Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Coattail effect

The coattail effect denotes the electoral dynamic in which the strong performance or popularity of a leading candidate, such as a presidential contender, elevates the vote totals for copartisan candidates contesting subordinate offices in concurrent elections.^[1]^[2] This occurs as voters, motivated by partisan loyalty or ticket-splitting aversion, extend support down the ballot, thereby amplifying party cohesion and potentially yielding unified government outcomes.^[3] Empirical analyses, leveraging quasi-experimental designs and regression discontinuity methods, substantiate the effect's presence across diverse systems, though its magnitude varies with institutional factors like electoral concurrency and candidate incumbency.^[4]^[5] For instance, a one-percentage-point gain in a gubernatorial candidate's personal vote has been shown to raise copartisan legislative shares by approximately 0.09 points, highlighting subtle yet causal spillover.^[1] The phenomenon underscores voter heuristics in high-information environments but has reportedly attenuated over decades amid candidate-centric campaigning and weakened party brands, complicating predictions of legislative alignment with executive mandates.^[6]^[7]

Definition and Theoretical Foundations

Core Concept and Historical Origins

The coattail effect denotes the observed tendency in concurrent elections for a prominent candidate, typically at the head of a party ticket such as a presidential nominee, to elevate vote shares for lesser-known candidates of the same party running for subordinate offices. This transfer manifests as correlated gains in electoral support, where voters drawn to the lead candidate's appeal extend their preference down the ballot to co-partisans.^[8]^[9]^[10] The conceptual roots of the coattail effect lie in 19th-century United States politics, amid the consolidation of national party organizations during the Jacksonian era (circa 1828–1840). Early instances appeared in presidential contests where Andrew Jackson's personal popularity propelled Democratic Party gains in congressional and state races, as unified party tickets capitalized on the top candidate's draw to overcome localized opposition.^[11] This era marked a shift toward structured ballots emphasizing party slates, facilitating the leader-driven boost observable in vote alignments.^[12] Distinct from routine party-line voting, which arises from ingrained partisan identification across contests, or the incumbency advantage, derived from officeholders' established visibility and perks, the coattail effect isolates the incremental lift attributable to the headliner's surge in a given cycle.^[13]^[14] It underscores a candidate-centric dynamic rather than systemic partisan inertia, evident in deviations where down-ballot outcomes exceed baseline expectations tied to the lead figure's margin.^[12]

Causal Mechanisms from First Principles

Voters confronting bounded rationality and high information costs in evaluating multiple candidates adopt heuristics to simplify choices, often leveraging the visibility and perceived competence of a prominent top-of-ticket candidate as a proxy for the affiliated party's down-ballot contenders.^[15] This mechanism operates through causal vote transfer, wherein the top candidate's appeal—stemming from personal charisma, policy resonance, or media dominance—spills over to lesser-known candidates via shared party branding, rather than incidental correlation, as ballot formats bundle choices under party labels, incentivizing efficiency over individualized scrutiny.^[2] At the individual level, low-information voters, who constitute a significant electoral bloc, minimize cognitive effort by inferring candidate quality from partisan signals amplified by the headliner's success; for instance, a surging presidential frontrunner signals effective leadership that extends presumptively to co-partisans in legislative races, fostering straight-ticket voting as a rational shortcut absent deeper evaluation.^[16] This heuristic-driven pathway underscores genuine causation, as voters actively condition down-ballot preferences on top-ticket assessments, distinct from mere psychological priming without behavioral linkage, though ungrounded models risk overemphasizing subconscious influences over deliberate partisan alignment. Parallel causal channels arise from differential mobilization, where a galvanizing top candidate heightens partisan enthusiasm and turnout among core supporters, who subsequently extend loyalty to the full slate to maximize collective party gains and avoid split-ticket dilution of bargaining power.^[4] Such energization stems from the top figure's role in framing the election as a high-stakes partisan contest, prompting co-partisans to vote cohesively rather than abstaining or defecting, thereby transmitting support downward through heightened participation rather than voter independence narratives that overlook loyalty incentives in polarized contexts.^[17]

Empirical Evidence and Measurement

Methodological Challenges in Quantifying Effects

Quantifying coattail effects faces significant endogeneity challenges, as unobserved district-level factors—such as underlying partisan leanings, economic conditions, or national political tides—correlate with both top-ballot candidate performance and down-ballot outcomes, biasing standard regression estimates of vote transfer.^[1]^[18] These confounders make it difficult to isolate the causal influence of a popular lead candidate from broader electoral swings or party brand effects that independently boost legislative slates.^[19] Researchers address this through quasi-experimental designs, such as regression discontinuity around narrow victory margins, which exploit local randomness in election outcomes to estimate localized coattail impacts while assuming no strategic manipulation near thresholds.^[4] Alternative strategies, like geographic "friends-and-neighbors" voting patterns, help disentangle personal candidate popularity from party-wide strength by comparing vote shares in areas with high hometown support.^[1] Measurement proxies, including differentials in down-ballot vote shares between high-coattail presidential years and midterms or turnout anomalies in concurrent races, often fail to fully isolate leader-specific transfers due to persistent confounding from varying candidate quality or campaign efforts.^[17] For instance, apparent vote boosts may reflect endogenous party mobilization rather than voter spillover, requiring controls for baseline partisan volatility that are imperfect in observational data.^[20] Data constraints further complicate analysis, with aggregate precinct-level election returns preferred for their verifiability and precision in capturing observed vote distributions, yet they necessitate ecological inference methods to infer individual-level behavior, introducing assumptions about voter homogeneity that can lead to aggregation bias.^[21] Individual surveys, while potentially revealing motivations, suffer from self-reporting inaccuracies, including telescoping errors and social desirability bias in admitting split-ticket choices, rendering them less reliable for causal quantification compared to official returns.^[22]

Key Studies and Quantitative Findings

Empirical analyses of U.S. presidential coattails in House elections from 1952 to 1980 indicate that winning presidential candidates typically boosted their party's House candidates by an average of 2 to 4 percentage points in vote share in competitive districts during the mid-20th century, contributing to net seat gains of 10 to 20 for the president's party in strong years like 1956 and 1964.^[23] These effects were driven primarily by turnout surges among low-information voters favoring the presidential winner's co-partisans, with estimates derived from district-level regressions controlling for incumbency and local factors.^[22] Post-1960s data reveal a decline in coattail strength, with average vote share boosts falling to 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points by the 1980s and 1990s, as measured in aggregate vote models and seat prediction equations across presidential cycles.^[24] This attenuation persisted into the 2000s, where presidential vote shares explained less than 20% of variance in House outcomes compared to over 40% in earlier decades.^[25] However, in highly polarized recent elections, such as 2024, coattail effects resurged modestly, with Donald Trump's victory correlating to Republican net gains of 5 Senate seats and retention of a narrow House majority, though split-ticket voting limited broader down-ballot sweeps in some states.^[26] ^[27] Cross-nationally, coattail effects are more pronounced in candidate-centric majoritarian systems than in list-proportional representation (PR) systems, where party lists dilute individual leader influence; meta-analytic reviews of 50+ democracies from 1990 to 2015 estimate average legislative vote boosts of 5-10% from concurrent presidential wins in single-member districts versus under 3% in closed-list PR.^[28] In France's Fifth Republic, for instance, presidential victories have yielded 20-25% higher vote shares for the winner's party in subsequent or concurrent legislative elections, as evidenced in cycles like 2002 and 2017, where alignment surges exceeded U.S. benchmarks.^[29] These patterns hold after adjusting for economic confounders, with effects moderated downward by higher voter education levels in PR contexts.^[30] Temporal trends across systems confirm a general post-1960s erosion linked to media fragmentation, reducing coattail potency by 30-50% in longitudinal district-fixed effects models, though polarization has partially reversed this in the U.S. since 2000, restoring correlation coefficients to 1950s levels in nationalized electorates.^[31] ^[32]

Applications in Electoral Systems

United States: Presidential and Down-Ballot Dynamics

In the United States, the coattail effect manifests prominently in presidential elections, where a strong top-of-the-ticket candidate can boost same-party candidates in congressional and state races, particularly through increased turnout among aligned voters and ticket-splitting reductions. This dynamic has historically produced substantial down-ballot gains when presidential margins exceed 10 percentage points, as voters transfer enthusiasm from the national leader to party mates. Empirical analyses confirm that such effects are more pronounced in districts without incumbents, where candidate quality and local factors play lesser roles compared to national tides.^[33] Landslide victories have yielded peak coattail benefits, exemplified by the 1936 election in which Franklin D. Roosevelt secured 60.8% of the popular vote and Democrats gained 81 House seats, expanding their majority to 334-88 amid New Deal popularity. Similarly, Ronald Reagan's 1980 win with 50.7% of the vote propelled Republicans to a net gain of 34 House seats (from 157 to 191) and 12 Senate seats, flipping Senate control despite House incumbency protections limiting fuller sweeps. These cases illustrate how presidential surges correlate with down-ballot advances exceeding 30 seats when national dissatisfaction with the incumbent party aligns voter behavior.^[34]^[34] Negative coattails occur when a polarizing or unpopular presidential nominee drags down party performance, as in 1964 when Barry Goldwater's 38.5% vote share—amid perceptions of extremism—resulted in Republican House losses of 38 seats and minimal Senate retention despite Lyndon B. Johnson's 61.1% landslide. Such drags are evident in open-seat contests, where absent incumbents expose candidates to full national backlash, amplifying losses by 20-50% relative to safe districts.^[35] In recent decades, partisan polarization has sustained coattail influences despite shortened historical averages, countering narratives of party-voter decoupling by evidencing leader-driven mobilization. The 2024 election demonstrated this persistence: Donald Trump's victory with 312 electoral votes flipped Senate control to Republicans via net gains of four seats (from Democratic 51-49 to Republican majority), while expanding the House majority from 220-215 to approximately 220 seats through targeted flips in competitive districts. These outcomes, amid high turnout exceeding 150 million votes, underscore how presidential campaigns still channel resources and voter energy to down-ballot races, particularly open ones vulnerable to national swings.^[34]^[36]

Comparative Examples in Other Democracies

In France's Fifth Republic, the sequencing of presidential and legislative elections facilitates pronounced coattail effects, as presidential outcomes influence subsequent parliamentary contests. Following Jacques Chirac's decisive second-round presidential victory on May 5, 2002, where he garnered 82.2% of the vote against Jean-Marie Le Pen, his Union for the Presidential Majority alliance captured 399 of 577 National Assembly seats in the legislative elections held on June 9 and 16.^[37]^[38] This outcome reflected voters aligning legislative support with the president's bolstered mandate, particularly after the National Assembly's dissolution to capitalize on his popularity amid cohabitation tensions.^[39] Singapore's Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), established under the 1988 amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, institutionalize a bundled voting mechanism that extends party leaders' appeal to multi-candidate slates, fostering coattail dynamics to promote ethnic minority inclusion and party cohesion. Voters select an entire team rather than individuals, allowing high-profile figures like the prime minister to elevate less prominent candidates within the slate; for instance, in the 2020 general election on July 10, the ruling People's Action Party secured 83 of 93 seats, with GRC victories attributed to national leadership drawing bloc votes despite local variations.^[40] This structure amplifies leader-driven effects, as empirical analyses of plurality bloc voting in GRCs show coordinated party slates benefiting from top-ticket popularity to manufacture legislative majorities.^[40] In contrast, parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom exhibit diluted coattail effects, with emphasis on local MP incumbency and constituency service overshadowing national leader influence in first-past-the-post races. Voter preferences prioritize candidate-specific factors over party head surges, as evidenced by regression discontinuity designs in UK elections revealing modest national spillover compared to executive-legislative separations elsewhere.^[41] Cross-national quasi-experiments further indicate that concurrency between executive and legislative polls globally heightens coattail transfers by mobilizing peripheral voters and reinforcing party-line ballots, with effects stronger in simultaneous formats than staggered ones, though varying by institutional context.^[42]^[17]

Influencing Factors and Variations

Institutional and Structural Determinants

The availability of straight-ticket voting options on ballots structurally amplifies coattail effects by simplifying party-line voting, thereby increasing the proportion of voters who select candidates en bloc without individual evaluation. In jurisdictions permitting this mechanism, such as certain U.S. states prior to reforms, it correlates with higher incidences of uniform partisan support across races, as voters can endorse an entire party's slate with a single action, reducing cognitive costs and reinforcing top-of-ticket influence on down-ballot outcomes. ^[43] Reforms eliminating straight-ticket voting, implemented in states like Texas effective for the 2020 election and Michigan following a 2018 ban upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, aim to promote split-ticket choices and have been associated with longer ballot completion times and potentially diminished party cohesion, though direct causal impacts on coattail magnitude require further disaggregation from behavioral shifts.^[44] ^[45] Election timing rules that synchronize national and subnational contests heighten coattail effects through elevated shared salience and reduced information costs for voters, leading to greater vote congruence across ballot levels. Quasi-experimental analyses demonstrate that concurrency boosts turnout and shifts vote shares toward alignment with higher-tier races, as peripheral voters mobilized by national campaigns carry over preferences without the dilution seen in staggered cycles like off-year local elections.^[17] ^[46] In contrast, desynchronized timing attenuates these spillovers, allowing local factors to dominate and weakening the causal chain from top-of-ticket performance to down-ballot results.^[4] District magnitude in electoral systems modulates coattail strength, with single-member districts fostering greater dependence of legislative candidates on national party leaders compared to multi-member districts under proportional representation, where higher magnitudes enable more personalized vote mobilization and list-based accountability. Cross-national evidence from systems blending majoritarian and proportional elements, such as in Taiwan's mixed framework, shows that single-member seats exhibit stronger coattail spillovers from executive races, as candidates lack the district-level personalization buffers available in larger constituencies.^[47] This structural feature aligns with majoritarian incentives, where winner-take-all dynamics amplify national tides over local idiosyncrasies, per analyses of presidential influences in district-tier elections.^[48]

Voter-Level and Behavioral Drivers

Low-information voters exhibit stronger coattail effects by relying on cognitive heuristics, such as the inferred strength of a party's top candidate, to simplify decision-making in down-ballot races rather than conducting independent evaluations.^[15] This heuristic processing is particularly pronounced among those with limited political knowledge, who use prominent partisan figures as proxies for party competence and viability.^[16] National Election Studies data from multiple U.S. cycles support this, showing that coattail voting correlates with reduced cognitive effort in assessing congressional candidates, contrasting with the assumptions of fully rational voter models that posit comprehensive information processing.^[15] Voter sophistication, often measured by political knowledge or education levels, inversely correlates with straight-ticket voting and thus amplifies coattail susceptibility among less informed segments.^[49] Less knowledgeable voters prioritize party cues over candidate-specific attributes, leading to greater alignment between presidential and legislative preferences; for instance, analyses of U.S. election data indicate that higher information levels reduce reliance on such shortcuts, diminishing coattail magnitude.^[16] This pattern holds across contexts, with low-information individuals more likely to extend support downward based on top-ticket signals of partisan strength.^[50] Prominent partisan leaders provide cues that signal party viability, motivating turnout among low-propensity voters who might otherwise abstain.^[49] In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Republican mobilization efforts, including targeted outreach to infrequent voters, yielded higher turnout rates among low-propensity Republicans, contributing to overall Republican gains despite varied down-ballot outcomes.^[51]^[52] Such dynamics underscore bounded rationality in real-world voting, where voters leverage high-visibility cues amid informational constraints, as evidenced by quasi-experimental studies linking coattail exposure to increased participation via simplified partisan assessments.^[4] This behavioral realism challenges idealized depictions of voter autonomy, highlighting how psychological shortcuts drive observable coattail patterns in empirical data.^[16]

Criticisms, Limitations, and Normative Debates

Empirical Limitations and Identification Issues

One key identification challenge in estimating coattail effects arises from endogeneity, where unobserved factors simultaneously influence vote shares across ballot levels, leading ordinary least squares estimates to overstate causal impacts.^[1] Reverse causality exacerbates this, as strong down-ballot candidates can generate reverse coattails that elevate top-ticket perceptions, blurring the direction of influence; for instance, regression discontinuity designs examining U.S. congressional races find limited but non-zero evidence of House candidates boosting gubernatorial outcomes in close races, complicating unidirectional assumptions.^[53] Quasi-experimental approaches, such as friends-and-neighbors voting patterns or close-election thresholds, mitigate these biases by isolating exogenous variation but remain sensitive to model specifications that fail to fully account for reciprocal effects.^[54] Narratives of vanishing coattails often overstate declines by conflating them with rising incumbency advantages and partisan sorting, particularly post-1960s, without disentangling these confounders through rigorous controls.^[19] Empirical efforts to isolate pure coattail effects struggle to separate them from incumbency returns, which can mimic or inflate apparent top-down spillovers in longitudinal U.S. data, as incumbents' personal popularity persists across cycles regardless of party leaders.^[55] While polarization since the 2000s has been cited as reviving coattails via stronger party-line voting, standard measures fail to adjust for endogenous district sorting, potentially attributing partisan loyalty surges to candidate-specific effects rather than baseline ideological alignment.^[56] Overreliance on U.S. presidential-congressional data introduces sample biases that limit generalizability, as coattail magnitudes vary sharply by electoral concurrency and institutional context in non-U.S. systems.^[17] Quasi-experimental analyses of concurrent executive-legislative elections in Germany reveal coattail effects tied to ballot position and turnout spillovers, but these diminish in separated polls, underscoring how U.S.-centric models overlook boundary conditions like multi-level federalism elsewhere.^[42] Comparative evidence from multiparty settings further highlights heterogeneity, with effects attenuated in proportional systems or where voter coordination prioritizes lists over personalities, yet persistent in winner-take-all concurrency absent U.S.-style primaries.^[4]

Implications for Democratic Accountability and Party Power

The coattail effect facilitates voter signaling for unified party control, enhancing democratic accountability by aligning branches of government to execute electoral mandates and promoting legislative efficiency over fragmentation. In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's presidential victory propelled Republican gains of 12 House seats and a Senate flip via 12 additional seats, yielding a Republican Senate majority that, alongside House momentum, enabled swift passage of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, slashing the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% and indexing brackets to inflation.^[34] ^[57] This cohesion counters multipolar gridlock, allowing presidents to advance core agendas with reduced veto points, as unified governments in the U.S. exhibit higher productivity in enacting significant statutes than divided ones.^[58] Such dynamics bolster party discipline, where coattails incentivize down-ballot candidates to align with leadership priorities, fostering causal chains from voter preferences to policy delivery; agency-theoretic models frame this as an optimal voter strategy to motivate effort across offices, tying reelection to collective performance.^[2] Recent examples, like the 2024 Republican trifecta—securing the presidency, Senate majority, and narrow House control partly via Donald Trump's extended coattails—illustrate how this mechanism delivers decisive governance capacity in polarized contexts.^[59] ^[60] Critics, often from perspectives emphasizing decentralized representation, argue coattails erode local accountability by subordinating candidate evaluations to top-ticket popularity, potentially installing extremists or mismatches unfit for district-specific needs, as national narratives overshadow substantive scrutiny in concurrent races.^[61] ^[62] This risks amplifying leader dominance at the expense of granular responsiveness, with left-leaning analyses decrying resultant centralization as antidemocratic; however, evidence from voter behavior in high-polarization environments reveals sustained district-level sensitivity, debunking claims of blanket irresponsiveness and affirming coattails as amplifiers of coherent mandates rather than distorters.^[63] Normative debates center on whether leader-centric unity—favoring streamlined policy execution, as in right-leaning endorsements of trifectas for bold reforms—outweighs localized checks, with causal data linking coattail-induced alignment to elevated output sans proportional gridlock increases.^[64] While concerns persist over diluted individual merit, the effect's role in resolving collective action dilemmas underscores its contribution to functional majoritarianism in two-party systems.^[1]

References

[1]
Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects
Oct 8, 2013 · I find that a one-percentage-point increase in the personal vote received by a gubernatorial candidate increases the vote share of their party's ...
[2]
A political agency model of coattail voting - ScienceDirect.com
I show that coattail voting is the outcome of the optimal reelection scheme adopted by a representative voter to motivate politicians' efforts in a ...
[3]
Determinants of Coattail Voting - jstor
that presidential votes do influence congressional election results. The coattail voter may view the congressional ballot as an opportunity to aid the new ...
[4]
Coattail effects and turnout: Evidence from a quasi-experiment
All over the world, a very large number of elections take place concurrently with other elections for representatives in different government tiers.
[5]
Do Congressional Candidates Have Reverse Coattails? Evidence ...
Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," Political Analysis 17(4): 18–434. Abstract: Although the presidential coattail effect has been an object of ...
[6]
The Coattail Effect in Multiparty Presidential Elections | Asian Survey
Mar 7, 2022 · Many studies have been conducted about the presidential coattail effect in presidential democracies, but few have considered multiparty ...<|separator|>
[7]
[PDF] The changing dynamics of coattails in senate elections
The prevailing theoretical approach in political science has been to analyze presidential coattails from a top down perspective focusing on the effect that ...
[8]
Coattail Effect in the Election Glossary - polyas
The coattail effect describes the phenomenon of a popular presidential candidate or political party leader being able to attract votes for other candidates in ...
[9]
Coattail Effect - Political Dictionary
The coattail effect is a phenomenon whereby a political candidate or leader's popularity leads to improved vote totals for fellow party candidates further down ...
[10]
COATTAIL EFFECT Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
Coattail effect definition: The tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election.
[11]
CQ Press Books - Elections A to Z
Keywords: coattail effect, straight ticket voting, split ticket voting, local offices, seating, ticket splitting, Andrew. Jackson. Disciplines: Politics ...
[12]
Presidential Coattails in Historical Perspective - jstor
campaign enter presidential voting directly and congressional voting indirectly. The twe models corroborate one another and are consistent with previous studies ...
[13]
What Is the Coattail Effect in Politics? - ThoughtCo
Apr 11, 2019 · In the 2016 presidential election, for example, the Republican establishment became increasingly concerned about its candidates for U.S. Senate ...
[14]
Understanding the Coattail Effect in Politics | GoodParty.org
Mar 7, 2024 · As a political term, the expression refers to the electoral influence of a victorious candidate on down-ballot elections. Coat tailing can also ...
[15]
Cognitive Efficiency and the Congressional Vote: The Psychology of ...
Most recent studies of presidential coattails have attempted to specify the prevalence of coattail voting. In contrast, in this treatment we attempt to ...
[16]
Cognitive Efficiency and the Congressional Vote - jstor
Understandably, the primary concern of most recent treatments of presiden- tial coattails has been the question of whether the coattail effect represents.
[17]
Coattails and spillover-effects: Quasi-experimental evidence from ...
Concurrent elections are widely used to increase turnout. We theorize and show empirically how concurrency affects electoral outcomes.
[18]
[PDF] Presidential coattails: A closer look - Heather Stoll
The electoral system is not the only political institution that shapes the party system in legislative elections: the system of government, otherwise known as ...
[19]
Presidential Coattails Revisited: Partisanship and Incumbency Effects
be a significant confounding factor in presidential coattails; it may be that the phenomenon which was historically identified as a coattails' effect has.
[20]
[PDF] Looking for two-sided coattail effects: Integrated parties and ...
While we find no consistent presidential coattails, we reveal robust and significant gubernatorial coattail effects on state- level presidential vote, ...
[21]
Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects
Aug 10, 2025 · ... ecological inference problems that arise when using aggregated ... District-level aggregate data are examined for the 1976-1988 ...
[22]
Coattails, Raincoats, and Congressional Election Outcomes | PS
Jan 23, 2019 · ... identification strategy that employs an exogenous source of variation in the cost of voting. ... coattail effect more in high-income ...
[23]
Presidential Coattails: - US House Elections from 1952-80 - jstor
Few propositions in the congressional election literature generate as much consensus as the argument that presidential coattails have had a decreasing ...
[24]
Reassessing the Decline of Presidential Coattails: U. S. House ...
severe, in that Carter's average share of the two-party vote in districts controlled by his party. (48.9 percent) - although worse than the aggregate 50.3 ...
[25]
Coattails and Correlation - Sabato's Crystal Ball
Mar 5, 2015 · That is, during a presidential election year, the Senate race in state A has increasingly tended to have a similar outcome to the presidential ...
[26]
The 2024 Presidential and Congressional Elections: Small Wave ...
Jun 5, 2025 · The 2024 elections returned Donald Trump to the White House and put Republicans in control of the Senate and House of Representatives. Trump ...
[27]
President-elect Trump's short coattails - Brookings Institution
Jan 2, 2025 · Many of Trump's supporters either cast what some call “bullet ballots,” voting only for Trump and no down-ballot candidates, or they split their ...
[28]
Presidentialism and legislative fragmentation: Beyond coattail effects
Dec 19, 2016 · Using data from a nearly comprehensive set of the world's electoral democracies, 1992–2014, this article empirically evaluates the impact of ...
[29]
(PDF) Maximizing presidential coattails: the impact of the electoral ...
Our results highlight that winning the presidential election produces a 25% increase in the votes for the winning presidential parties in legislative elections.
[30]
An empirical test of presidentialism's effect on party competition
Coattails from presidential elections shape parties in legislative elections. •. Legislative parties in presidentialism are more centrist than parliamentary ...
[31]
[PDF] The (Re)Nationalization of Congressional Elections
The outcomes of presidential, congressional, and even state legislative elections now move in tandem in a way that was rare in the mid- to late twentieth ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
Presidential coattails: A closer look - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Abstract. This article takes a closer look at how presidential elections affect the fragmentation of the legislative party system. It reviews ...
[33]
Presidential coattails, incumbency advantage, and open seats
The analysis of “presidential coattails” has focused on a president's ... coattails except treating incumbency as a confounding factor. Show abstract.
[34]
Seats in Congress Gained or Lost by the President's Party in ...
Nov 21, 2024 · Year, President, Party, House Seats, Senate Seats. 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic, +90, +9. 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic ...
[35]
Johnson Defeats Goldwater by 16 Million - CQ Almanac Online Edition
Johnson Defeats Goldwater by 16 Million; GOP Loses 38 House Seats, State Legislatures. An article from CQ Almanac 1964. Document Outline. Features. President ...
[36]
2024 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia
Class 1 senators faced election in 2024. Republicans flipped four Democratic-held seats, regaining a Senate majority for the first time in four years, and ...2022 · Montana · Ohio · Arizona
[37]
House election results 2024 | CNN Politics
All 435 seats in the US House of Representatives are up for election. See real-time results and maps for the 2024 House races.<|separator|>
[38]
Presidential Election 2002 France - Fondation Robert Schuman
The first round of the presidential election was remarkable due to the record number of candidates. With 16 contenders the French could not grumble about the ...
[39]
The 2002 French Elections: A Drama in Five Acts | Brookings
Jul 1, 2002 · Voters seemed bored by the supposedly inevitable final match-up between President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and were not ...
[40]
[PDF] Unified We Govern? Cohabitation and Regime Voting in the 2002 ...
Jun 11, 2002 · In this article the impact of voters' regime preferences, i.e. their preferences for either divided or unified government, on their voting ...
[41]
[PDF] Electoral Rules and Manufacturing Legislative Supermajority
Bernard Grofman is the Jack W. Peltason Endowed Chair of Democracy Studies at the. University of California, Irvine, He studies representation and electoral ...
[42]
[PDF] CAMBRIDGE WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMICS Reverse ...
coattails effect in the 2016 parliamentary elections. I find evidence for significant sub- national incumbency externalities. Next, in Section 6.2, I ...
[43]
[PDF] Coattails and Spillover-Effects: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from ...
De Benedictis-Kessner (2016) reports that the incumbency advantage for mayors increases with national elections concurrent to mayoral elections, which he ...
[44]
Straight-ticket voting - MIT Election Lab
Sep 12, 2022 · Straight-ticket voting allows voters to choose a party's entire docket of candidates with just one click of a button or flick of a pen.
[45]
What Are The Effects Of Abolishing Straight Ticket Voting In Texas ...
Nov 12, 2020 · This election was the first in decades to not include a straight ticket voting option on ballots across Texas. The change could hurt and ...<|separator|>
[46]
Supreme Court keeps ban on Michigan's straight-ticket voting
Sep 7, 2018 · US Supreme Court denied Friday a request to preserve straight-party voting in Michigan after a last-minute attempt to keep the option on the Nov. 6 ballot.
[47]
Presidential coattails and electoral coordination in multilevel elections
Congruence between presidential and gubernatorial voting increases when national and subnational races concur. · The positive effect of concurrent elections on ...
[48]
Timothy S. Rich COATTAILS AND MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
A coattail effect is the influence of a party,s candidate in one election on the performance of co-partisans in other races (e.g. Miller 1955). This ...
[49]
Presidential Coattails and Gender Parity Quotas - Sage Journals
May 28, 2021 · We show that the unanticipated consequence of these separate institutional reforms was to make the fate of female candidates for parliament very much a ...
[50]
COATTAILS AND MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: EVIDENCE ...
Jan 9, 2018 · Abstract. To what extent do presidential candidates influence voting in mixed member legislative elections? A sizable literature addresses ...
[51]
Gubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections
Findings indicate that gubernatorial coattails do influence candidate vote margins, even when factors such as campaign spending, past party performance, and ...
[52]
High voter turnout in the 2024 election benefited Republicans
Nov 17, 2024 · The 2024 presidential election featured sky-high turnout, approaching the historic levels of the 2020 contest and contradicting long-held conventional ...
[53]
A Pro-Trump Group's Risky Bet on Infrequent Voters Seems to Have ...
Dec 23, 2024 · Turning Point Action devoted much of its attention to less reliable voters. New data in Arizona showing a sizable Republican edge among them ...
[54]
Do Congressional Candidates Have Reverse Coattails? Evidence ...
Jan 4, 2017 · This article investigates whether so-called “reverse coattails” exist using a regression discontinuity design with congressional district-level data.
[55]
Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects - jstor
I find that a percentage-point increase in the personal vote received by a gubernatorial candidate increases share of their party's secretary of state and ...
[56]
[PDF] Running Ahead or Falling Behind: The Coattail Effect and Divided ...
In review of the 2000 and 2004 election results, it is abundantly clear that divided government is not a constant, and possibly not mandate of the voting ...
[57]
Turnout and presidential coattails in congressional elections
Aug 9, 2025 · ... ecological inference problems that arise when using aggregated ... coattail effects. ... COATTAILS and MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS ...Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations<|control11|><|separator|>
[58]
[PDF] The Politics of Tax Reform in the 1980s
Ronald Reagan, aided by a working majority in Congress, managed to push through Congress the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981. The scope of these ...
[59]
Divided Government, Legislative Productivity, and Policy Change in ...
Looking at both the USA and France, we find that periods of unified government show higher levels of production of important laws in the USA, but we find no ...
[60]
Trump's Victory and Down-Ballot Results in the States - AEI
Nov 15, 2024 · The Republican trifecta of winning the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives is undoubtedly impressive.Missing: effect | Show results with:effect
[61]
Donald Trump's Unusually Long Coattails - AMAC
Nov 15, 2024 · In 2024, Republican down-ballot candidates throughout the country enjoyed some unusually long coattails from President-elect Donald Trump.
[62]
Simultaneous Elections, Democratic Concerns - Newsroom
May 25, 2022 · First, given the 'coattail effect', the ruling political party particularly, and national political parties generally, have an edge over their ...
[63]
[PDF] Implications of simultaneous elections in India
Apr 14, 2025 · coattail effect [6] may lead to national political narratives ... diversity, and democratic accountability. References. 1. Press ...<|separator|>
[64]
Coattails and spillover-effects: Quasi-experimental evidence from ...
PDF | Concurrent elections are widely used to increase turnout. We theorize and show empirically how concurrency affects electoral outcomes. First,.
[65]
[PDF] Divided Government, Legislative Productivity, and Policy Change in ...
unified government, we present evidence on legislative productivity in line with expectations from the punctuated equilibrium approach (see Jones and ...