Despite this early focus on national factors, the study of congressional elections is
today concerned largely with district-level phenomena. This dramatic change in focus
began in the early 1970s, when Erikson (1972), Mayhew (1974), and Tufte (1975) first
noted a marked increase in the average incumbent’s margin of victory and a
corresponding decline in the number of seats with close outcomes. A range of studies
emerged to explain this growing incumbency advantage (Ferejohn 1977, Fiorina 1977,
Hinckley 1980, Johannes and McAdams 1981, Mann and Wolfinger 1980, Parker 1981,
Ragsdale 1981), and together this research reoriented the study of congressional elections
toward district-level campaigns as the most important phenomena to be explained. The
study of campaign finance and campaign spending has become a significant subfield in
its own right (Box-Steffensmeier et al. 1996, Green and Krasno 1988, Herrnson and
Wilcox 1994, Jacobson 1978, 1990, Krasno et al. 1994, Sorauf 1992, Webster et al. 2001,
Wilcox and Biersack 1990), while other research has focused on explaining a candidate’s
decision to run for office (Canon 1990, 1993, Jacobson 1989, Krasno and Green 1988,
Maestas et al. 2000). Even the early conclusion that House elections have become more
national in character has been reevaluated to show the opposite result: a growth in the
importance of district-level forces over time (Kawato 1987).
Mann (1978) aptly summarized this new view of congressional elections:
“Virtually all studies of congressional elections heretofore have concentrated on
the behavior of individual voters in a national sample or on aggregate change in
the national vote for Congress. This study, adopting the perspective of the
candidates themselves, focuses instead on the district. From this angle, it soon
becomes obvious that party and national tides are woefully inadequate for
explaining the voters’ choices in congressional elections.” (101)
The reorientation toward district campaigns probably reached its zenith with
Jacobson and Kernell’s (1983) “strategic politicians hypothesis.” This hypothesis
suggested that apparently national dynamics themselves could be understood as the
manifestation of individual candidate decisions. According to the hypothesis, the party
that appears to be favored by national conditions recruits better candidates and raises
more money on average. The well-funded, high-quality challengers of this party in turn
run better campaigns and receive more votes for this reason alone. When summed to the
nation as a whole, the edge in individual districts produces a national vote shift toward
McGhee
3
Convention