Goal Salience and the 2006 Race for House Majority Leader

Green, Matthew N.; Harris, Douglas B.

doi:10.1177/1065912907307539

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 1994 editorial in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call exemplifies this position, asserting that leadership PACs are 'sophisticated vote-buying machines for leadership candidates, who use them to secure votes for internal races that should be decided not on the basis of money but on the ability to lead'. Indeed, some studies show a significant relationship between leadership candidates' campaign contributions and an incumbent's public endorsements in leadership contests (Green, 2008;Green and Harris, 2007).…”

Section: Campaign Contributions and Advancementmentioning

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

Section: Campaign Contributions and Advancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

Heberlig

Larson

2009

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legislative leaders are by no means perfectly representative of ideological shifts in America: their representativeness may be muted by the personal factors traditionally associated with legislative leadership races as well as by the framed choice~including the "pool of announced candidates"! offered candidates in any particular leadership race; see Green and Harris 2007. 12. Peabody~1976!…”

Section: Conclusion: New Roles New Leadersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Middlemen No More? Emergent Patterns in Congressional Leadership Selection

Harris

Nelson

2008

APSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For a quarter-century, conservative Republicans have used the “San Francisco liberal” label to place Democrats as outside the American mainstream. Imagine their dismay as the 110th Congress opened in January 2007 and Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat well to the left of most of her party, ascended to the podium as speaker of the United States House of Representatives. This was, to be sure, a departure. Traditionally, House Democrats had selected ideological “middlemen” for top leadership posts (Truman 1959), particularly those from the “Austin-Boston alliance” that held unbroken sway in House Democratic leadership selection from the initial teaming of Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas and Majority Leader John McCormack of Boston in 1940 to that of Tip O'Neill of Boston and Texan Jim Wright in the 1970s and 1980s. During this time, Democrats “almost never” selected “‘Americans for Democratic Action-type’ liberals” as leaders (Peabody 1976, 470).

show abstract

“…I also use measures of other factors that are related to these goals, or have otherwise been found to predict vote choice for leadership candidates~e.g., Green 2006;Harris 2006;Green and Harris 2007!. I include a variable capturing vote margin in the 2006 election~which may measure individual electoral vulnerability, though this was not an issue in the race!, and ideological disposition~using the first two dimensions of W-NOMINATE scores, although both candidates were relatively conservative!.…”

Section: Figure 1 Sample Support Letter For John Murtha Explaining Sumentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2006 Race for Democratic Majority Leader: Money, Policy, and Personal Loyalty

Green

2008

APSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the week following the November 2006 midterm elections, which gave the Democratic Party control of Congress, both parties in the House held elections for various leadership offices. A total of six positions in both parties were contested, an unusually large number, but the campaign for one office—the Democratic majority leader—garnered the most attention. That race pitted two moderate Democrats against each other, threatened to split the party, and featured a remarkable intervention by the incoming speaker.Thanks to Doug Harris, Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Poole, and Eric Powers for their valuable suggestions and assistance.

show abstract

Goal Salience and the 2006 Race for House Majority Leader

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

Middlemen No More? Emergent Patterns in Congressional Leadership Selection

The 2006 Race for Democratic Majority Leader: Money, Policy, and Personal Loyalty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About