Jumping on the Trump Train or Ditching the Donald: Campaign Rhetoric and the 2016 Congressional Election

References

• Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. “Transformation and Polarization: The 2008 Presidential Election and the New American Electorate.” Electoral Studies 29 (4): 594–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr, and Charles Stewart. III. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, Kevin, and Robin Kolodny. 2009. “Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 755–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bean, Louis H. 1948. How to Predict Elections. New York: A. A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 367–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, Charles S., and M. V. Hood. 2012. “The Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and the 2010 Congressional Elections: The Aftermath of the Election of Barack Obama.” Social Science Quarterly 93 (5): 1424–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, James E. 1986. “Predicting Seat Gains from Presidential Coattails.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (1): 165–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, James E. 1991. “The Presidential Surge and Its Midterm Decline in Congressional Elections, 1868–1988.” The Journal of Politics 53 (2): 477–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, James E., and Joe A. Sumners. 1990. “Presidential Coattails in Senate Elections.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 513–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpini, Michael X. D., and Scott Keeter. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crespin, Michael H., Suzanne M. Gold, and David W. Rohde. 2006. “Ideology, Electoral Incentives, and Congressional Politics: The Republican House Class of 1994.” American Politics Research 34 (2): 135–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flemming, Gregory N. 1995. “Presidential Coattails in Open-Seat Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2): 197–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaddie, Ronald Keith, and Charles S. Bullock. 2000. Elections to Open Seats in the US House: Where the Action Is. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grofman, Bernard, and Barbara Norrander. 1990. “Efficient Use of Reference Group Cues in a Single Dimension.” Public Choice 64 (3): 213–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, Robert E. 2005. “Gubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (4): 587–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 2007. “Referendum: The 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 122 (1): 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. “The 2008 Presidential and Congressional Elections: Anti‐Bush Referendum and Prospects for the Democratic Majority.” Political Science Quarterly 124 (1): 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary. 2013. “Partisan Polarization in American Politics: A Background Paper.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (4): 688–708.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary, and Jamie Carson. 2016. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Kelly D. Patterson, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. “Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the 2010 Midterm Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (02): 303–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Candidate Status, Presidential Approval, and Voting for US Senator.” Electoral Studies 19 (4): 479–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (01): 63–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattei, Franco, and Joshua Glasgow. 2005. “Presidential Coattails, Incumbency Advantage, and Open Seats: A District-Level Analysis of the 1976–2000 US House Elections.” Electoral Studies 24 (4): 619–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, David, R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, Marc. 2013. “Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 742–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, Warren E. 1955. “Presidential Coattails: A Study in Political Myth and Methodology.” Public Opinion Quarterly 19 (4): 353–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993. “Presidential Coattails and Open Seats the District-Level Impact of Heuristic Processing.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (3): 307–19.
   Google Scholar
• Mondak, Jeffery J., and Carl McCurley. 1994. “Cognitive Efficiency and the Congressional Vote: The Psychology of Coattail Voting.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (1): 151–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, David W. 2007. “Quality Is Job One: Professional and Volunteer Voter Mobilization Calls.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 269–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapoport, Ronald B., Walter J. Stone, and Alan I. Abramowitz. 1991. “Do Endorsements Matter? Group Influence in the 1984 Democratic Caucuses.” American Political Science Review 85 (1): 193–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Steve. 2017. A Comparison of State Legislative DIME and Roll-Call Ideal Points. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the State Politics and Policy Conference. St. Louise, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffner, Brian. 2005. “Priming Gender: Campaigning on Women’s Issues in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 803–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summary, Bryce. 2010. “The Endorsement Effect: An Examination of Statewide Political Endorsements in the 2008 Democratic Caucus and Primary Season.” American Behavioral Scientist 54 (3): 284–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar