RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    미시적, 거시적 관점에서 본 2006 미국 중간선거 = The 2006 U.S. midterm election: National Event v. Local Event

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A5074237

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    In general, the incumbent party loses a lot of House seats in the U.S. mid-term election. However, in 1998 and 2002 the incumbent party didn`t lose any seat. Instead, it was successful in securing additional seats. Since these results are different from the general characteristic of the mid-term election, scholars paid special attention to the 2006 election. Unlike previous elections, the incumbent party lost 30 seats. In addition, the Republican party, a majority party for 12 years, lost its majority in both the House and the Senate. The purpose of this paper is to examine the result of the 2006 mid-term election with two perspectives. A macro perspective, mainly focusing on presidential approval ratings and the result of the previous presidential election, views the mid-term election as a national event while a micro perspective, particularly focusing on an incumbent effect and decreasing competitive districts, considers it as a local event. This paper investigates which perspective is more comprehensive in explaining the result of the 2006 election. The macro perspective which anticipated around 37 seats change of the Republican party attributes the result of the election to low presidential approval ratings. On the other hand, the micro perspective shows that weak electoral support and a moral problem have an effect on those who are unsuccessful in reelection. Since each perspective concentrates upon different factors, there is limitation in explaining the mid-term election with only one perspective. Therefore, the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election can be explained comprehensively when factors the two perspectives lay emphasis on are considered at the same time.
    번역하기

    In general, the incumbent party loses a lot of House seats in the U.S. mid-term election. However, in 1998 and 2002 the incumbent party didn`t lose any seat. Instead, it was successful in securing additional seats. Since these results are different fr...

    In general, the incumbent party loses a lot of House seats in the U.S. mid-term election. However, in 1998 and 2002 the incumbent party didn`t lose any seat. Instead, it was successful in securing additional seats. Since these results are different from the general characteristic of the mid-term election, scholars paid special attention to the 2006 election. Unlike previous elections, the incumbent party lost 30 seats. In addition, the Republican party, a majority party for 12 years, lost its majority in both the House and the Senate. The purpose of this paper is to examine the result of the 2006 mid-term election with two perspectives. A macro perspective, mainly focusing on presidential approval ratings and the result of the previous presidential election, views the mid-term election as a national event while a micro perspective, particularly focusing on an incumbent effect and decreasing competitive districts, considers it as a local event. This paper investigates which perspective is more comprehensive in explaining the result of the 2006 election. The macro perspective which anticipated around 37 seats change of the Republican party attributes the result of the election to low presidential approval ratings. On the other hand, the micro perspective shows that weak electoral support and a moral problem have an effect on those who are unsuccessful in reelection. Since each perspective concentrates upon different factors, there is limitation in explaining the mid-term election with only one perspective. Therefore, the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election can be explained comprehensively when factors the two perspectives lay emphasis on are considered at the same time.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 Cox, Gary W, "Why did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?" 40 (40): 478-497, 1996

    2 Bauer, Monica, "Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson's The Marginals Never Vanished" 1989

    3 Niemi, Richard G, "What Determines the Congressional Vote?" 1993

    4 Mann, Thomas. E, "Unsafe at any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections" 1978

    5 Campbell, "The Presidential Pulse and the 1994 Midterm Congressional Election" 59 (59): 830-857, 1997

    6 Abramowitz, A.I, "The President's Party in Midterm Elections: Going from Bad to Worse" 1986

    7 Jacobson, "The Politics of Congressional Elections" New York; Longman 1997

    8 Jacobson, Gary C, "The Politics of Congressional Elections" 1987a

    9 Cain, Bruce, "The Personal Vote" 1987

    10 Jacobson, Gary C, "The Marginal Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-1982" 1987b

    1 Cox, Gary W, "Why did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?" 40 (40): 478-497, 1996

    2 Bauer, Monica, "Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson's The Marginals Never Vanished" 1989

    3 Niemi, Richard G, "What Determines the Congressional Vote?" 1993

    4 Mann, Thomas. E, "Unsafe at any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections" 1978

    5 Campbell, "The Presidential Pulse and the 1994 Midterm Congressional Election" 59 (59): 830-857, 1997

    6 Abramowitz, A.I, "The President's Party in Midterm Elections: Going from Bad to Worse" 1986

    7 Jacobson, "The Politics of Congressional Elections" New York; Longman 1997

    8 Jacobson, Gary C, "The Politics of Congressional Elections" 1987a

    9 Cain, Bruce, "The Personal Vote" 1987

    10 Jacobson, Gary C, "The Marginal Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-1982" 1987b

    11 Prior, "The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in U.S House Elections" 68 (68): 657-673, 2006

    12 Krehbiel, Keith, "The Incumbency Effect in Congressional Effect in Congressional Election: A Test of Two Explanation" 1983

    13 Welch, "The Effect of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982-1990" 59 (59): 226-239, 1997

    14 Johannes, John R, "The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is It Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else" 1981

    15 Hinckley, Barbara, "The American Voter in Congressional Elections" 1980

    16 Erikson, Robert S, "The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections" 1971

    17 Campbell, James E, "Surge and Decline: The National Evidence" 1976

    18 Campbell, James E, "Surge and Decline: The National Evidence" 1993

    19 Campbell, Angus, "Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change" 1960

    20 Cover, Albert D, "Surge and Decline in Congressional Elections" 1985

    21 Jacobson, Gary C, "Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections" 1983

    22 Kramer, Gerald H, "Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior" 1971

    23 Green, Donald, "Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections" 1988

    24 Shapiro, Y. Robert, "Presidential Performance the Economy, and the Public‘s Evaluation of Economic Conditions" 1980

    25 Krasno, Jonathan S, "Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections" 1988

    26 Jacobson, Gary C, "Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections 1972-1982" 1985

    27 Lewis Beck, "Forecasting U.S. House Election" 1984

    28 Bond, Jon R, "Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections" 1985

    29 Tufte, R. Edward, "Economic and Political Determinants of Electoral Outcomes: Midterm Congressional Elections" 1993

    30 Tufte, R. Edward, "Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections" 1975

    31 Mayhew, David, "Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals" 1974

    32 Fiorina, Morris P, "Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment" 1989

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2002-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2000-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.38 0.38 0.29
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.27 0.24 0.67 0.22
    더보기

    연관 공개강의(KOCW)

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼