetric eect of
prosperity and recession', American Political Science Review, 71 (1977), 1240±54; Tufte, Political
Control of the Economy; Gary C. Jacobson and Samuel Kernell, Strategy and Choice in
Congressional Elections (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1983); Michael
# Political Studies Association 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Research Note
767
but also candidate-centred contests in¯uenced by local factors and conditions ±
including the strategic calculations of incumbents and other candidates.4 In 1994,
Republicans took control of the House for the ®rst time since 1954. Most inter-
pretations have explained the elections as a national event: national political con-
ditions ± partisan dealignment;5 the increasing conservatism of the American
electorate;6 voters' scepticism towards big (and expensive) government, liberalism
and the Democratic Party; widespread support for Republican positions on taxes
and crime;7 and Bill Clinton's low popularity.8 All favoured the Republicans.
Local factors ± once thought crucial in House elections ± were played down.
The purpose of this research note is not to challenge the importance of
national conditions in 1994 but to demonstrate through a district-level analysis
that ± as in other recent House elections ± local factors played a prominent role
both in producing and qualifying the Republicans' victories in the House.
Data and Measures
In November 1994, Republicans won control of the House by doing well in two
particular types of districts: those where vulnerable Democratic incumbents ran,
and open districts where no incumbent was running. In the event, Republican
challengers defeated 34 incumbent Democrats and won 38 of the 52 open seats.
Even in this election, incumbency continued to play a crucial role9 in those
districts where an existing House member sought re-election: while 34 incumbent
Lewis-Beck and Tom W. Rice, `Forecasting US House elections', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9
(1984), 475±86; and Robert S. Erikson, `The puzzle of midterm loss', Journal of Politics, 50 (1988),
1011±29.
4 Richard F. Fenno, Home Style. House Members in their Districts (Boston, Little Brown, 1978);
Jacobson and Kernell, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections; Gary C. Jacobson, The
Electoral Origins of Divided Government in US House Elections, 1946±1988 (Boulder CO, Westview
1990); Gary C. Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections, 3rd ed. (New York, Harper-
Collins, 1992); and Thomas A. Kazee (ed.), Who Runs For Congress? Ambition, Context, and
Candidate Emergence (Washington DC, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1994); Jonathan Bernstein,
Adrienne Jamieson, and Christine Trost (eds), Campaigning for Congress, Politicians At Home and
in Washington (Berkeley CA, Institute of Governmental Studies, 1995).
5 Everett Carll Ladd, `The 1994 congressional elections: the postindustrial realignment
continues', Political Science Quarterly, 110 (1995), 10±11; Everett Carll Ladd, `1994 Vote: Against
the Backdrop of Continuing Realignment' in Everett Carll Ladd (ed.), America At the Polls 1994.
Occasional Papers and Monographs Series No. 2 (Stone CT, Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research, 1995), pp. 20, 39 and 41; and Dean Burnham, `Realignment Lives', p. 363.
6 Alan Abramowitz and Suzie Ishkawa, `Explaining the Republican Takeover of the House of
Representatives: Evidence From the 1992±94 NES Panel Survey'. A paper presented to the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 31±September 3,
1995.
7 Ladd, `The 1994 Congressional Elections', pp. 10±11; Ladd, `1994 Vote', pp. 20, 39 and 41; and
David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Douglas Rivers, `How the Republicans captured the House',
Essays in Public Policy, No. 57 (Standford CA, The Hoover Institution, 1995).
8 Brady, Cogan and Rivers, `How the Republicans captured the House'. But see the important
quali®cations oered in Melissa P. Collie, Tracy Renner Karp, and Tse-min Lin, `Presidential
Eects and Negative Voting in the 1994 Congressional Elections'. A paper presented to the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 31±September 3,
1995.
9 Jacobson, The Electoral Origins of...
To continue reading
Request your trial