Unless you were Newt Gingrich, the House elections of 1998 were scarcely earth-shattering affairs. Just six incumbents lost their seats, and only forty new members (23 Democrats, 17 Republicans) would serve in the 106th Congress. And the number of truly competitive seats stood at near-record lows. The electorate appeared profoundly uninterested, for the most part. Yet appearances can be deceptive.

At the national level, modest Democratic gains shook House Republicans to the extent that two of their top four leaders were replaced, and another narrowly escaped defeat. Bill Clinton seemed to win some breathing room--but the lame duck Congress became even more partisan in his impeachment than it had been before the election. For political scientists and consultants, this was an election that seemed to have few national trends, yet underneath the apparent calm of the surface, strong partisanship shaped views of the president and had the potential to sway those congressional races that were competitive.

Within this context, the American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies embarked upon analyses of six House races: California 22, Connecticut 6, Georgia 2, Kansas 3, Washington 3, and Wisconsin 2. Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and directed by AU's James Thurber, these case studies sought to understand the role of consultants, strategic decision making, types of advertising, and many other components of competitive campaigns. The five reports presented here are synopses of much richer, more detailed studies. Taken together, however, they reflect the patchwork quilt of congressional elections, which communicate to us as both national events and local referenda.