All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Campaign Spending Effects in U.S. Senate Elections: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Survey
Unformatted Document Text:  Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 6th ed. New York: Longman. Jacobson, Gary C. 2005. “Measuring Campaign Spending Effects.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, ed. Henry Brady and Richard Johnston. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, forthcoming Johnston. J. 1972. Econometrics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kenny, Christopher, and Michael McBurnett. 1997. “Up Close and Personal: Campaign Contact and Candidate Spending in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50:75-96. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 347-61. Levitt, Steven. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy 102:777-798. Lodge, Milton, and Marco R. Steenbergen, with Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89:309-326. Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press. Romer, Daniel, Kate Kenski, Paul Waldman, Christopher Adaseiewicz, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2004. Capturing Campaign Dynamics: The National Annenberg Survey. New York: Oxford University Press. Stokes, Donald E., and Warren E. Miller. 1966. “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.” In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. January 5. Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/ Welch, William P. 1981. “Money and Votes: A Simultaneous Equation Model.” Public Choice 36:209-234. Westlye, Mark C. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 37

Authors: Jacobson, Gary.
first   previous   Page 37 of 37   next   last



background image
Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 6th ed. New York:
Longman.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2005. “Measuring Campaign Spending Effects.” In Capturing
Campaign Effects, ed. Henry Brady and Richard Johnston. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University of Michigan Press, forthcoming
Johnston. J. 1972. Econometrics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kenny, Christopher, and Michael McBurnett. 1997. “Up Close and Personal:
Campaign Contact and Candidate Spending in U.S. House Elections.” Political
Research Quarterly 50:75-96.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of
Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American
Journal of Political Science 44: 347-61.
Levitt, Steven. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign
Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political
Economy 102:777-798.
Lodge, Milton, and Marco R. Steenbergen, with Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive
Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.”
American Political Science Review 89:309-326.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic
History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Romer, Daniel, Kate Kenski, Paul Waldman, Christopher Adaseiewicz, and Kathleen
Hall Jamieson. 2004. Capturing Campaign Dynamics: The National Annenberg
Survey. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stokes, Donald E., and Warren E. Miller. 1966. “Party Government and the Saliency
of Congress.” In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Angus Campbell, Philip
E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for
Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1. Stanford University,
University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. January 5. Available at
http://gking.harvard.edu/
Welch, William P. 1981. “Money and Votes: A Simultaneous Equation Model.”
Public Choice 36:209-234.
Westlye, Mark C. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

37


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 37 of 37   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.