Acceso usuarios
Thomas M. Holbrook, Aaron C. Weinschenk
In this paper, we extend a well-trod line of research from congressional and state-level elections-the electoral impact of campaign expenditures and candidate characteristics-to a relatively understudied context, urban mayoral elections. Using a sample of large U.S. cities, we provide evidence that mayoral elections are very similar to elections at other levels of office: there is a tremendous incumbency advantage, one that is overcome only with great effort; campaign spending is closely tied to incumbent vote share but it is challenger rather than incumbent spending that seems to drive outcomes; and challengers are hopelessly outspent. In addition, we find that the effect of local economic conditions on incumbent success is mediated by challenger spending and that incumbent candidates fare better in racially diverse settings.
