Appealing to the base or to the moveable middle? Incumbents’ partisan messaging before the 2016 U.S. congressional elections

References

• Abramowitz, A. I., & Fiorina, M. P. (2013, March 11). Polarized or sorted? Just what’s wrong with our politics, anyway? The American Interest. Retrieved from https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/03/11/polarized-or-sorted-just-whats-wrong-with-our-politics-anyway/
   Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a Myth? The Journal Of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. doi:10.1017/S0022381608080493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w23089
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, W., Katz, J., & Patel, J. (2016, June 16). Latest election polls 2016. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
   Google Scholar
• Andris, C., Lee, D., Hamilton, M. J., Martino, M., Gunning, C. E., & Selden, J. A. (2015). The rise of partisanship and super-cooperators in the U.S. house of representatives. PloS One, 10(4), e0123507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in american public opinion. Ajs; American Journal Of Sociology, 114(2), 408–446. doi:10.1086/590649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, M., & McCarty, N. (2013). Causes and consequences of polarization. In J. Mansbridge & C. J. Martin (Eds.), Negotiating agreement in politics (pp. 19–53). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather Tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis: An Annual Publication Of The Methodology Section Of The American Political Science Association, 23(1), 76–91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal Of Statistical Software, Articles, 67(1), 1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L., Hanna, A., Yang, J., & Shah, D. V. (2015). Candidate networks, citizen clusters, and political expression strategic hashtag use in the 2010 midterms. The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science, 659(1), 149–165. doi:10.1177/0002716214563923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, A. (2013). Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal Of Political Science, 57(2), 294–311. doi:10.1111/ajps.2013.57.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, A. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal Of Political Science, 58(2), 367–386. doi:10.1111/ajps.2014.58.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, D. W., & Han, H. C. (2006). Polarization then and now: A historical perspective. In P. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation?: Characteristics and causes of america’s polarized politics (pp. 119–174). Washington, DC: Brookings and Hoover Press.
   Google Scholar
• Broersma, M., & Graham, T. (2013). Twitter as a news source: How Dutch and British newspapers used tweets in their news coverage, 2007–2011. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 446–464. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.802481
   Google Scholar
• Broh, C. A. (1980). Horse-Race journalism: Reporting the polls in the 1976 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 514–529. doi:10.1086/268620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, R., Lewis, J., Lo, J., McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2011). DW-NOMINATE scores with bootstrapped standard errors. Retrieved from http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin.htm
   Google Scholar
• Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2011). Twitter adoption in congress. Review Of Network Economics, 10(1). doi:10.2202/1446-9022.1255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on House Administration. (n.d.). Eligible congressional member organization handbook. Retrieved from https://cha.house.gov/handbooks/eligible-congressional-member-organization-handbook
   Google Scholar
• Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cormack, L. (2016). Extremity in congress: communications versus votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(3), 575–603. doi:10.1111/lsq.2016.41.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal Of Politics, 48(2), 370–389. doi:10.2307/2131098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., & Munger, M. C. (1989). Closeness, expenditures, and turnout in the 1982 US house elections. The American Political Science Review, 83(1), 217–231. doi:10.2307/1956441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culotta, A., & Hemphill, L. (2016). Purpletag: For Journal Of Information Technology & Politics (version V1.0). doi:10.5281/zenodo.53888
   Google Scholar
• Curini, L., & Hino, A. (2012). Missing links in party-system polarization: How institutions and voters matter. The Journal Of Politics, 74(2), 460–473. doi:10.1017/S0022381611001721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson McGuire Woods, C. (2014, July 22). When is a Tweet an ethics violation? | A question of ethics. Retrieved from Roll Call website https://www.rollcall.com/news/when-is-a-tweet-an-ethics-violation-a-question-of-ethics
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal Of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150. doi:10.1086/257897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2017a). Consistent and cautious: Online congressional campaigning in the context of the 2016 presidential election. In J. C. Baumgartner & T. L. Towner (Eds.), The internet and the 2016 presidential campaign (pp. 3–24). London: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Hennessy, C. L., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009). Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002—2006. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 3–23. doi:10.1177/0894439309335485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M., Parkin, M., & Klar, S. (2011). Technological development of congressional candidate web sites 2002-2008. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1901867
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2018). Resisting the opportunity for change: How congressional campaign insiders viewed and used the web in 2016. In Social science Computer Review, 36(4),392–405 .
   Google Scholar
• Election results 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from Ballotpedia website https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2016
   Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K., & Clark, J. H. (2016). “You Tweet like a Girl!”: How female candidates campaign on Twitter. American Politics Research, 44(2), 326–352. doi:10.1177/1532673X15597747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K., Cordova, V., & Sipole, S. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS, Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 454–462. doi:10.1017/S1049096514000389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review Of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. (2011). Culture war?: The Myth of a polarized America. Longman, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Frechette, C., & Ancu, M. (2017). Campaigning in 140 characters: A content analysis of Twitter Use by 2016 U.S. congressional candidates. In J. C. Baumgartner & T. L. Towner (Eds.), The internet and the 2016 presidential campaign (pp. 25–50). London: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gabel, M. J., & Huber, J. D. (2000). Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal Of Political Science, 44(1), 94–103. doi:10.2307/2669295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2014). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallup. (n.d.). Congress and the Public. Retrieved from Gallup.com website http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/Congress-Public.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Taddy, M. (2016). Measuring polarization in high-dimensional data: Method and application to congressional speech (No. 22423). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website http://www.nber.org/papers/w22423
   Google Scholar
• Glassman, M. E. (2016). Party and procedure in the United States congress. In R. Straus Jacob & G. Matthew (Eds.), Congressional leadership: A resource perspective (pp. 15–31). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Glassman, M. E., Straus, J. R., & Shogan, C. J. (2013). Social networking and constituent communications: Members’ use of Twitter and Facebook during a two-month period in the 112th congress (No. R43018). Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science And Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621. doi:10.1002/asi.21217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2010). A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political Analysis: An Annual Publication Of The Methodology Section Of The American Political Science Association, 18(1), 1–35. doi:10.1093/pan/mpp034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review Of Political Science, 7(1), 25–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104711
   Google Scholar
• Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2013). Public sentiment and critical framing in social media content during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 563–576. doi:10.1177/0894439313490401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P., & Lind, C. J. (2013). The blended language of partisanship in the 2012 presidential campaign. The American Behavioral Scientist, 58(4), 591–616. doi:10.1177/0002764213506220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemphill, L., Culotta, A., & Heston, M. (2016). #Polar scores: Measuring partisanship using social media content. Journal Of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 365–377. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1214093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemphill, L., Otterbacher, J., & Shapiro, M. (2013). What’s congress doing on twitter? Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 877–886). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hemsley, J., Stromer-Galley, J., Semaan, B., & Tanupabrungsun, S. (2018). Tweeting to the target: Candidates’ use of strategic messages and @Mentions on Twitter. Journal Of Information Technology & Politics, 15(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1338634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, T., & Vargo, C. J. (2017). Does negative campaign advertising stimulate uncivil communication on social media? Measuring audience response using big data. Computers In Human Behavior, 68(SupplementC), 368–377. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.034
   Google Scholar
• Howard, P. N. (2005). Deep democracy, thin citizenship: The impact of digital media in political campaign strategy. The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science, 597(1), 153–170. doi:10.1177/0002716204270139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Jacoby, S., Strickland, M., & Lai, K. K. R. (2016, November 8). Election 2016: Exit polls. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J., Naidu, S., Kaplan, E., Wilse-Samson, L., Gergen, D., Zuckerman, M., & Spirling, A. (2012). Political polarization and the dynamics of political language: Evidence from 130 years of partisan speech [with Comments and Discussion]. Brookings Papers On Economic Activity, 1–81. doi:10.1353/eca.2012.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jesuit, D. K., & Williams, R. A. (2017). Public policy, governance and polarization: Making governance work. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, D. R. (2010). Partisan polarization and congressional accountability in house elections. American Journal Of Political Science, 54(2), 323–337. doi:10.1111/ajps.2010.54.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsen, R. (2015). Followers are opinion leaders: The role of people in the flow of political communication on and beyond social networking sites. European Journal Of Disorders Of Communication: The Journal Of The College Of Speech And Language Therapists, London, 30(3), 301–318. doi:10.1177/0267323115577305
   Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1473–1490. doi:10.1177/1461444814562445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, R. G., Molyneux, L., Coddington, M., & Holton, A. (2014). Tweeting conventions: Political journalists’ use of Twitter to cover the 2012 presidential campaign. Journalism Studies, 15(6), 789–806. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2013.836378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, F. E. (2008). Agreeing to disagree: Agenda content and senate partisanship, 1981–2004. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(2), 199–222. doi:10.3162/036298008784311000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. (2010). The partisan sort how liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. B., & Poole, K. T. (2004). Measuring bias and uncertainty in ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis: An Annual Publication Of The Methodology Section Of The American Political Science Association, 12(2), 105–127. doi:10.1093/pan/mph015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWilliams, M. C. (2016). Who decides when the party doesn’t? Authoritarian voters and the rise of Donald Trump. PS, Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 716–721. doi:10.1017/S1049096516001463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered styles, gendered differences: Candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter. Journal Of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 295–310. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1160268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mergel, I. (2012). “Connecting to Congress”: The use of Twitter by members of congress. Journal Of Policy Advice And Political Consulting, 3, 108–114.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The modern news consumer. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/
   Google Scholar
• Neiheisel, J. R., & Niebler, S. (2013). The use of party brand labels in congressional election campaigns. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(3), 377–403. doi:10.1111/lsq.2013.38.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, P., & Curtice, J. (2008). Getting the message out: A two-step model of the role of the internet in campaign communication flows during the 2005 British general election. Journal Of Information Technology & Politics, 4(4), 3–13. doi:10.1080/19331680801975359
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, J. E., & Rahn, W. M. (2016). Rise of the trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science, 667(1), 189–206. doi:10.1177/0002716216662639
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in the American Public. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-12-2014-Political-Polarization-Release.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. The Journal Of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079. doi:10.2307/2131242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal Of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384. doi:10.2307/2111172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2006). The incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. house elections. The Journal Of Politics, 68(3), 657–673. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00452.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn, K. M., Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. H., & Radev, D. R. (2010). How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal Of Political Science, 54(1), 209–228. doi:10.1111/ajps.2010.54.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). The R project for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Radcliff, B. (1994). Turnout and the democratic vote. American Politics Quarterly, 22(3), 259–276. doi:10.1177/1532673X9402200301
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, J. M., & Smith, S. S. (2003). Procedural contexts, party strategy, and conditional party voting in the U.S. house of representatives, 1971–2000. American Journal Of Political Science, 47(2), 305–317. doi:10.1111/ajps.2003.47.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenberger, R. A. (1969). Campaign strategy and party loyalty: The electoral relevance of candidate decision-making in the 1964 congressional elections. The American Political Science Review, 63(2), 515–520. doi:10.2307/1954704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, M. A., Hemphill, L., & Otterbacher, J. (2017). Pussyfooting around November?: A longitudinal analysis of politicians’ Twitter use in 2014. Pp. 60–70, In T. S. Sisco, J. C. Lucas, & C. J. Galdieri (Eds.), Political communication and strategy: Consequences of the 2014 midterm elections. Akron, OH, USA: The University of Akron Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, M. A., & Hemphill, L. (2017). Politicians and the policy Agenda: Does use of Twitter by the U.S. Congress direct New York Times content? Policy & Internet, 9(1), 109–132. doi:10.1002/poi3.120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smidt, C. D. (2017). Polarization and the decline of the American floating voter. American Journal Of Political Science, 61(2), 365–381. doi:10.1111/ajps.2017.61.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Schneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington, DC, USA: Pew Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Straus, J. R., Williams, R., Shogan, C., & Glassman, M. E. (2014). Social media as a communication tool in congress: Evaluating senate usage of Twitter in the 113th Congress (No. ID 2452781). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2452781
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic. com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Estimating candidates’ political orientation in a Polarized Congress. Political Analysis: An Annual Publication Of The Methodology Section Of The American Political Science Association, 25(2), 167–187. doi:10.1017/pan.2017.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towner, T. L., & Muñoz, C. L. (2017). Picture perfect? The role of instagram in issue agenda setting during the 2016 presidential primary campaign. Social Science Computer Review,36 (4),  484–499. 0894439317728222.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, M. W. (2005). The accuracy of the national preelection polls in the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 642–654. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 399–419. doi:10.1111/jcc4.2013.18.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, K. M., Gainous, J., & Holman, M. R. (2017). I am woman, hear me Tweet! Gender differences in Twitter use among congressional candidates. Journal Of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(4), 430–455. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2016.1268871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, C. B., & Gulati, G. J. (2010). Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less: Twitter and the diffusion of technology innovation in the United States Congress. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/paper=1817053
   Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2002). The timeline of presidential election campaigns. The Journal Of Politics, 64(4), 969–993. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, F., Stromer-Galley, J., Tanupabrungsun, S., Hegde, Y., McCracken, N., & Hemsley, J. (2017). Understanding discourse acts: Political campaign messages classification on Facebook and Twitter. In Lee D., Lin YR., Osgood N., Thomson R. (Ed.), Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling (pp. 242–247).  Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_29.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, F., Tanupabrungsun, S., Hemsley, J., Robinson, J. L., Semaan, B., Bryant, L., … Hegde, Y. (2017). Strategic temporality on social media during the general election of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society, 25:1–25: 10. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
   Google Scholar