All races (11 of 11) won by Republicans. The average winning percentage was 62%, not counting the Texas-8 race. The average vote against Bill Clinton in those 10 districts was 63%. Note that the Republican candidate's winning margin correlates far more closely to the anti-Clinton vote in the presidential race than how much money was spent -- e.g., note Missouri-7 and Tennessee-1 where Democrats spent little money. Republican winners were outspent by Democrats in one race. Only one Republican won with less than 59% -- no coincidence, as these are districts where the anti-Clinton vote is at least 59%.
Republican Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
IN - 7 | 35% | 62 - 35 | edge: $586,488 - $340,816 |
KS - 1 | 28% | 73 - 24 | edge: $430,261 - $82,631 |
KS - 2 | 39% | 52 - 45 | deficit: $415,606 - $757,637 |
MS - 3 | 36% | 61 - 36 | edge: $1,167,906 - $667,567 (seat change) |
MO - 7 | 37% | 65 - 32 | edge: $985,764 - $103,747 |
NV - 2 | 40% | 59 - 35 | edge: $724,036 - $606,227 |
OR - 2 | 38% | 62 - 37 | edge: $412,394 - $264,902 |
PA - 5 | 40% | 60 - 40 | edge: $858,637 - $446,613 |
PA - 16 | 37% | 59 - 38 | edge: $616,874 - $405,264 |
TN - 1 | 37% | 65 - 33 | edge: $457,975 - $32,296 |
TX - 8 | 26% | 59 - 41 * (see below) |
* Texas 8 was complicated. There was an open primary on election day, when two leading Republicans received a total of 80% and the two Democrats received 20%. Republican run-off winner Kevin Brady was outspent, but was the candidate backed by party leaders.
Nine of 11 seats were won by Republicans -- 4 of the winners were outspent. Note that the two seats won by Democrats were in southern tobacco country -- where the vote for tough-on-tobacco Clinton might not be a true indicator of Democratic support. Both seats also had been represented by Democrats before 1996, and both winners are considered conservative. The average vote for winning Republicans was 53%, while the average anti-Clinton in these districts was 58% -- one reason for the difference was the presence of third party candidates in these races, as the vote for losing Democrats was 43%, a close match to Clinton's average vote of 42%. Note that only one Republican won with more than 56% (the exception was actually outspent), and none won with more than 58%. In the more conservative districts (sub 41%-Clinton), only one Republican in an open seat election had won with less than 59%.
Republican Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
AL - 3 | 44% | 50 - 47 | edge: $868,833 - $799,043 (seat change) |
AL - 4 | 43% | 50 - 48 | deficit: $763,117 - $1,023,515 (seat change) |
AR - 3 | 44% | 56 - 42 | deficit: $366,628 - $441,734 |
CO - 4 | 41% | 56 - 38 | edge: $464,165 - $261,425 |
KS - 3 | 42% | 50 - 45 | deficit: $465,869 - $840,595 |
MT | 41% | 52 - 43 | edge: $943,062 - $635,282 (seat change) |
SD | 43% | 58 - 37 | deficit: $773,125 - $890,708 (seat change) |
TX - 14 | 42% | 51 - 48 | edge: $1,927,756 - $977,888 |
UT - 2 | 41% | 55 - 42 | edge: $1,061,793 - $491,738 |
Democratic Victories | |||
NC - 7 | 44% | 53 - 46 | edge: $490,063 - $332,746 |
VA - 5 | 43% | 61 - 36 | edge: $485,194 - $392,152 |
Nine of 13 seats were won by Republicans. 9 of 12 winners had 52% or less in this marginal category. Five winners were outspent, although only one very significantly. The average vote for winning Republicans was 53% -- exactly the same as the average anti-Clinton in their districts. Winning Democrats outpolled Clinton in their districts by an average of 8%.
Republican Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
CA - 27 | 49% | 50 - 43 | deficit: $763,574 - $1,052,335 |
IL - 20 | 47% | 50 - 50 | deficit: $647,796 - $812,397 (seat change) |
LA - 5 | 47% | 58 - 42 | edge: $898,479 - $511,183 (seat change) |
MO - 8* | 45% | 50 - 37 | deficit: $806,205 - $831,533 |
NH - 1 | 48% | 50 - 47 | deficit: $545,865 - $580,749 |
NJ - 12 | 48% | 50 - 47 | edge: $591,536 - $475,370 |
OK - 3 | 47% | 51 - 45 | edge: $1,106,300 - $542,286 (seat change) |
TX - 5 | 46% | 53 - 47 | edge: $1,091,122 - $602,884 (seat change) |
TX - 12 | 46% | 58 - 41 | edge: $1,001,836 - $455,703 (seat change) |
Democratic Victories | |||
FL - 2 | 48% | 59 - 41 | edge: $807,103 - $287,292 |
TX - 1 | 45% | 52 - 47 | edge: $1,691,255 - $467,750 |
TX - 2 | 45% | 52 - 46 | edge: $919,505 - $595,410 |
WI - 8 | 46% | 52 - 48 | deficit: $289,624 - $556,074 (seat change) |
* Another Republican won 10% in complicated election where the Republican incumbent died during primary and his widow then ran and won as pseudo-independent.
Democrats won all four districts in this category. Only one winner was outspent, but the races in general were competitive financially. The average Clinton vote was 51%, while the average winning percentage for Democrats was one percentage point higher: 52%.
Democratic Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
CA - 24 | 52% | 49 - 44 | edge: $1,364,516 - $898,786 |
FL - 11 | 52% | 58 - 42 | edge: $935,314 - $755,184 |
IA - 3 | 50% | 49 - 48 | edge: $634,351 - $439,269 (seat change) |
WI - 3 | 50% | 52 - 48 | deficit: $497,919 - $507,175 (seat change) |
Democrats won all four districts in this category. Only one winner was outspent, but all races were very close financially. The average Clinton vote was 55%, not counting Louisiana-7, while the average vote for Democratic winners in those three districts was 53%.
Democratic Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
AR - 2 | 55% | 52 - 48 | edge: $798,145 - $730,699 |
IN - 10 | 54% | 53 - 45 | deficit: $572,617 - $638,275 |
LA - 7 | 52% | 53 - 47* (see below) | |
MA - 10 | 56% | 54 - 42 | deficit: $1,072,986 - $1,391,148 |
* In open run-off system, two Democrats made run-off when four Republicans split the Republican vote. The Democrat who spent slightly more money won in the general election.
Democrats won all ten districts in this category. All spent more money than their opponents, and only one winner had less than 56%. The average percentage for winners was 66% -- the same as the average vote for Clinton in these districts. The district with the greatest difference was Tennessee-9, where a black Democrat ran 10% behind Clinton. Note that the only other gaps between Clinton and a Democratic candidate in double digits in any open seats were 17% in Virginia-5 and Florida-2 (where conservative white Democrats ran ahead of Clinton). On average, the correlation was almost perfect; the average Clinton vote and the average vote for Democratic candidates in the 51 open seats without run-off elections were both 50% (49.8% for Clinton, versus 50.1% for House Democratic candidates).
Republicans won support in close relation to the anti-Clinton vote -- usually about two in five voters -- in their districts no matter how much money they spent. For example, note that the four Republicans in Florida-19, Illinois-7, Tennessee-9 and Texas-15 were heavily outspent, but won an average of 31% -- exactly the same as the anti-Clinton vote in those districts. At the same time, losing Republicans in Arkansas-1, Colorado-1, New Jersey-9 and Rhode Island-2 all spent at least $400,000, but won an average of 40%, slightly less than the average anti-Clinton vote of 41%. in these districts.
Democratic Victories | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Clinton | won | Spending |
AR - 1 | 58% | 53 - 44 | edge: $871,389 - $574,846 |
CO - 1 | 61% | 57 - 40 | edge: $889,219 - $423,755 |
FL - 19 | 65% | 66 - 34 | edge: $872,367 - $121,117 |
IL - 7 | 82% | 83 - 15 | edge: $410,662 - $33,155 |
MI - 15 | 86% | 88 - 10 | edge: $174,457 - x |
NJ - 9 | 60% | 56 - 42 | edge: $797,632 - $789,894 |
RI - 2 | 58% | 64 - 32 | edge: $785,547 - $416,771 |
TN - 9 | 71% | 61 - 37 | edge: $679,843 - $95,687 |
TX - 15 | 60% | 62 - 37 | edge: $715,391 - $39,345 |
TX - 16 | 63% | 71 - 28 | edge: $587,193 - $110,765 |
Produced in July 1997 by
The Center for Voting and Democracy
PO Box 60037 Washington, DC 20039