Constituent Approval, Electoral Marginality, and Congressional Support for the President

Abstract

Controversy exists concerning the effects of approval on congressional support for the president. One source of confusion is the paucity of constituent-level data for testing the approval-support hypothesis. This study applies multilevel regression poststratification techniques on the Cooperative Congressional Election Study from 2006 through 2012 to estimate constituent approval for both the House and Senate at the member level. Using these data, we test a marginality hypothesis, which suggests that electorally marginal legislators will be more responsive to constituent approval than safe ones. Results indicate support for the approval-support linkage as well as the marginality hypothesis. The marginality effect operates differently across the two chambers and is stronger in the House. The conclusion puts the findings into context and suggests directions for future research.

Constituent Approval and Presidential Support: The Mediating Effect of Party and Chamber

“…Also, we can expect, due to electoral considerations, that electorally vulnerable members will be more responsive to constituent opinion than safer legislators (Griffin 2006). Cohen and Rottinghaus (2018) report that electoral vulnerable legislators are more responsive to constituent approval than safer members. Thus, we control for electoral vulnerability.…”

Effects of electoral margins on party loyalty in the roll call votes: Evidence from the 20th National Assembly in South Korea

“…1.For earlier debates, see Bartlett (1979), Campbell (1981), Cohen and Brunk (1983), Deckard (1976), Kuklinski (1977), Miller and Stokes (1963), Shannon (1968), and Sullivan and Uslaner (1978). For more recent research, see Barber and Schmidt (2019), Cohen and Rottinghaus (2018), Griffin (2006), and McGrath and Rydberg (2016).…”