Incumbency status and candidate responsiveness to voters in two-stage elections beginning with a primary

References

• Acree, Brice, Justin H. Gross, Noah A. Smith, Yanchuan Sim, and Amber E. Boydstrom. forthcoming. “Etch-a-Sketching: Evaluating the Post-Primary Rhetorical Moderation Hypothesis.” American Politics Research.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill. 2008. “Candidate and Party Strategies in Two-Stage Elections Beginning with a Primary.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 344–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00316.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, John. 1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77: 974–990. doi: 10.2307/1957570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder. 2003. “Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 105–130. doi: 10.1257/089533003321164976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17–34. doi: 10.2307/2669290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aranson, Peter H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1972. “Spatial Strategy for Sequential Elections.” In Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, edited by Richard G. Niemi, and Herbert F. Weisberg, 298–331. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith, David. 1995. “Campaign Contributions and Access.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 566–581. doi: 10.2307/2082974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banda, Kevin K. 2013. “The Dynamics of Campaign Issue Agendas.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13 (4): 446–470. doi: 10.1177/1532440013498879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banda, Kevin K. 2015. “Competition and the Dynamics of Issue Convergence.” American Politics Research 43 (5): 821–845. doi: 10.1177/1532673X14564570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banda, Kevin K., and Thomas M. Carsey. 2015. “Two-stage Elections, Strategic Candidates, and Campaign Agendas.” Electoral Studies 40: 221–230. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, William D., Michael Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–874. doi: 10.2307/2586212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294–311. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 367–386. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, Adam. 2018. “Inferring Roll-Call Scores from Campaign Contributions Using Supervised Machine Learning.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (4): 830–848. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, David W., Hahrie Han, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (1): 79–105. doi: 10.3162/036298007X201994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (Winter): 63–82. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpi014
   Google Scholar
• Burden, Barry C. 2001. “The Polarizing Effects of Congressional Primaries.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, edited by Peter Galderesi, Marni Ezra, and Michael Lyons, 95–115. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Buttice, Matthew K., and Walter J. Stone. 2012. “Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 870–887. doi: 10.1017/S0022381612000394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Canes-Wrone, Brandice, David W. Brady, and John F. Cogan. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” The American Political Science Review 96: 127–140. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402004276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carsey, Thomas M. 2000. Campaign Dynamics: The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carsey, Thomas M., and William D. Berry. 2014. “What's a Losing Party to Do? The Calculus of Contesting State Legislative Elections.” Public Choice 160 (1–2): 251–273. doi: 10.1007/s11127-013-0079-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carsey, Thomas M., Robert A. Jackson, Melissa Stewart, and James P. Nelson. 2011. “Strategic Candidates, Campaign Dynamics, and Campaign Advertising in Gubernatorial Races.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 11 (September): 269–298. doi: 10.1177/1532440011413085
   Google Scholar
• Carsey, Thomas M., Jonathan Winburn, and William D. Berry. 2017. “Rethinking the Normal Vote, the Personal Vote, and the Impact of Legislative Professionalism in U.S. State Legislative Elections.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 17 (4): 465–488. doi: 10.1177/1532440017739422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desposato, Scott W., and John R. Petrocik. 2003. “The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 18–32. doi: 10.1111/1540-5907.00002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty, David, Conor M. Dowling, and Michael G. Miller. 2016. “When is Changing Policy Positions Costly for Politicians? Experimental Evidence.” Political Behavior 38 (2): 455–484. doi: 10.1007/s11109-015-9321-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Ensley, Michael J. 2009. “Individual Campaign Contributions and Candidate Ideology.” Public Choice 138: 221–238. doi: 10.1007/s11127-008-9350-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harden, Jeffrey J. 2015. Multidimensional Democracy: A Supply and Demand Theory of Representation in American Legislatures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harden, Jeffery J., and Thomas M. Carsey. 2012. “Balancing Constituency Representation and Party Responsiveness in the US Senate: The Conditioning Effect of State Ideological Heterogeneity.” Public Choice 150 (1–2): 137–154. doi: 10.1007/s11127-010-9693-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 6th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Jason. 2012. Political Consultants and Campaigns: One Day to Sell. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kollman, Ken. 1997. “Inviting Friends to Lobby: Interest Groups, Ideological Bias, and Congressional Committees.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 519–44. doi: 10.2307/2111775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasa, Steven, and Mattias K. Polborn. 2018. “Political Competition in Legislative Elections.” American Political Science Review 112 (4): 809–825. doi: 10.1017/S0003055418000503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kropko, Jonathan, and Kevin K. Banda. 2018. “Issue Scales, Information Cues, and the Proximity and Directional Models of Voter Choice.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (4): 772–787. doi: 10.1177/1065912918760729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (May): 324–346. doi: 10.1017/S000305541000016X
   Google Scholar
• Maestas, Cherie D., Sarah Fulton, L. Sandy Maisel, and Walter J. Stone. 2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House.” American Political Science Review 100 (May): 195–208. doi: 10.1017/S0003055406062101
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarty, Nolan, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg. 1996. “Commitment and the Campaign Contribution Contract.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 872–904. doi: 10.2307/2111799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, Gary, and Norman Schofield. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97: 245–260. doi: 10.1017/S0003055403000650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielson, Lindsay, and Neil Visalvanich. 2015. “Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology.” Political Science Research and Methods 5 (2): 397–408. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2015.60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, Guillermo, and Bernard Grofman. 2006. “Two-stage Electoral Competition in Two-party Contests: Persistent Divergence of Party Positions.” Social Choice and Welfare 26: 547–569. doi: 10.1007/s00355-006-0087-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (March): 93–121. doi: 10.2307/1956436
   Google Scholar
• Serra, Giles. 2011. “Why Primaries? The Party's Tradeoff between Policy and Valence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 23 (1): 21–51. doi: 10.1177/0951629810382805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windett, Jason Harold. 2014. “Gendered Campaign Strategies in U.S. Elections.” American Politics Research 42 (4): 628–655. doi: 10.1177/1532673X13507101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar