Explanation of why midterm elections differ from presidential elections and an overview of the 2014 midterm election.

1. Elise Carter
Political Science 110 Sec 1
TA: Clarissa
Midterm elections are consistently different from presidential elections in areas of voter
turnout, competitiveness, and issues brought up during campaigning. One of the main reasons for
these differences is that the popular national news stations do not cover nearly as many details as
they do for presidential elections, thus less people know who the candidates are and who they
should vote for, and they justify not showing up to vote (McDonald). Competition for
incumbent seats is far less competitive during midterm elections because incumbents have a
much greater advantages in midterms. Incumbents have name recognition, a record to run off of,
more funding, and easier access to media which are major inhibitors for freshmen candidates
who have a difficult time getting funding and recognition to advertise themselves for voters.
Candidates often take a more extreme position in favor of benefiting smaller groups of citizens
than a presidential candidate would. As a more direct representative, state and local leaders run
on platforms that focus on localized issues and more directly address the concerns of voters.
Although midterm elections generally present trends of shallow participation, variables
may emerge that cause individuals and groups to deviate from these general tendencies.
Regardless of past voting habits, competitive states battle over issues of candidate appeal,
campaign contributions, the economy, and incumbent voting records. Kansas, in particular, had a
close race as a result of a multitude of issues. The main toss ups between the independent
candidate, Greg Orman, and incumbent, Pat Roberts, were candidate image issues, outside
campaign contributions, and the condition of the state’s economy.
The most consequential variable that contributed to the competitiveness of the race were
candidate image issues. Normally incumbents have major advantages over competitors, however
in the Kansas race, incumbent, Pat Roberts, began with only a 31% approval rate and 28%
disapproval (Miller). In August his job approval went down a net of -17 points (Miller). Though

2. Elise Carter
Political Science 110 Sec 1
TA: Clarissa
Kansas is a strong Republican state, Roberts’ low satisfaction rate caused low enthusiasm among
Republicans and an opportunity for more competition from the independent challenger. Despite
the golden opportunity to bash Roberts and flame the fire of discontent among constituents,
independent candidate, Greg Orman, did not use a strategy of pointing out personal flaws in his
competitor, thus killing some of his advantage over Roberts. The main image issue for Orman
was that his partisanship was unclear. He had previously run for office as part of the Democratic
Party, but now claimed to be unaffiliated with either party (Miller). He was labeled as a liberal
Democrat because of his affiliation with the party in previous elections, thus giving Republicans
and edge over him. Neither candidate was particularly appealing to voters which made the this
midterm election competitive and unpredictable throughout campaign season.
Another factor that made representation in Kansas especially competitive was the
influence of outside spending. The candidates only spent $3.7 million combined of their own
dollars on their campaigns (Miller). Outside groups, including Super PAC’s, spent a combined
$10.5 million dollars on the election, and most of that money was spent in favor of Roberts
(Blumenthal). Control of Congress was huge motivation for conservative groups to dump money
into Kansas to ensure Roberts’ reelection. Several surrogates visited and spoke in favor of
Roberts which gave him the advantage of more media coverage. Orman, on the other hand,
received almost no surrogate visitors and much smaller outside funding contributions. He had
less positive media attention and was not affiliated with a party to back him up (Miller). These
handicaps in campaign contributions for Orman played a devastating role in inhibiting his
possibilities for election. Campaign spending created competition by putting Roberts’ image in a
more positive light to put him on the same playing field as Orman in terms of personal appeal.
Kansans were annoyed with Roberts as a leader, but because he received so much help

3. Elise Carter
Political Science 110 Sec 1
TA: Clarissa
financially and through positive media campaigning, he was able to dismiss negative perceptions
and push ahead of Orman in the polls.
Finally, the state of the economy had an enormous influence on the competition of the
Kansas election. Although not completely attached to the incumbent senator, the statewide lull in
the economy caused negative feelings among voters towards him and other Republican
representatives. Roberts should have had an easy ride to reelection because Kansas is a strongly
Republican state, but because of the deficiencies in the economy during his term people were not
as automatic in voting the Republican incumbent back into office (Dungan). New tax policies,
lagging economic growth, and school funding controversies created great financial uncertainty
for the state during Roberts’ term (Dungan). The damaged economy increased competition by
discouraging people to stay loyal to the Republican Party. Voters in this predominantly
Republican state were faced with the decision of whether it was more important to them to vote
for a representative they were not happy with or for a representative they believed would side
with the Democratic agenda in Congress.
In my voting prediction, I accurately estimated that Pat Roberts would win the election.
My reasoning behind this prediction had to do with the strong support he received from the
Republican Party monetarily and through the media. Ultimately I believed that voters would be
more in favor of giving the incumbent a second chance than voting for an independent candidate
believed to be a closet Democrat. The midterm election in Kansas turned out to be a toss-up
throughout campaign season as candidate appeal, outside spending, and the state of the economy
all pushed and pulled voters in different directions. Although Roberts secured a sweeping victory
in Kansas, Republicans were swayed throughout campaign season by the dissatisfaction they felt
with Roberts and the effort Orman made to stay independent from either party.

4. Elise Carter
Political Science 110 Sec 1
TA: Clarissa
Works Cited
Blumenthal, Paul. "Outside Money Surge Makes Kansas Senate Race Costliest In State History."
Huffington Post. N.p., 25 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
Dugan, Andrew. "Kansas: GOP Has Numbers Advantage, but Support Drops." Gallup. N.p., 3
Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
McDonald, Michael P. "Does Turnout Doom Democrats in 2014?" Hufffington Post. N.p., 8 Apr.
2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
1 Miller, Patrick R. "2014 Midterms: Key Issues in the Kansas Senate Race." FixGov (2014):
Brookings. 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.