Do Mayors Run for Higher Office? New Evidence on Progressive Ambition

• Date: 01 January 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17752322
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17752322

American Politics Research

2020, Vol. 48(1) 197 –221

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17752322

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Do Mayors Run for

Higher Office? New

Evidence on Progressive

Ambition

Katherine Levine Einstein1, David M. Glick1,

Maxwell Palmer1, and Robert J. Pressel2

Abstract

The mayor’s office potentially offers a launchpad for statewide and national

political ambitions. We know relatively little, however, about how frequently

mayors actually run for higher office, and which mayors choose to do so.

This article combines longitudinal data on the career paths of the mayors

of 200 big cities with new survey and interview data to investigate these

questions. While we find that individual and city traits—especially gender—

have some predictive power, the overwhelming story is that relatively few

mayors—just under one-fifth—ever seek higher office. We suggest that

ideological, institutional, and electoral factors all help to explain why so few

mayors exhibit progressive ambition.

Keywords

American politics, local politics, mayors, progressive ambition

Introduction

In a Time Magazine profile of New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, political

scientist and commentator Larry Sabato cited the value of his experience as a

1Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

2Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Maxwell Palmer, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

Email: mbpalmer@bu.edu

752322APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17752322American Politics ResearchEinstein et al.

research-article2018

198 American Politics Research 48(1)

mayor to his progression to higher office: “When he inevitably runs for

President, Booker will claim executive experience from Newark and national

expertise via the Senate” (Newton-Small, 2013). Booker is not alone in think-

ing of local office as a first step in a national political career. Democratic

presidential runner-up (and Vermont senator) Bernie Sanders and Democratic

vice presidential nominee (and Virginia Senator) Tim Kaine similarly

launched their political careers as mayors.

A wide body of scholarship on progressive ambition suggests that local

offices are good starting points for ambitious politicians (Black, 1972;

Kazee, 1994; Rohde, 1979; Schlesinger, 1966; Fox & Lawless, 2005, 2010).

In describing the electoral successes of former U.S. Senator Scott Brown,

Stewart (2012) succinctly outlines why these offices provide effective politi-

cal launchpads: “His success derived in part from his opportunity to hone his

political skills through seeking election in a series of interlocking and ever-

larger constituencies” (p. 146). In their Citizen Political Ambition Survey,

Fox and Lawless (2005) find that potential office-seekers are well aware of

this “career ladder.” Seventy percent select a local office as their prospective

first race, with between 30% and 40% of respondents indicating that they

eventually plan to run for higher office (p. 649). Holding local office—a

relatively low-cost position to obtain—should create a natural constituency

for an upwardly mobile politician, and could boost his or her sense of effi-

cacy, an important driver of the decision to run for higher office (Fox &

Lawless, 2005).

Given the importance of local office as a career launchpad, a wealth of

research has explored the progressive ambitions of local politicians. The bulk

of this research has centered on the paths of state legislators by investigating

the personal and structural factors that shape when and why they seek higher

office (Fulton, Maestas, Maisel, & Stone, 2006; Maestas, 2000, 2003;

Maestas, Fulton, Maisel, & Stone, 2006). Much of this literature focuses spe-

cifically on decisions about when to run for Congress, rather than higher

office more generally (Maestas, 2000; Maisel & Stone, 2014; Powell, 2000;

Steen, 2006; Tothero, 2003). Within the context of statehouses, this focus

makes sense. State legislators are natural candidates for higher legislative

positions. Nonetheless, by focusing on one pool of candidates—state legisla-

tors—and one particular higher office—U.S. congressional representative—

this scholarship necessarily provides researchers with an incomplete picture

of progressive ambition. This substantive limitation is compounded by meth-

odological ones: these studies rely on case studies of subsets of legislators or

surveys of legislators. To our knowledge, no studies of politicians (or pro-

spective politicians) have combined survey evidence with longitudinal career

path data on the full set of politicians.