University of Utah Western Political Science Association

Where's the Party? Congressional Candidate Recruitment and American Party Organizations Author(s): Thomas A. Kazee and Mary C. Thornberry Source: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), pp. 61-80 Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/448505 . Accessed: 13/01/2011 21:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

WHERE'S THE PARTY? CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT AND AMERICAN PARTY ORGANIZATIONS
THOMASA. KAZEEand MARY C. THORNBERRY

Davidson College RE candidates for Congress recruited by political parties, or do they emerge from a pool of politically interested citizens having had little or no contact with formal party organizations? The answer is of considerable importance to students of American politics, for the influence of political parties is dependent to a significant extent on the ability of party organizations to influence the selection of officeholders. Moreover, theories of the revitalization of party organizations can also be evaluated if we have more information about their role in the recruitment of candidates. Researchers relying primarily on evidence gathered from formal party officials have concluded that party organizations have become more involved in the process of recruiting congressional candidates. Gibson and associates refer to "programmatic" activities undertaken by party organizations, which include fund raising, electoral mobilization, opinion poll taking, and the recruitment of candidates (1983: 201). Recruitment activity, in particular, is reported to be extensive; a survey of county party leaders across the United States found that 62 percent of Democratic leaders and 64 percent of Republican leaders claimed that their organizations were "very" or "somewhat" involved in the recruitment of congressional candidates (1985: 150). Lipset (1983) cites claims made by National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) chairperson Guy VanderJagt that Republican recruitment efforts were substantially increased in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and Conway reports that VanderJagt helped persuade "over one hundred" candidates to seek Republican House nominations in 1982 (1983: 6). In addition, Mann and Ornstein note that the Republican National Committee developed a program after 1976 which included "targeting House and Senate seats most favorable to Republican take-overs and recruiting the ablest candidates to run for those seats" (1981: 265). Reports from party elites at both the county and national level, then, indicate that a significant amount of direct candidate recruitment is taking place.
A

Received: November 30, 1987 First Revision Received: February 27, 1989 Second Revision Received: March 28, 1989 Accepted for Publication: March 30, 1989

Western Political Quarterly The evidence generated by contact with the candidates, on the other hand, suggests that recruitment-related activity by formal party organizations is more limited. Huckshorn and Spencer (1971) and Kazee (1980) report that most of the congressional candidates they surveyed or interviewed were "self-starters" who received little or no formal party encouragement. Based on mailed questionnaires to all 1984 House candidates, Herrnson concludes that the decision to run for office is "extremely personal" (1988: 86). He found that candidates in both parties considered their local party committees to have been a slightly important influence, while state party activity was generally rated even less important. National party committees also were rated as having had modest influence, except in one category- Republican challengers facing Democratic incumbents in competitive races (1988: 85-88). Notwithstanding these specific findings, Herrnson argues that the national party organizations are now important players in congressional recruitment. The national parties, he writes, "have assumed an active, if not aggressive, role in encouraging candidates to run in both competitive and noncompetitive districts" (1988: 49). Unfortunately, Herrnson's data do not speak as directly to the question of recruitment as might be hoped.' When summarizing his findings Herrnson is careful, in fact, to quality his conclusions concerning the role of parties in the recruitment process: 62 Candidates in both parties typically considered their local party committees to have been a slightly important influence on their decisions . . . Of the two sets of national party organizations, only the Republican committees, and particularly the NRCC, appear to have had a noteworthy impact on their candidates' decisions. (1988: 86)2
Although 385 congressionaldistrictswere represented in returns to Herrson's mailed questionnaire, most of those responses were not from the candidates themselves; campaign managers, treasurers, and "others"in the campaign filled out 56 percent of the surveys(n = 162). Non-candidate responsesmay have little distorting effect on perceptions of campaign activities, but decisions about whether to run, and evaluations of the impact of other actors on that decision (which presumably take place before managers and treasurersjoin the campaign), are less likely to be accurate when recorded by someone other than the candidate. Moreover, the assessment of recruitment influences seems to have been based on the responses to a single item on the mail questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale of one ("not important") to five ("extremely important") the influence of various groups on the candidate's decision to run for Congress in 1984 (140). More ininterviewswith thirty candidates were also conducted, but we depth "preliminary" are not told the distribution between House and Senate candidates, and specific information about the types of questions asked--and whether those questions related to recruitment--is lacking. 2 Herrnson also notes that the recruitment activities of the national parties tend either to be "very general and geared toward mildly arousing the interests of a loosely

Where's the Party?

METHODS

63

To provide more complete information about the role of parties in the recruitment process, the authors interviewed thirty-six candidates who ran for Congress in competitive districts in 1982. Competitive districts were chosen because evidence of party recruitment activity should be most pronounced in "winnable" districts; "targeting" strategies have been much discussed by analysts of congressional elections (see especially Mann and Orstein 1981; Jacobson and Kernell 1981; Kenworthy 1987; and Herrnson 1988).3 Districts were defined as competitive if they met one or more of the following criteria: the losing candidates in the 1978 and 1980 general elections received 45 percent or more of the two-party vote; substantial redistricting altered the two-party balance in favor of the out-party; the district was new and possessed a relatively even party registration balance (where such data were available); the moderately safe incumbent resigned or decided to run for another office; or the incumbent was associated with some legal or moral impropriety. Fifty-three districts were thus identified, and, using Congressional Quarterly summaries of all major party primary candidates, a list of 183 nonincumbent candidates from those districts was generated.4 The candidate list was then subdivided into categories based on party, region, presence or absence of an incumbent in the district, and primary outcome. Candidates from each group were then contacted and asked to participate. Though variable success in interview completion led to some disparities between categories, relatively equal proportions of candidates from both parties (21 Republicans, 15 Democrats), from open (20) districts and districts with an incumbent (16), and
defined group of party activists or highly selective, purposefully targeted, and geared toward encouraging or discouraging a few potential candidates"(1988: 56). However, his general emphasis on party revitalization in congressional campaigns suggests a more substantial recruitment effort than may be warranted by the evidence. For example, the Communications Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is quoted as saying that "candidate recruitment is the biggest thing we do" (1988: 51). 3 In addition, party recruitment efforts are most consequential in competitive districts. The very high rate of incumbent success, we are often told, is due to the low quality of incumbent opposition (Abramowitz 1980; Mann and Wolfinger 1980; Ragsdale 1981; Hinckley 1981;Jacobson 1983). Weak opposition is at least partially a result of incumbent "deterrence;"potentially strong challengers are reluctant to challenge incumbents, an effect pronounced even in districts with seemingly vulnerable incumbents (Kazee, 1983). An effective party recruitment operation in such districts presumably could identify and encourage strong, though reluctant, challengers to run. 4 Candidates who received less than 10 percent of the vote in their party'sprimarywere excluded from the list.

64

Western Political Quarterly

primary winners (19) and losers (17), were included (see Table 1).5 Regionally, nine candidates were from East, six from the Midwest,
TABLE 1
COMPOSITION OF THE CANDIDATE INTERVIEW GROUP Candidate's Party Democratic District: Won Primary Outcome Lost Total Open 4 2 6 Closed 4 5 9 Open 5 9 14 Republican Closed 6 1 7 Total 19 17 36

twelve from the South, and ten from the West. In all, the interview group included candidates from nineteen states representing twentyseven congressional districts defined as competitive. The interviews were conducted by telephone during March, April, and May, 1983, and varied in length from fifteen to eighty minutes; mean interview length was approximately thirty minutes. The candidate questionnaire included items concerning the decision to run, timing of announcement, contact with party officials in the district, expectations of party support and opposition, and resource utilization. (See Appendix for complete questionnaire.) Direct Party Involvement in Candidate Recruitment Evidence from the candidate interviews suggests that Republican and Democratic party organizations were involved in a significant way
5

Though the "sample" of candidates is purposively constructed, we certainly do not intend to imply that the candidate group is representative of all candidates who ran in 1982. Indeed, some self-selection bias was unavoidable. The diversity of candidate and district characteristics in the interview group, however, suggests that such bias is minimal. For example, including primary winners and losers ensures that the interview group does not include an abundance of candidates who were hand-picked by the party because of their obvious ability to win the primary election (which could result in overstating the frequency of party-directed recruitment), nor does it include a large number of weak contenders who failed in their races against more popular, party-backed candidates (which could result in understating the incidence of party recruitment activities). Similarly, the inclusion of a significant number of candidates running in open districts reduces a bias that may result from the presence of entrenched incumbents. Though party recruitment activity may be diminished in districts in which an incumbent is perceived is to be unbeatable, parties may be quite active with the intimidating presence of the incumbent removed.

Where's the Party?

65

in the recruitment of many candidates who ran for Congress in 1982. Party involvement, however, seldom takes the form of actual "recruitment." Parties may occasionally seek out and encourage an individual to run, but most often candidates enter the race having had little or no recruitment-related contact with parties. Prior involvement with formal party organizations, however, has produced a pool of activists from which most candidates eventually emerge. Several questionnaire items were designed to elicit information about any recruitment-related party contact or activity before or during the period in which the individual decided to run for Congress.6 Based on those responses, six of the candidates (17 percent) were classified as "party recruited," eight (25 percent) as "mixed recruited," and twenty-two (61 percent) as "self-starters."7 Party-recruited candidates indicated that party leaders in the district had contacted them about running for the congressional seat. This group included five Republicans (of 21 total Republicans, or 24 percent) and one Democrat (of 15 Democrats, or 7 percent), a distribution consistent with the claim that Republican efforts to actively recruit candidates in 1982 were more pronounced than Democratic efforts. Two candidates exemplify the party-recruited type: I first talked to some of the party people in November or December of 1981, but it wasn't until January that I talked with them in earnest.
The candidates were asked, "Did party leaders seek you out or did you decide to run on your own?" "When did you decide to run for Congress?""When did you first talk with a party official about running in this district?""Before you decided to run, what was your previogs contact with the (Republican or Democratic) party?" Our interest is in party recruitment efforts at any point during the candidacydecision phase of the election cycle. Though parties may understandably avoid endorsements of candidates in the primary, this need not limit party activities in recruiting candidates prior to the primary. By definition, "recruitment"is an activity that precedes primary elections. The level of party organization, whether local, state, or national, was initially left for the candidates to define. If unclear, the interviewersasked followup questions designed to elicit more specific information about the nature of recruitment contacts. 7 All items on the questionnaire were open-ended, and extensive comments by the candidates were invited. To maximize the reliability of the measures, the two authors independently coded the responses to correspond to categories established for the various items. In most cases, the authors agreed about category assignment. When classifications differed, the authors reviewed the interview record and reached agreement as to the appropriate categorization. The recruitment categories are similar to the recruitment types developed by Seligman et al. (1974). Seligman and his associates include starters ("self recruited") and party-recruited ("co-opted"), although the mixed recruitment type is not discussed. Our focus is limited to the role of party organizations in the recruitment process; several types of candidates, such as the "agent" (put forward by an interest group) and "conscripted" (asking someone to fill the ticket in an unwinnable district) are therefore not relevant for this analysis.
6

66

Western Political Quarterly They encouraged me to run ... so did the incumbent, who had decided to move up. They talked to me in October of 1979, before my first race. They wanted me to run again in 1982. ..

The group with mixed recruitment experiences, composed of four Democrats and four Republicans, described a decision-making process which fits neither the party recruited nor self-starter model. Responses to questions about the decision to run were generally met with assertions of independence, subsequently qualified with information about conversations with party officials at some point during the decision phase. In each case, mixed candidates claimed to have initiated the process of decision, seeking advice (or occasionally being offered unsolicited advice) only after making the initial commitment to run. One comment by a Western Democrat illustrates the mixed recruitment process: Why did I run? It seemed like an unusual opportunity that doesn't come along too often. I moved very rapidly toward it without a second thought ... there was no agonizing over it... I was encouraged to run, but from the grass roots in the party-the precinct level. I have a very strong party base among precinct workers. The higher-ups didn't know I existed. The fundamental difference between the mixed candidate and the self-starter was than the former was willing to concede that party activists (not always officials, as the above comment suggests) played some role in the final decision, while the latter denied that party activists played any significant role. The twenty-two self-starting candidates were about evenly distributed between the two parties (ten of fifteen Democrats, twelve of twenty-one Republicans). Self-starters asserted that party organizations-local, state, or national--played no direct role in their decision to seek a congressional seat. A candidate from a Southern state commented that the party "is just not active" in getting people to run, taking a "hands off attitude" before the general election. He noted that "the first time I talked with someone from the party about running was when I filed on the day of the deadline." Another Southern candidate, one who narrowly lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination, described his "recruitment" as follows: A front page story appeared in [the local paper] asking "Where are the Democrats?" [to run against the incumbent]. So I thought about it, talked to some people, and made the decision to run. I ran entirely on

Where's the Party? my own. I never talked with a party official at any time about running . . . That's a problem in this state. Our state party does not do a good job of recruiting people ... we do not seek out and screen candidates for various offices. ... As long as [chairman of the state party] is in office, you'll never see recruitment of strong Democrats in this district.

67

Party and the Recruitment Context The absence of party activity in the recruitment of many of those interviewed did not mean that nominations were left in the hands of political amateurs or anti-party candidates proclaiming their independence of party organizations. Even many of the candidates claiming to be self-starters had a history of significant party activity prior to their decision to run. As noted above, each interviewee was asked about the extent of previous contact with the Democratic or Republican party. The resulting responses were coded as extensive contact, moderate contact, or little contact. Twenty of the thirty-five candidates (57 percent) who answered the question had extensive prior contact with party organizations. Involvement in party activities for candidates in this group ranged from precinct committeeman to treasurer of the state party. A New Jersey Democrat who had once served as a county party chairman claimed, for example, that he "has been viewed by many as the backbone of the party in this district." An Oregon candidate recounted that he had served on the executive committee of the national Democratic party, the state central committee, and had worked in other congressional campaigns; "I was," he said, "heavily involved in party activities." A Republican from New Mexico described a career of party involvement from the Young Republicans to county and state central committees to appointive office, and said that today he is "on a first name basis with all the party leaders around here." The moderately involved group, eight in number, includes several candidates who had held (or were currently holding) other elective offices, and had come into contact with the party organization during previous campaigns, or during their time in office. It would be inaccurate to describe candidates in this group as formal party activists, but their involvement in politics has taken place within a framework in which formal party organizations play important roles. A Republican from Connecticut said that he had served in the state legislature eight years and had come into contact with party organizations in that capacity, but that "he didn't know many of the party leaders... I had to start from scratch." A union official from Ohio said that he wasn't a "party activist," but that he had worked with the party organization as a result of his union activity. The seven candidates in the least involved group were essentially

68

Western Political Quarterly

nonpartisan, at least in terms of contact with the formal party. A Southern Democrat, winner of a hard fought primary contest, typifies the non-party related candidate: I ran on my own ... it was basically my decision. The party didn't actually oppose me, but I didn't really get their approval. You have to understand that I was not a party person ... I'm not the party type. I just wanted to show that to be a good candidate you didn't have to be an attorney or politico-that you could still be a successful candidate. A look at the relationship between prior party activity and party involvement in candidate recruitment indicates that a significant degree of party activity was apparent for most of the candidates (Table 2). The party-recruited and mixed candidates had a high level of party activity (69 percent extensive activity in the two categories combined),

TABLE 2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIOR PARTY ACTIVITY AND PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT Prior Party Activity Little Self-starters Party Involvement in Recruitment Mixed Party-recruited Total 5 2 0 7 Moderate 6 1 1 8 Extensive 11 5 4 20 Total 22 8 5 35

but even among self-starters prior party activity was quite high (50 percent extensive, 27 percent moderate); only 23 percent reported little previous party contact.8 The link between party experience and running for political office is not surprising. Organizational activity and political candidacy presumably flow from a related set of incentives and motivations, although relatively few party activists may actually enter the electoral arena as candidates.

Prior party involvement was unrelated to the candidates' party affiliation. Very similar numbers of Democrats (20 percent) and Republicans (20 percent) had little party contact, moderate contact (Democrats 27 percent, Republicans 20 percent), and extensive contact (Democrats 53 percent, Republicans 60 percent).

Where's the Party?

69

Party Recruitment Committees The absence of strong party recruitment efforts in the districts of most of those interviewed is perhaps best explained by the absence of institutional mechanisms designed to promote and carry out such activities. Shortly after interviewing began, the following question was added to the questionnaire: "Is there an official committee of the party which helps to recruit candidates in your district?" Sixteen of twentyeight candidates (57 percent) noted that no recruitment committeeof any kind--existed in their district. Five candidates said that their party had established a formal recruitment committee, three described unofficial, ad hoc committees, two mentioned county-based committees, and two said screening committees, which did not actually recruit, had been created in their districts. Overall, the picture most candidates painted was of sporadic and informal recruitment weakly supported by formal party structures. To what extent do the perceptions of candidates with different recruitment experiences, and different levels of prior party involvement, vary? In the following sections, we compare the candidates' time of decision to run, expectations of opposition and party support, anticipated campaign costs, and performance in the primary and general election. Time of Decision to Run Nineteen of the thirty-four (56 percent) candidates who told us when they decided to run committed to candidacy more than a year before their primary election. Eight (24 percent) candidates decided to run during the fall or winter of 1981-82, with the remainder (21 percent) deciding sometime during the spring of 1982. As Table 3 indicates, the extent of party involvement in recruitment was not related to the time of decision. One-half or more of the self-starters, mixed, and party-recruited candidates decided early, while one-fourth or less of the candidates in each category decided late. Similarly, timing had little relationship to the extent of contact with party organizations, although candidates with low levels of party contact were somewhat more likely to have decided late than those with higher levels of contact.9 In sum, those interviewed committed to candidacy largely in response to their own agendas and levels of ambition, and in their own
9 Three of the seven candidates with little party contact decided to run sometime during the spring preceding the primary; only one of seven candidates with moderate party contact, and three of nineteen with extensive party contact, decided so late.

70

Western Political Quarterly

TABLE 3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT AND TIME OF DECISION TO RUN FOR CONGRESS Party Involvement in Recruitment Self-starters More than one year before
primary

Mixed 4

Partyrecruited 3

Total 19

12

Time of Decision to Run

Fall 1982 or Winter 1982-83 Spring 1982 Total 4 21 2 8 1 5 7

good time. As Maisel (1983, 21) has noted elsewhere, the preponderance of relatively early decisions suggests also that many candidates possessed little reliable information about the extent of primary opposition when they decided to seek office. Assessing the Competitive Context: Opposition in the Primary Most of the candidates, regardless of the nature of their recruitment experience, expected opposition from within their own party (Table 4). Although this is perhaps not surprising, given the competiTABLE 4
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT AND EXPECTATION OF PRIMARY OPPOSITION Party Involvement in Recruitment Self-starters Great deal Some Expectation of Primary Opposition None Not considered Don't know Total 9 5 4 3 21 Mixed 4 4 0 0 8 Partyrecruited 3 1 2 0 6 Total 16 10 6 3

-Responses from the open-ended question, "How much competition did you expect from within your own party?"were coded by the authors as "a great deal," "some," "none," and "did not consider opposition."

Where's the Party?

71

tive nature of these districts, party organizations certainly are not operating effectively to limit the likelihood of a potentially divisive primary. Prior party contact did have some effect on the expectation of opposition. Only one of six candidates with little contact with party organizations expected a great deal of opposition, and two of the candidates who said they didn't even consider the likelihood of opposition had had little previous contact with party organizations. As one challenger explained: "I know that you work hard and the rest takes care of itself. I was not concerned about who was going to run." Expectations notwithstanding, thirty of the thirty-six candidates faced primary opposition. Self-starters were most likely to be opposed (20 of 22, 91 percent); mixed (75 percent) and party-recruited candidates (67 percent) were a bit less likely to run in a contested primary. All seven of the challengers with little previous contact with party organizations were opposed, as were most of those with moderate (75 percent) and extensive (80 percent) prior contact. A comparison of expected and actual opposition reveals that most candidates claimed to have accurately assessed the extent of competition they would face in the primary. Thirty-two challengers told us they considered the likelihood of opposition, and twenty-five of those were correct in predicting the presence or absence of opposition. guessing wrong, of course, may have serious consequences for candidates. One party-recruited candidate lamented his error: "We expected no opposition in the primary, and an unknown came along and preempted the field. ... I had the dubious distinction of losing a sure thing." A West Virginia Republican noted that "we didn't think anybody would run, really," since his party "usually does well to get even one candidate to file." In this case, however, he faced opposition which "hurt because we wasted a lot of money in the primary."10 The expectation of opposition clearly did not deter potential contenders for the party nomination. Indeed, only one candidate told us that he would not have run had he known others would run.1 Candidate emergence patterns also seem to have little to do with the expectation or actuality of opposition. For the most part, self-starters and party-recruited candidates both expected and faced competition from within their own party. Self-starters were somewhat more likely to face
10 Predictive accuracy was not much improved by contact with party organizations; candidates with little contact (75 percent) were nearly as accurate in predicting the extent of opposition as candidates with moderate (86 percent) and extensive (80 percent). " The candidate, a self-starter who was eventually defeated in the primary, said, "I didn't expect any [competition] . . . that's why I finally decided to go ahead and do it. If any strong Democrat had come out, I wouldn't have run."

72

Western Political Quarterly

such opposition, but being recruited by the party was no guarantee that the nomination would be won without a fight. The Competitive Context: Party Support Assessing the competitive environment involves more than predicting the liklihood of opposition in the primary. Deciding whether or not to run may also be influenced by the likelihood of party support for one's own candidacy, or for the candidacy of primary opponents. Eighteen of the thirty-three candidates (55 percent) who discussed their expectations of party support anticipated no help from their local, state, or national party organizations. Typical of this viewpoint was a North Carolina Republican who eventually won the party nomination: I have been a candidate for other offices, and I was accustomed to not having much support from the party. We had to fend for ourselves ... I knew the score. Similarly, a Texas Republican told us that his party "doesn't get involved in a primary with eight candidates." Of the remaining candidates, eight (24 percent) expected a great deal of support, and seven (21 percent) expected at least some support. Nearly one-half of those interviewed, then, expected party organizations to act as "players" in the primary by providing at least some assistance to their campaigns. Recruitment-related party interaction with potential candidates, it seems, may often come with at least an implicit suggestion of party assistance. Table 5 illustrates that mixed and party-recruited candiTABLE 5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT AND EXPECTATION OF PARTY SUPPORT IN PRIMARY ELECTION Party Involvement in Recruitment Self-starters Great deal Expectation of Party Support in PrimarySome None Total 3 5 11 19 Mixed 3 1 4 8 Partyrecruited 2 1 3 6 Total 8 7 18

-The candidates were asked "How much support did you expect from the party?"The openended responses were coded by the authors into three categories of support: "great deal,"
"some," and "none."

Where's the Party? TABLE 6

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIOR PARTY ACTIVITY AND EXPECTATION OF PARTY SUPPORT IN PRIMARY ELECTION Prior Party Activity Little Great deal Expectation of Party Support in Primary Some None Total 0 1 6 7 Moderate 1 3 2 6 Extensive 6 3 10 19

73

Total 7 7 18

dates were a bit more likely than self-starters to expect a great deal of help from the party. Previous involvement with party organizations also increased the likelihood that candidates expected help in their efforts to win the congressional nomination (Table 6). How much support did the candidates actually receive? Other studies have suggested that party organizations often stay out of primaries (Maisel 1981: 34), and the findings here are consistent with that conclusion. Overall, only four of twenty-eight candidates (14 percent) claimed to have received any party support in the primary; indeed, six of the candidates said they were actively opposed by party organizations. As a candidate who won the primary over a party-backed opponent explained, "They didn't know who I was, so they were supporting the candidate they thought had the best chance to win." Another candidate described a strong party effort to block his nomination: "I could see and feel the hostility and I knew it would come . .. they don't enjoy seeing someone coming from the outside to take the top spot." Although few candidates received any party support, a candidate's probability of getting assistance was slightly increased by association with the party, either in the recruitment phase of candidacy or in terms of prior organizational involvement. Three of the four candidates receiving support had at least some party involvement in their decision to run, and all four had at least moderate levels of previous activity in party organizations. Overall, then, parties remained on the sidelines in most of the primaries in which the candidates were involved. Even when a candidate expected support, as did a substantial number of those we interviewed, most were disappointed. Self-starters and candidates with little history of prior party involvement were least likely to expect support and least likely to receive it.

74

Western Political Quarterly

Assessing the Financial Cost of Candidacy Along with considerations of party opposition and support, candidates are likely to assess the financial costs of running for Congress. Are different patterns of emergence related to different perceptions of resource needs? For example, are self-starters and candidates with little prior party contact less knowledgeable about the financial requirements for congressional candidacy? The candidates were asked how much money they thought it would take to run when they first considered candidacy. Most of those interviewed thought it would cost a great deal of money; nineteen of the thirty-four (56 percent) who indicated a specific dollar amount expected candidacy to cost $200,000 or more. About one-fifth (21 percent) thought total costs would exceed $400,000. Expectations of cost were not strongly related to the nature of recruitment, though self-starters were somewhat less likely to predict expensive races. A bare majority (52 percent) of self-starters estimated costs exceeding $200,000, compared to 63 percent of mixed and 60 percent of party-recruited candidates. Cost predictions were related to previous party involvement, however. Four of the seven candidates with little prior contact exexpecting to spend less than pected to spend less than $100,000-two $50,000 (both self-starters). Conversely, thirteen of the extensive contact candidates (68 percent) expected to spend more than $200,000. Integration into the district party context, whether through recruitment or earlier organizational involvement, seems to produce perhaps more realistic- assessments of the financial higher-and resources needed to wage a congressional campaign. Electoral Performance: the Primary and General Election Nineteen of the thirty-six (53 percent) candidates won their party's congressional nomination.12 To a limited extent, success was associated with recruitment patterns: self-starters won ten of twenty-two (46 percent) nominations, compared to six of eight (75 percent) mixed candidates and three of six (50 percent) party-recruited candidates. Prior party organizational involvement is even more clearly related to success; moderately and extensively involved candidates won 63 percent (5 of 8) and 60 percent (12 of 20) of the time, compared to 29 percent (2 of 7) for those with little involvement. Only one of the nineteen primary winners won the general election in November, a success rate (5.3 percent) not unlike that of congres12 Four of the winners were unopposed.

Where's the Party?

75

sional challengers as a whole.13 Those interviewed averaged 42 percent of the vote, though the eight Democrats (45 percent) ran ahead of the eleven Republicans (40 percent), reflecting the Democratic swing in the 1982 election. General election performance was not significantly associated with recruitment experience or previous party contact. The three partyrecruited candidates who ran in the general election averaged 40 percent of the vote, compared to 43 percent for six mixed candidates and 42 percent for ten self-starters. Candidates with extensive party contact, moderate contact, and little contact averaged 41 percent, 45 percent, and 42 percent, respectively. Overall, electoral performance in the primary, but not the general election, is associated with type of recruitment experience and extent of prior party contact. Candidates with a party "history" -defined in terms of recruitment or prior contact -were most likely to win nominations. Those outside the party context, however, won nominations often enough to demonstrate that party acceptability is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for securing a major party congressional nomination.
CONCLUSIONS

Two major patterns are apparent in our study. First, direct recruitment activity by Democratic and Republican party organizations, national, state, or local, was not extensive; most candidates described themselves as self-starters, or said the decision to run came after limited consultation with party activists.14 We also see at least one reason for this limited party role: as a party function, recruitment has not been institutionalized in most of these districts. Few structures ex'3 The success rate is low, however, for challengers

14

in competitive districts, a phenomenon possibly due to the relatively large number of Republicans (58 percent) in the interview group as a whole, and in the sub-group of candidates who won nominations (eleven of nineteen). The 1982 election, of course, was not a propitious year for the GOP. Little evidence suggests that party organizations focused their recruitment efforts in open districts, where the expenditure of scarce resources would presumably be more effective in winning seats in the absence of an incumbent. Of twenty interviewees running in open districts, only three (15 percent) were party recruited, four (20 percent) were mixed recruited, and thirteen (65 percent) were selfstarters. Approximately the same pattern is evident in districts with an incumbent; three of sixteen candidates (19 percent) were party recruited, four (25 percent) were mixed recruited, and nine (56 percent) were self-starters. Nor were significant party contact differences apparent between open districts and districts with incumbents. By category of party contact, 57 percent (little), 63 percent (moderate), and 50 percent (extensive) of the candidates ran in open districts.

76

Western Political Quarterly

isted to discover, encourage, or screen potential candidates. Second, despite the lack of party-directed recruitment, most candidates had a history of considerable party involvement, a pattern particularly apparent among candidates who won party nominations. Viewed in combination, these two patterns suggest at least the broad outlines of four basic candidate types. The first type of candidate is the "insider," an individual who has moderate to extensive contact with party organizations prior to considering a run for office, and subsequently receives at least some encouragement from the party during the deciding-to-run phase of candidacy. Insiderswere less likely to face primary opposition, and more likely to expect-and to getparty support. Insiders were likely to understand that candidacy carried a significant price tag, and were more likely to be nominated (eight of eleven [73 percent] won party nominations), though not more likely to win in November. "Self-startingpartisans," as we might call candidates who were not recruited but who have a history of party involvement, are very much like insiders. They are, however, more likely to face primaryopposition than their party-recruitedcounterparts. They are also more likely to be opposed by the party in the primary, and slightly less likely than insiders to win nomination (nine of seventeen [53 percent] were nominated). Types three and four, the "party-recruitednon-partisan" (a candidate recruited by the party but with little prior party involvement), and the "outsider"(a self-starting nonpartisan), appeared very infrequently in our candidate group; only five candidates fit the former type, and only two the latter. Though their infrequency makes descriptions highly tentative, both of these types seem to be embarking on the electoral enterprise with significant disadvantages. Both types are not very likely to expect party support, and usually don't get it. Though they face primary opposition about as often as types one and two, fewer win nomination (only one of five party-recruited non-partisans, and one of two outsiders, were nominated). Finally, these candidates-outsiders, in particular-have less realistic expectations of the amount of money a viable congressional candidacy is likely to require. How consistent are our findings with those of other researchers? The extent of party activity we report here is not far from the level reported by Cotter et al. (1984: 48), and Gibson et al. (1985). In the former study, about a quarter of county party chairpersons reported being "veryinvolved" in recruiting congressional candidates, while in the latter, about three-fifths of the chairpersonsreported being "very" or "somewhat" involved. If one combines our party-recruited and mixed categories, 39 percent of the candidates reported at least some party involvement in the decision to run. The somewhat lower level of

Where's the Party?

77

candidate-reported party activity may be a function of congratulationrationalization (Kingdon 1981); the need for candidates to deny external control over their actions might lead some to understate party influence, particularly if a residue of negative feelings about lack of party support in the campaign remains. One must note, however, the much larger percentage of candidates reporting prior contact with formal party organizations. "Recruitment," as a straightforward process in which party leaders hand-pick and groom chosen candidates, happens infrequently. Party involvement in the emergence of candidates occurs much more often. In this study, twenty-eight of thirty-five (80 percent) candidates reported moderate or extensive contact with party organizations. More revealing, seventeen of twenty-two (77 percent) self-starters reported moderate or extensive party involvement. Overall, only five of thirty-six (14 percent) of those interviewed were clearly outside a party framework, that is, were self-starters with little prior party contact.'5 Stating the question another way, is the party recruitment cup halfempty or half-full? We would argue that recent claims of significant party involvement in congressional candidate recruitment are essentially correct. In many districts the political party is a key actor, directly or indirectly, in determining who the candidates will be in congressional elections. The importance of the relative consistency between the findings reported here and in earlier studies should not be overlooked, for the evidence of party involvement comes from the candidates themselves, and not from party activists whose self-interest and perspective may lead them to exaggerate the extent and effectiveness of formal party activity. A caveat is in order, however, for it may be an overstatement to conclude that aggregate party fortunes have been dramatically affected by organized national party efforts to recruit strong challengers in districts with vulnerable incumbents. Though parties are certainly active in candidate recruitment, evidence of the targeting strategy trumpeted by national party officials is mixed in the districts evaluated here-districts which should be targets, given their competitive
nature.
16

15 Moreover,

16

a broader definition of recruitment must include "de-recruitment." Though not explicitly measured here, party recruitment activity certainly includes discouraging potential- but probably futile-candidacies. National party organizations such as the DCCC and the NRCC may be directing the bulk of their resources to congressional campaigns, rather than recruitment. Conway (1983: 3) notes that the NRCC focused its efforts in 1982 on providing "services and assistance, both organizational and financial . . . to candidates running for local, state, congressional, and senatorial offices." Indeed, a burgeoning literature suggests that party activity in congressional campaigns has, despite much competition from interest groups and PACs, significantly increased in recent years (see Hershey 1984; Sabato 1983; Salmore and Salmore 1985; Goldenberg and Traugott 1984; Herrnson 1988).

78

WesternPolitical Quarterly
APPENDIX: CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you for agreeing to be part of this candidate survey. Let me remind you that I will be asking about your decision to run for Congress in 1982. Even though the election has since taken place and it may be hard to go back to the beginning of the process, that is what I would like you to do. In trying to answer the questions, think about what you felt like at the beginning of the 1982 campaign. 1. When did you decide to run for Congress?How long had you been thinking about it? 2. When did you make a formal announcement? 3. Why did you decide to run at that time? That is, why was 1982 a particularly good year for you? 4. Before you decided to run, what was your previous contact with the Republican/Democratic party? 5. Did party leaders seek you out or did you decide to run on your own? 6. Is there an official committee of the party which helps to recruit candidates? 7. When did you first talk with a party official about running in this district? 8. What were some of the attitudes of your family and friends about your decision to run? 9. How much competition did you expect from within your own party? 10. Is there usually much competition for the nomination in your district? 11. Were there others who considered running and did not? Why? 12. Outside your family and friends, was there anyone you felt you had to talk with before you made the decision to run? 13. How much support did you expect from the party? 14. Was there any source of opposition to your candidacy from within the party? 15. From whom outside the party did you expect support? 16. Was there any source outside the party that you expected to oppose your candidacy? 17. How vulnerable did the incumbent seem to you? To others? In what ways/on what issues? Was he attentive to district concerns? 18. What is the relative strength of the two major parties in your district? How strong are the party organizations? Is there any recent change in this regard? Did redistricting have an impact? 19. Could you describe the procedure you had to take to get your name on the ballot? How difficult it is to get on the ballot or to capture the
nomination?

20. When you were first considering running, how and where did you expect to raise the money needed to finance the campaign? How much

Where's the Party?

79

did you think it would take? 21. What kinds of sacrifices did you expect to have to make personally? 22. What impact did you expect your candidacy to have on your career? What effect did/would a loss have on your career? 23. Would you run again? 24. Is there anything else about your decision to run that you would like to tell me? REFERENCES Abramowitz, Alan. 1980. "A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative in 1978." American Political Science Review 74: 633-60. Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1982. The Almanac of American Politics. Washington, DC: Barone. Born, Richard. 1986. "Strategic Politicians and Unresponsive Voters." American Political Science Review 80: 599-612. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 1982: various issues. Conway, M. Margaret. 1983. "Republican Political Party Nationalization, Campaign Activities, and Their Implications for the Party System." Publius 13: 1-17. Cotter, Cornelius P., James L. Gibson, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1984. Party Organization in American Politics. New York: Praeger. Federal Election Commission. 1983. Computer Index of Campaign Activity. Gibson, James L., Cornelius P. Cotter, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1983. "Assessing Party Organizational Strength." American Journal of Political Science 27: 193-222. 1985. "Whither the Local Parties?: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of the Strength of Party Organizations."AmericanJournal of Political Science 29: 139-60. Goldenberg, Edie N., and Michael W. Traugott. 1984. Campaigning for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Herrnson, Paul S. 1986. "Do Parties Make a Difference? The Role of Party Organizationsin CongressionalElections."Journal of Politics 48: 589-615. . 1988. Party Campaigning in the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hershey, Marjorie Randon. 1984. Runningfor Office: The Political Education of Campaigners. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Hinckley, Barbara. 1981. Congressional Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Huckshorn, Robert J., and Robert C. Spencer. 1971. The Politics of Defeat. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Huckshorn, Robert J., et al. 1982. "On the Resistance of State Party Organizations to Dealignment: National Parties as Agents of State Party Development." Paper delivered at the Shambaugh Conference on Political Science at Iowa, University of Iowa. Jacobson, Gary C. 1983. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston:

80

Western Political Quarterly

Little, Brown. Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacobson, Gary C., Samuel Kernell, Eric Uslaner, and Margaret Conway. 1986. "Interpreting the 1974 Congressional Election." 80: 591-95. Kazee, Thomas A. 1980. "The Decision to Run for the U.S. Congress: Challenger Attitudes in the 1970's." Legislative Studies Quarterly 5: 79-100. . 1983. "The Deterrent Effect of Incumbency on Recruiting Challengers in U.S. House Elections." Legislative Studies Quarterly 8: 469-80. Kenworthy, Tom. 1987. "House Talent-Hunters Seek Strong Challengers for a Few Open Seats." Washington Post. November 15: A4. Kingdon, John. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper and Row.

Leuthold, David A. 1968. Electioneering in a Democracy: Campaigns for

Congress. New York: Wiley. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1983. "The Congressional Candidate."Journal

Maisel, Louis Sandy. 1981. "Congressional Elections in 1978: The Road to Nomination, the Road to Election." American Politics Quarterly 8: 23-48.

Contemporary Studies 6: 87-105.

of

1983. From Obscurity to Oblivion: CongressionalPrimary Elections

in 1978. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Mann, Thomas E., and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review 74: 617-32. Mann, Thomas E., and Norman J. Ornstein. 1981. "The Republican Surge in Congress." In Austin Ranney, ed., The American Elections of 1980. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Ragsdale, Lyn. 1981. "Incumbent Popularity, Challenger Invisibility, and Congressional Voters." Legislative Studies Quarterly 6: 201-18. . 1983. "Responsiveness and Legislative Elections." Legislative Studies Quarterly 8: 339-78. Sabato, Larry. 1983. "Parties, PACs, and Independent Groups." In Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein, eds., The American Election of 1982, pp. 72-110. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Salmore, Barbara G., and Stephen A. Salmore. 1985. Candidates, Parties, and Campaigns. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. Seligman, Lester, Michael R. King, Chong Lim Kim, and Roland E. Smith. Rand McNally.

1974. Patterns of Recruitment: A State ChoosesIts Lawmakers. Chicago: