Congressional Careers and Party Leadership in the Contemporary House of Representatives

Loomis, Burdett A.

doi:10.2307/2110793

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an empirical matter, dozens of studies have shown that personal factors including race (Canon, 1999), religion (Burden, 2007), sex (Swers, 2002), socioeconomic class (Carnes, 2013), and sexual orientation (Haider-Markel et al, 2007) indeed shape legislative behavior. A related series of studies have posited that legislative behavior stems (in part) from group identity (Garand and Clayton, 1986;Loomis, 1984;. Based on this work, we believed identity would be a motivating factor in the #NeverTrump movement.…”

Section: Identitymentioning

confidence: 72%

#NeverTrump: Why Republican members of Congress refused to support their party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election

Johnson

McCray

Ragusa

2018

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an election characterized by countless headlines, the refusal of Republicans to support their party's nominee was a constant topic of discussion in 2016. Our paper looks to explain why Republican members of Congress joined the socalled #NeverTrump movement. In the first part, we document the varied-and often contradictory-explanations of the #NeverTrump movement offered by journalists, pundits, and politicians during the campaign. We then categorize these popular explanations into four theoretical categories: policy preferences, identity, electoral motivations, and establishment dynamics. In the second part, we test the varied claims. We believe two findings stand out and have broader implications for American politics. First, despite the popular belief that members of Congress are single-minded in their pursuit of reelection, we found that a lawmaker's religion and sex-both in the identity category-had the largest effects on the decision to join the #NeverTrump movement. Second, the results show that establishment Republicans were more likely to support Donald Trump's candidacy. Notably, the direction of this effect is inconsistent with popular explanations of the #NeverTrump movement but consistent with a range of academic studies.

show abstract

Section: Identitymentioning

confidence: 72%

#NeverTrump: Why Republican members of Congress refused to support their party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election

Johnson

McCray

Ragusa

2018

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 In particular, the evidence presented here suggests that we should estimate two separate models: one for votes on Journal 20 Recent works considering the implications of selective pursuit of party discipline in Congress include Sinclair (1998Sinclair ( , 2000, Rohde (2000, 2004), Roberts (2003), Burden and Frisby (2004), Schickler and Wawro (2006), Lebo et al (2007), and Patty (2008). 21 A few examples that have been studied include committee assignments (Leighton and Lopez 2002), staff (Sinclair 1981), opportunities for promotion within the party organization (Loomis 1984), preferential recognition of legislation (Woon 2008), and the opportunity to offer amendments (Sinclair 1983;Bach and Smith 1988;Roberts 2003). 22 For example, consider Groseclose (2000, 2001), Ansolabehere et al (2001), McCarty et al (2001), Roberts (2003Roberts ( , 2007, Krehbiel (2003), and Krehbiel et al (2005), among others.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Dilatory or anticipatory? Voting on the Journal in the House of Representatives

Patty

2009

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For one, the largest sums of LPAC money were often doled out by policy entrepreneurs and members holding (and seeking) leadership positions. Moreover, leadership PACs emerged at a time when scholars emphasized the decentralized features of the 1970s' committee and party reforms, which empowered individual political entrepreneurs (Loomis, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, as the political environment changes, the attributes parties look for in leaders change (Loomis, 1984;Nelson, 1977;Peabody, 1976). As parties mobilized to contest the battle for majority control, they placed greater emphasis on their members' abilities to serve the party's collective electoral good, making the provision of campaign funds a de facto criterion for advancement in committee and party hierarchies (Heberlig et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

Heberlig

Larson

2009

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TTraditionally, observers have characterized leadership political action committees (LPACs) as tools used by political entrepreneurs to build personal coalitions supporting their power and policy goals. We argue that political context -namely, competition for control of the House and the advancement structures created by the parties -shapes the way House members use LPAC contributions to advance their careers. As congressional parties have become more oriented towards attaining majority status since the GOP takeover in 1995, LPAC contributions should have shifted towards helping the party win majority status rather than building individual coalitions. We use rare events logit to estimate the probability of incumbent to candidate contributions in the 1990, 1998 and 2004 election cycles. Our evidence shows that Democratic, but not Republican, LPAC contributions have generally become more party-centred as party margins have tightened.

show abstract

Congressional Careers and Party Leadership in the Contemporary House of Representatives

Cited by 32 publications

References 18 publications

#NeverTrump: Why Republican members of Congress refused to support their party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election

#NeverTrump: Why Republican members of Congress refused to support their party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election

Dilatory or anticipatory? Voting on the Journal in the House of Representatives

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About