American Politics Research

Publisher:: Sage Publications, Inc.
Publication date:: 2021-10-06

ISBN:: 1532-673X

Issue Number

No. 53-2, March 2025

Latest documents

Choice Overload in Crowded Primary Elections
The number of candidates running in U.S. primary elections is increasing. Contested primary elections force voters to decide between candidates that share party labels and are ideologically similar. Similar to contexts of non-partisan elections, an increase in the number of candidates should exacerbate the cognitive demand of voting in primary elections. We expect large candidate fields in primaries make voters (1) spend less time looking at each candidate profile, (2) more likely to abstain, (3) more likely to vote based on ballot position, and (4) more likely to feel overwhelmed with the decision. All four of these expectations were preregistered. We test the effect of large candidate fields on voter behavior using a survey experiment (n = 2000) fielded by YouGov. We find large candidate fields cause respondents to spend less time looking at candidate profiles, to select candidates in the first half of the ballot, and to feel overwhelmed by the decision-making process. In contrast to our expectations, we find large candidate fields make respondents less likely to abstain.
Taylor Swift as a Potential Celebrity Political Endorser
In this research note we examine the effect of Taylor Swift’s hypothetical endorsement of a Public policy position. We examine this in the context of the expanding literature on the effects of celebrity endorsements. Through a post-test only experimental survey design we test Swift’s hypothetical endorsement of a policy position. We begin and conclude with analysis of why Swift’s value as an endorser, as well as the value of other similarly situated endorsers may be particularly high.
Landscape of Distrust: Political Trust Across America’s Urban-Rural Divide
Do rural Americans trust the government less than non-rural Americans? In an era of declining trust in government and mounting geographic polarization, this research examines the relationship between geography, identity, and attitudes of political trust in the United States. Using national survey data from the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies time series surveys, this quantitative analysis tests hypotheses that rurality in the context of place and place-based identity is associated with lower trust in the federal government. Overall, the results show that both living in and identifying with more rural areas corresponds with decreased government trust, regardless of the political party of the incumbent president. These findings contribute to the understanding of America’s urban-rural political divide and suggest significant implications for both partisan leaders and policymakers.
Urban-Rural Differences in Respect for the Norms of American Civil-Military Relations
Democracies require militaries that protect citizen well-being without threatening to overthrow the government or otherwise jeopardize public safety. The military should therefore be firmly under the command of civilian elected leaders, playing a minimal role in the political process. Previous research examines whether the public thinks such boundaries of civil-military relations should exist, and finds that people can see the military as a check to democratically elected administrations in the opposing party. Here, we ask a parallel question: Does place of residence influence attitudes about the boundaries of civil-military relations? We expect rural individuals and those higher in rural resentment to similarly see the military as a check to a civilian government as previous research suggests that rural residents are resentful towards government and centers of power. Using original survey data, we find that people high in such rural resentment are sometimes more willing to defer to the military. Finally, we successfully replicate findings from Krebs et al. (2023) under a Democratic administration. These results have implications for democratic governance and public support, particularly among facets of the public that have lower trust in government.
Research Note: “Comparing Traditional Presidential Rhetoric: Trump Versus Biden”
Even though they both held the same office, Donald Trump and Joe Biden could not have presented themselves more differently. Biden presented himself as the restorer of tradition after Trump was the disruptor. In this research note, we examine seven sets of speeches that hold constant either the timing or the setting to see if their rhetoric contrasted as much as the way they presented themselves. We find that the words and emotions that they invoked were not nearly as systematically distinct from each other as we expected. We argue that this result demonstrates that the power of the presidency as an institution is sufficiently constraining that even the most unorthodox candidate’s rhetoric mirrors that of a traditionalist. When we do uncover some distinctions between them, those that exist are, for the most part, consistent with our expectations.
The Price of Legislative Success: The President's Legislative Agenda and Midterm Seat Loss
The president’s party normally loses seats in the House of Representatives during US midterm elections. While many studies have examined the causes of seat loss, one area often mentioned by media pundits but not examined in midterm elections is the role of presidential agendas. In this paper, I examine whether legislative success is costly for the president’s party during midterm elections. I find passing a larger number of legislative items and passing a larger percentage of the president’s agenda costs the president’s party seats in the midterm election. However, the president’s party only suffers this penalty when the president’s party also controls Congress. The president’s party is not punished for legislative success when the president serves under divided government.
When Politics Override Place: How Political Affiliation Supersedes Rural Identity
How does partisan identity impact rural identity? While prior research has found associations between rural identity and partisanship, few studies experimentally validate this relationship. Using two separate experiments–a partisan prime and a conjoint–we explore the relationship between rural identity and partisan identity to show that when partisan identity is in conflict with rural identity, the partisan identity dominates. Our findings indicate that the relationship between partisan identity and rural identity is asymmetrical for Democrats and Republicans. For Republicans, rural identity often reinforces their partisan identity. However, for Democrats, rural identity is subordinate to their partisan identity. That is, Democrats weaken their rural identity when primed to think about their partisan identity and Democrats’ partisan identity supersedes the expression of a rural identity when rating hypothetical candidates. Overall, when rural and small town Democrats are thinking in a partisan mindset, their rural identity becomes less salient.
Who Gives to American Trade and Professional Association Political Action Committees and Why?
This paper asks: Why do people contribute to American trade and professional association political action committees (PACs)? Our data, which come from an original survey of donors during the 2021–2022 federal election cycle, indicate that trade and professional association PAC donors are not like other campaign donors. Specifically, unlike donors to candidates, who appear to be motivated primarily by purposive benefits and ideology, these PAC donors are motivated largely by material benefits. Our data also showthat trade and professional association PACs are constraining forces in American politics. While donors tend to hue to a strict ideological lane, PACs do not. In short, PACs are balanced in their giving, while individual donors are not.
Allegations of Democratic Election Fraud and Support for Political Violence Among Republicans
Are partisans more likely to endorse political violence when politicians accuse their rivals of election improprieties? I theorize that for Republican partisans in the United States, the answer to this question is yes. Republican partisans are primed to believe allegations of cheating by Democrats and view election improprieties through the lens of racial and xenophobic resentments. Allegations of Democratic election fraud prompt them to eschew nonviolent norms of political behavior and endorse political violence. I test these propositions using an original, online survey experiment involving 140 self-identified Republican subjects. I find that exposure to allegations by politicians that Democrats engage in election fraud prompts Republican partisans to increase their support for political violence. Furthermore, using mediation tests, I find that exposing Republicans to allegations of electoral fraud by Democrats reduces their trust of people of different races and religions which, in turn, increases their support for political violence.
The Partisan Vote: Shared Partisanship and Constituent Service in the U.S. Congress
The theory of the “personal vote” assumes that constituent service, or the process by which members of Congress help their constituents navigate the federal bureaucracy, is a component of representation that transcends partisanship. However, recent research suggests that affective polarization and negative partisanship may discourage constituents from reaching out to ask for help from cross-partisan legislators. Using a conjoint experiment, I show that shared partisanship has a strong effect on constituents’ decisions about which of their legislators to contact for assistance. However, positive in-party affect is unrelated to these preferences, suggesting that negative partisanship is responsible for this result. Gender and seniority also matter for constituents’ preferences even when accounting for shared partisanship. The results suggest that legislators’ ability to build a “personal vote” by performing constituent service may be weakened in an era of strong partisanship.