Constituent connections: senators’ reputation building in the age of social media

References

• Adler, S., Gent, C., & Overmeyer, C. (1998). The home style homepage: legislator use of the world wide web for constituency contact. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 585–595. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/440242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R., & Iyengar, S. (1993). Media game: American politics in the television age. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, R. Douglas. (1990) The Logic of Congressional Action. Yale University Press
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., &, Bonneau, R. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychological science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R. (1989). Conflict and rhetoric in French policymaking. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R. (2001). Political Agendas. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences: Political science (pp. 288–290). New York: Elsevier Science and Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013) The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bianco, W. T. (1994). Trust: Representatives and constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. (2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 331–344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congressional Management Foundation. 2015. #SocialCongress 2015. http://www.congressfoundation.org/news/press-releases/1123-new-report-outlines-how-congress-and-citizens-interact-on-social-media
   Google Scholar
• Cormack, L. (2016). Gender and vote revelation strategy in the United States congress.”. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 626–640. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2015.1078228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, N., & Lelkes, Y. (2021) The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disentangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity. American Journal of Political Science.Chicago
   Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K. (2016). Do women only talk about “female issues”? Gender and issue discussion on twitter. Online Information Review, 40(5), 660–672. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K., & Clark, J. H. (2015). You tweet like a girl: How female candidates campaign on twitter. American Politics Research, 44(2), 326–352. doi:https://doi.org/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 and Politics, 47(2), 454–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home Style. Boston. Little, Brown & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2013). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ungherr, A., & Jürgens, P. (2013) Forecasting the pulse: how deviations from regular patterns in online data can identify offline phenomena. Internet Research.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, J. (2020). Partisan intensity in congress: Evidence from Brett Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination. Political Research Quarterly. University of Michigan Press
   Google Scholar
• Gervais, B. T., & Wilson, W. C. (2017) New media for the new electorate? Congressional outreach to Latinos on Twitter. Politics, Groups, and Identities.
   Google Scholar
• Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Pew Research CenterMay26http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
   Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2010). A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpp034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2013). Representational style in congress: What legislators say and why it matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harder, R. A., Sevenans, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2017). Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(3), 275–393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemphill, L., Russell, A., & Schöpke‐Gonzalez, A. M. (2021). What drives U.S. congressional members’ policy attention on twitter? In Policy & Internet 13(2), 233-256.
   Google Scholar
• Hemphill, L., Russell, A., & Schöpke‐Gonzalez, A. M. (2020). What drives U.S. congressional members’ policy attention on twitter? In Policy & Internet.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008) Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication research, 35(2), 190-207.
   Google Scholar
• Hogwood, B. W. (1987). From crisis to complacency? Shaping public policy in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, D. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W. (2004). Congress online: Bridging the gap between citizens and their representatives. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Kruikemeier, S., Van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112464837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen, D. S., & Brown, A. R. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 419–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310382749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, B. A., (1979). The congressional office as a small (?) business: new members set up shop. Publius, 9(3), 35–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipinski, D., & Neddenriep, G. (2004). Using ‘new media’ to get ‘old media’ coverage: How members of congress utilize their web site to court journalists. The Harvard Journal of Press and Politics, 9(1), 7–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X03259819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manheim, J. (1991). All of the people, all the time: Strategic communication and American politics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Molyneux, L., & Mourão, R. R. (2019) Political journalists’ normalization of Twitter: Interaction and new affordances. Journalism Studies, 20(2), 248-266.
   Google Scholar
• Oleszek, W. J. (2007). Congressional procedures and the policy process. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (1996). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on# Egypt. Journal of communication, 62(2), 266–282.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study.”. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich, M. R. (1991). Toxic politics: Responding to chemical disasters. In Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, A. (2018). The politics of prioritization: Senators’ attention in 140 characters. The Forum, 16(2), 331–356. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0020
   Google Scholar
• Schiller, W. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 186–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2111763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers, P. (2010). Cycles of Spin: Strategic communication in the U.S. congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Straus, J. R. (2018). Social media adoption by members of congress: Trends and congressional considerations. Washington, DC In Congressional research service.
   Google Scholar
• Straus, J. R., Glassman, M., Shogan, C. J., & Smelcer, S. N. (2013). Communicating in 140 characters or less: Congressional adoption of twitter in the 111th congress. PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(1), 60–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straus, J. R., Shogan, C., Williams, R. T., & Glassman, M. E. (2016). Congressional social media communications: Evaluating Senate Twitter usage. Online Information Review, 40(5), 643–659. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurber, J. (2003). Congress and the Internet. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Tromble, R. (2016). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on twitter. New Media & Society, 20(2), 676–697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816669158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (1995). Markets, states and public policy: Prioritization in Britain and france. In University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI.
   Google Scholar