Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:34:15.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Tale of Two Incumbencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Margery Elfin  and
Carolyn Kawecki
Margery Elfin
Affiliation:
Hood College
Carolyn Kawecki
Affiliation:
Hood College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Seven-term representative, Beverly Byron (D) of the Sixth District in Maryland, was the first incumbent to be defeated in the 1992 primaries. Her loss was perceived as a harbinger of major change in Congress, and marked an exception to Fenno's notion that Americans hate Congress yet love their own member of Congress.

Her opponent, Thomas Hattery, fit the pundits' expectations as an agent of change. A young, progressive state legislator, Hattery won by aggressively campaigning against Byron as an out-of-touch incumbent whose lifestyle and views no longer matched those of her district. Yet, his “outsider” persona masked a highly professionalized and well-funded campaign.

Only eight months later, the man who had capitalized on citizen dissatisfaction with Congress went down to defeat by Roscoe Bartlett (R). Bartlett, a successful businessman and educator with no elective experience and highly conservative positions, captured 54% of the vote, including majorities in counties that had given Hattery strong primary support. The tables had turned: Hattery had become the insider whom the historically conservative Sixth District voters repudiated. Paradoxically, although the Sixth District race exemplified change, Bartlett differed little from the previous incumbent.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 511 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fenno, Richard. 1975. “If, as Ralph Nader Says, Congress Is the ‘Broken Branch,’ How Come We Love Our Congressmen So Much?” In Congress and Change: Evolution and Reform, ed. Ornstein, Norman. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1978. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, and Krasno, Jonathan. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent.” American Journal of Political Science 32(4):884–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Krasno, Jonathan. 1990. “Rebuttal of Jacobson's ‘New Evidence for Old Arguments.’” American Journal of Political Science 34(2):363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1987. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34(2):334–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, and Kernell, Samuel. 1990. “National Forces in the 1966 U.S. House Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(2):65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen, and Campbell, Carlyn. 1983. The Interplay of Influence: Mass Media and Their Publics in News, Advertising, Politics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher, and McBurnett, Michael. 1992. “A Dynamic Model of the Effect of Campaign Spending on Congressional Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 36(4):923–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Montague. 1989. Thirty Second Spots: Political Advertising in the Eighties. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur. 1990. “Public Judgements of Senate and House Candidates.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(4):525–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar