Senate Elections Essay

The names of the authors that wrote an article titled candidates and policy in the United States Senate elections are Gerald C. Wright and Michael B. Berkman. Although, previous literature on the subject suggests that policy is not a major factor in the decision making process, the article argued otherwise.
It is a known fact that a substantial policy differences between the candidates in a particular race exists. The outcome of the race determines policy. Positive correlation exists between a district or a state's position on the ideological spectrum and the position of the candidate on the ideological spectrum. Conservative states or districts have conservative candidates regardless of party affiliation. Meanwhile, liberal states or districts
have liberal candidates regardless of party affiliation.
Besides, the candidates are judged by the performance of the economy and of the president, assuming that the president and the candidate share the same party. This is evident in almost all mid-term elections in the modern era. If a president say democratic president Barack Obama, is perceived as not doing a good job and has a low approval rating (mid 40s throughout much of his presidency), then congressional candidates in the mid-term elections are not in their best position. Accordingly, democrats lost the House of Representatives and some seats in the United States Senate in 2010. They lost the United States Senate in the 2014 midterm elections and lost more seats in the House of Representatives.
The article hypothesized that the reason that policy does not seem like an important factor for voters when determining who to vote for in an election is because voters are exposed to other factors about the candidates such as personal characteristics. Policy is not as good a predictor of individual votes. Trustworthiness is a good characteristic to have while the opposite characteristics is not.
Research has shown that voters are more likely to know more facts about a United States Senate election than they are to know facts about an election in the House of Representatives. A Senator and the challenger for the Senate is more known in comparison to incumbent representatives and their challengers for the House seat. In the United States Senate, national issues are more important than they are in the House of Representatives.
Candidates up for an election move to the center of the ideological spectrum within their own party (center-left, center-right). Of course, this is for the general election. Unless, the candidates are incumbents without a serious challenge to the re-nomination, they are likely to face a primary challenger. In this case, the electorate is the base. One of course, has to make sure that the candidate is not perceived as a flip flopper. To avoid getting a flip flopper status, candidates shift their political position on an issue two to three years before they are facing the voters again. Of course, a dilemma exists here. Moving to the center, too soon after the previous election, may result in a strong primary challenger. On the other hand, ideological extremists invite moderates from the other party, who did not believed they had a chance of winning to join the race because the incumbent may be too ideologically extreme for the district or the state. It will be easy to win over that incumbent in a general election, because that candidate is too extreme for moderates to vote for the incumbent candidate.
Voters may face a situation in which, the incumbent president of their own party say President Obama, disappoints them but, they approve a job performance of Congressman Ed Royce of California's 39th congressional district. The question for the voter in this case would which route to take. Incumbents facing an election are more moderates than both their challengers and other incumbents not up for re-election that election cycle. A Republican incumbent candidate, in an election, is more likely a moderate than a democratic incumbent candidate in an election. This tendency to moderate does not apply in races where no incumbent is running for a re-election. These kinds of cases are called open seats.
The electorate for United States Senate election is more focussed than the electorate in an election for the United States House of Representatives.
For policy, a Senator's constituents are more likely to rely on policy issues to determine who to vote for than a constituency for a member of the House of Representatives. Although, this may be due to the office of Senator in relative to that of a Representatives. Senators are also more visible in the media as an example than members of the House of Representatives. Polling has helped in coming up with the new conclusion by the two authors in regards to the importance of policy on election in the United States Senate. Previously, the thought was, it is perhaps conceivable that a policy is a factor in determining who a voter will vote for, but the previous thinking believed that it is not a major factor. The authors have provided empirical evidence that suggests that policy does affect an outcome of an election and it is a major factor for voters in deciding who to vote for in a particular election for the United States Senate. Furthermore, although the study did not focus on the House of Representatives, the article's authors hypothesized that policy is a big factor in an election for the House of Representatives as
well.