Why do majority parties choose to add extreme dead on arrival bills to their legislative agendas rather than enactable legislation? Majorities in Congress choose this strategy in order to accrue political support from their allied interest groups who reliably reward this legislative behavior. By examining all bills that receive floor consideration from 2003 through 2012, as well as interest group scorecards and campaign commercials, I find support for my theory. Dead‐on‐arrival bills generate electoral benefits for majority‐party lawmakers, are more politically valuable than other bills, and are more often used to credit rather than punish legislators.
Partisan disputes are ubiquitous in Congress. Yet, participation in this bickering varies among legislators. Some eagerly join these fights while others abstain. What explains this variation? Previous research examines this question by studying members’ partisan preferences expressed through votes or bill cosponsorships. However, preference-based studies miss much of the daily congressional bickering and cannot identify which legislators were most involved in the fighting. This paper considers lawmakers’ partisan intensity, the time and effort they devote to partisanship. I argue the same factors that drive other forms of legislative participation—constituent demand, committee service, and a member’s personal characteristics—also predict who joins a partisan dispute. Using Senators’ daily Twitter communications during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation, I show legislators’ partisan intensity systematically varied based on these factors. In particular, I find that sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh altered Senators’ partisan behavior in a predictable manner. This study helps explain why legislators choose to create the partisan acrimony that is omnipresent on Capitol Hill and contributes to our understanding of partisanship, messaging politics, and how social identity affects legislative participation.
The president is the most influential policy actor in US politics, and his legislative program greatly influences Congress's agenda. Yet little research has focused on what factors affect the president's choices when constructing his agenda. We develop a theory that determines when a president will include an issue in his program. We hypothesize that presidents structure their agendas around the congressional calendar for consideration of expiring laws and salient issues. Using data over 28 years and across 12 policy areas, we find presidents build their programs around these policymaking opportunities. We assert that presidential agendas are less driven by individual priorities than previous accounts have concluded.
We develop a method for measuring a legislator’s partisanship using their Twitter rhetoric. To do so, we classify over 2.1 million tweets sent during two congressional terms (2015 through 2018) to determine how often members use explicitly partisan language. Since lawmakers are strategic in how they communicate with the public, we argue our approach captures a member’s partisan intensity, the time and effort they devote to supporting their party. After validating our measure, we examine how partisanship affects commonly studied legislative behaviors. We show it predicts, independent of ideology, a lawmaker’s party‐unity voting and expressed bipartisanship. Additionally, we find that presidential support is principally driven by partisanship, not ideology. Our findings offer two contributions. First, we show that a member’s partisanship, based on how they talk about Democrats and Republicans online, is associated with their legislative behavior. Second, we measure a concept that is difficult to operationalize.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.