<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:adano="http://adambrown.info/p/xmlns/adano#" 
>

<channel>
	<title>Abstract Politics &#187; incumbency advantage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://abstractpolitics.com/tag/incumbency-advantage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://abstractpolitics.com</link>
	<description>Notes on political science research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:23:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Partisan Polarization and Congressional Accountability in House Elections</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 16:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american journal of political science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blame]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shortly before the 2008 Congressional elections, only 36% believed that most members of Congress deserved reelection. These numbers were not unusual. Since consistent polling began in the 1970s, Congressional approval has rarely been higher than 40%. Nevertheless, 94% of U.S. House members won reelection. For years, political scientists have explained this seeming paradox by pointing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Declining Talent Pool of Government</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/the-declining-talent-pool-of-government/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/the-declining-talent-pool-of-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 15:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comparative Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american journal of political science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cabinets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parliamentary governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine you&#8217;re a soccer coach. You&#8217;ve got 14 players on your roster, 11 of whom are on the field at any given time. How do you motivate your players to give it their best? In part, their personal ambitions drive them to play hard. But what &#8220;sticks&#8221; as a coach do you have to punish [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/the-declining-talent-pool-of-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-information rationality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media and politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimal effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[websites blogs and new media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve long known that most voters pay little attention to campaign rhetoric; they pay far more attention to partisanship, incumbency, and other easily accessible considerations (although rhetoric certainly has its place). Still, candidates work hard to develop arguments that, they hope, will sway voters to their side. The question: How do candidates decide what to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/candidate-quality-the-personal-vote-and-the-incumbency-advantage-in-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/candidate-quality-the-personal-vote-and-the-incumbency-advantage-in-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenger entry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redistricting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If democracy requires rotation in power, then the American Congress may not be all that democratic. In 1998, 2000, and 2002, over ninety-six percent of House incumbents who have sought reelection have won. These facts are clear. What is less clear is the source of this incumbency advantage. Previous research has suggested three answers. First, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/candidate-quality-the-personal-vote-and-the-incumbency-advantage-in-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

