Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections

Abstract

We examine the relationship between the valence qualities of candidates and the ideological positions they take in U.S. House elections based on a study of the 2006 midterm elections. Our design enables us to distinguish between campaign and character dimensions of candidate valence and to place candidates and districts on the same ideological scale. Incumbents with a personal-character advantage are closer ideologically to their district preferences, while disadvantaged challengers take more extreme policy positions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, challengers can reap electoral rewards by taking more extreme positions relative to their districts. We explore a possible mechanism for this extremism effect by demonstrating that challengers closer to the extreme received greater financial contributions, which enhanced their chances of victory. Our results bear on theories of representation that include policy and valence, although the interactions between these two dimensions may be complex and counterintuitive.

Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates

“…It has been applied only very recently to research questions in political science (Hainmueller and Hopkins 2012;Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto 2014 Adams et al 2011;Enelow and Hinich 1982;Fiorina 1981;Groseclose 2001;Londregan and Romer 1993;Stone and Simas 2010). These factors are not particularly meaningful or useful in pairwise comparisons between generically labelled candidates.…”

The Good, the Bad and the Winner: Buenos políticos y éxito electoral en América Latina

“…Los trabajos publicados hasta el momento muestran que las características personales de los candidatos importan no solo por la valoración que los ciudadanos pueden hacer de ellas, sino porque influyen en el apoyo a los partidos (Abney et al, 2013), la decisión del voto (Kulisheck y Mondak, 1996;Prysby, 2008;Welch y Hibbing, 1997) tiene implicaciones en las posibilidades de reelección (Abramowitz, 1991;Finan y Ferraz, 2005;Stone et al 2004), en la selección de candidatos (Galasso y Nannicini, 2011), en los resultados de elecciones primarias (Mondak, 1995;Welch y Hibbing, 1997), en la campaña electoral (Hayes, 2005;Funk, 1997Funk, y 1999 o en las posiciones ideológicas de los partidos (Stone y Simas, 2010). A pesar de estos hallazgos, el tema ha sido relegado a un segundo plano en la literatura, pero los investigadores subrayan que la evaluación de estas cualidades no debe ser juzgada como una actividad superflua 1 , sino que debe ser entendida como 1 Por ejemplo, en el modelo espacial de Downs se considera el voto no ideológico como un voto irracional.…”

“…Para abordar esta cuestión se han utilizado los datos de opinión de los diputados latinoamericanos procedentes del Proyecto Elites Parlamentarias Latinoamericanas (Stone y Simas, 2010). Un buen número de trabajos ha usado el concepto de valencia como equivalente a competencia (Clark, 2009y Groseclose, 2001) o calidad (Galasso y Nannicini, 2011).…”

Donation Motivations

“…However, CEOs are certainly not representative of the typical donor, and their contributions amount to a small proportion of total individual contributions (Bonica 2013a). Among studies that investigate the giving of all individual donors, several studies find that more extreme candidates tend to raise more money from individual contributors (Ensley 2009;Johnson 2010Johnson , 2013Stone and Simas 2010). McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (2006) find that individuals target their donations rather than spreading them across the ideological spectrum.…”