IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v119y2025i3p1536-1541_32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Election-Denying Republican Candidates Underperformed in the 2022 Midterms

Author

Listed:
  • MALZAHN, JANET
  • HALL, ANDREW B.

Abstract

We combine newly collected election data with records of public denials of the results of the 2020 election to estimate the degree to which election-denying Republican candidates over- or underperformed other Republicans in 2022 in statewide and federal elections. We find that the average vote share of election-denying Republicans in statewide races was approximately 3.2 percentage points lower than their co-partisans after accounting for state-level partisanship. However, we find no such underperformance on aggregate for U.S. House elections, perhaps due to the more-partisan nature of many House districts. Together, the results suggest that the types of candidates in American elections who take more-extreme positions tend to underperform, but that these performance gaps are relatively small in the present, polarized political environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Malzahn, Janet & Hall, Andrew B., 2025. "Election-Denying Republican Candidates Underperformed in the 2022 Midterms," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 1536-1541, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:119:y:2025:i:3:p:1536-1541_32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055424001084/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:119:y:2025:i:3:p:1536-1541_32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.