{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014808362369337979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.491525423728813, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Initial Re-Election Chances of Appointed & Elected United States Senators

Why do incumbent candidates enjoy an electoral advantage over their nonincumbent opponents? Two alternative explanations may be offered to account for their advantage. First, they may have gathered experience, and electoral appeal, as a result of waging previous electoral contests. Having won the office before, they have already demonstrated their ability to adopt a successful campaign strategy and win constituency approval. Second, they may succeed because of their current status as public officeholders. That is to say, the prestige and perquisites attached to officeholding may serve as the principal sources of their electoral strength. I examine below the re-election chances of appointed versus elected United States Senators to assess which of the above explanations contributes more to the incumbency advantage. A finding that elected senators do noticeably better at the polls than appointed senators would suggest that the incumbency advantage derives more from the voter appeal of incumbent candidates themselves than from their status as officeholders.