Suchergebnisse

American political parties frequently advance contradictory arguments in policy debates, but scholars know relatively little about where these arguments originate. Outside research-producing institutions are likely culprits. Have the research and advocacy efforts of these groups helped structure policy discussions along party lines, thereby contributing to partisan polarization? I answer this question by tracing the diffusion of policy language related to cap-and-trade regulations across actors and over time. Utilizing quantitative network and text analysis techniques, as well as qualitative textual analysis, I find that outside groups inform policy discussions through their early research. First, prominent organizations develop ideas and talking points that then spread to other groups. Second, members of Congress adopt these talking points and use them to justify their views to their constituents. Importantly, the diffusion of arguments is most likely among actors with shared partisan commitments, resulting in two relatively cohesive and distinct partisan communities that advance partisan policy narratives. These findings have important implications for our understanding of partisan polarization, outside group influence, and the capacity for Congress to address meaningful public problems.

Le nombre d'électeurs contribuant aux campagnes électorales par de petits dons (« small donors » ou « petits donateurs ») connaît une nette augmentation ces dernières années. Cette tendance indique-t-elle une démocratisation de la vie politique ? En effet, la mobilisation d'une plus large base de citoyens pourrait contrebalancer l'influence des plus riches et des entreprises injectant des sommes considérables dans les partis politiques. Très peu de recherches nous renseignent quant aux effets d'un système de financement incitant les « petits dons » sur la vie politique de manière plus large. Sur la base de données descriptives, cet article formule quelques hypothèses dialoguant avec les théories établies sur le comportement politique des individus et des organisations. Notre argument principal insiste sur l'importance de relier les incitations aux petits dons avec le jeu des institutions et les dynamiques du système électoral. Nos résultats confirment que les petits donateurs sont plutôt représentatifs du corps électoral du point de vue de la proportion relative d'hommes et de femmes. Une réduction de l'écart en termes de représentativité des revenus est également à noter, bien que les petits donateurs aient des revenus supérieurs au revenu médian. Du point de vue idéologique, nous observons par ailleurs que les petits donateurs tiennent des positions plus radicales, et que par conséquent ils tendent à offrir leurs contributions aux candidats se rapprochant des extrêmes. Cette tendance se traduit par un renforcement de la polarisation à différents niveaux de la vie politique (système partisan, recrutement des candidats, dynamique interne des partis, politiques publiques).

Many scholars expect that the "party decides" on presidential nominees who are both electable and willing to pursue an agenda acceptable to the supporting coalition. By most accounts, the nomination of Donald Trump does not fit these expectations. Did most party insiders view Trump as unelectable and unacceptable? If so, how did the Republican Party coalition react to his unlikely nomination? To address these questions, we content analyze endorsements of Trump and construct an endorsement network of the coalition behind Trump's candidacy. We show that Trump received little support from party insiders prior to his nomination, and that policy considerations were relatively unimportant to Trump supporters throughout the election. Instead, when faced with an undesirable nominee, party insiders reacted by supporting Trump for electoral reasons. Our results suggest that party insiders are not immutable arbiters in presidential primaries and that most will prioritize partisan ambitions over policy goals.

What are the dynamics of partisan rhetoric in presidential campaigns? (How) has presidential candidate partisanship changed over time? Analyzing a comprehensive dataset of party-related statements in presidential campaign speeches over the 1952–2012 period, we show that Democratic and Republican candidates have taken distinctive approaches to partisanship. Overall, Democratic candidates have been partisans, while Republicans have largely refrained from partisan rhetoric on the campaign trail. However, this difference has narrowed substantially over time, due to a dramatic decline in the partisanship of Democratic presidential candidates. We argue that Democratic and Republican candidates have adopted different campaign strategies that reflect both enduring party differences and changing political contexts. Though naturally inclined to partisanship, Democratic candidates have adopted more conciliatory strategies primarily in response to growing public antipathy toward partisan rancor. In contrast, Republicans' tendency toward more conciliatory rhetoric has been reinforced by political developments discouraging partisan campaigning.

Primary elections in the United States reflect the most inclusive nomination process among political parties across democracies. The desire for mass participation in party nominations appears embedded in a widespread populist ideal. It remains unclear, however, the extent to which voters believe that elites should be able to influence the process. Using data from the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we demonstrate that levels of political engagement, perceived ideological distance from the party, and partisanship predict the degree of support for popular selection of party nominees. We find key differences between the parties, with Republicans, particularly conservatives, more strongly opposed to elite influence. Surprisingly, most voters tend to have a pluralistic approach to selecting nominees, allowing for party officials and experts to weigh in on picking the party's candidates. The findings have implications for how we conceive of political parties and the kinds of nomination reforms that might be embraced by voters.

How did the 2020 election shape the major political parties in the U.S? This volume explores the opposing forces of party polarization and internal party factionalism during this tumultuous period. Leading authors demonstrate how factions within the parties reshaped, and responded to, the changing political environment.

Policy Analysis in the United States brings together contributions from some of the world's leading scholars and practitioners of public policy analysis including Beryl Radin, David Weimer, Rebecca Maynard, Laurence Lynn, and Guy Peters. This volume represents an indispensable companion to other volumes in the International Library of Policy Analysis series, enabling scholars to compare cross-nationally concepts and practices of public policy analysis in the media, sub-national governments, and many more institutional settings. The volume represents an invaluable contribution to public policy analysis and can be used widely in teaching at both graduate and undergraduate levels in schools of public affairs and public policy as well as in comparative politics and policy