Partisan disputes are ubiquitous in Congress. Yet, participation in this bickering varies among legislators. Some eagerly join these fights while others abstain. What explains this variation? Previous research examines this question by studying members’ partisan preferences expressed through votes or bill cosponsorships. However, preference-based studies miss much of the daily congressional bickering and cannot identify which legislators were most involved in the fighting. This paper considers lawmakers’ partisan intensity, the time and effort they devote to partisanship. I argue the same factors that drive other forms of legislative participation—constituent demand, committee service, and a member’s personal characteristics—also predict who joins a partisan dispute. Using Senators’ daily Twitter communications during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation, I show legislators’ partisan intensity systematically varied based on these factors. In particular, I find that sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh altered Senators’ partisan behavior in a predictable manner. This study helps explain why legislators choose to create the partisan acrimony that is omnipresent on Capitol Hill and contributes to our understanding of partisanship, messaging politics, and how social identity affects legislative participation.
AbramowitzAlanWebsterSteven. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies41:12–22.
2.
AmiraKarynJohnsonLaurenMcCrayDeonRagusaJordan. 2019. “Adversaries or Allies? Donald Trump’s Republican Support in Congress.” Perspectives on Politics17 (3): 756–71.
Canes-WroneBrandiceBradyDavidCoganJohn. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review96 (1): 127–40.
9.
CarnesNicholas. 2013. White Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CarsonJamieKogerGregoryLeboMatthewYoungEverett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 598–616.
EsterlingKevin. 2007. “Buying Expertise: Campaign Contributions and Attention to Policy Analysis in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review101 (1): 93–109.
14.
EvansHeather K.2016. “Do Women Only Talk About ‘Female Issues’? Gender and Issue Discussion on Twitter.” Online Information Review40 (5): 660–72.
15.
EvansHeather K.OvalleJoycelynGreenStephen. 2016. “Rockin’ Robins: Do Congresswomen Rule the Roost in Twittersphere.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67 (2): 268–75.
16.
GlassmanMatthew EricStrausJacob R.ShoganColleen J. 2013. “Social Networking and Constituent Communication: Members’ Use of Twitter and Facebook during a Two Month Period in the 112th Congress.” R43018. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
17.
GreenMatthewHarrisDouglas. 2019. Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18.
GrimmerJustin. 2013. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HallRichard. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.
HarbridgeLaurel. 2015. Is Bipartisanship Dead? Policy Agreement and Agenda-setting in the House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HarbridgeLaurelMalhotraNeil. 2011. “Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science55 (3): 494–510.
22.
KennedyJohn F.1964. Profiles in Courage. Memorial ed. Manhattan: Harper & Row.
23.
KogerGreogoryLeboMatthew. 2017. Strategic Party Government: Why Winning Trumps Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
KrehbielKeith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
LawlessJenniferTheriaultSeanGuthrieSamantha. 2018. “Nice Girls? Sex, Collegiality, and Bipartisan Cooperation in the US Congress.” Journal of Politics80 (4): 1268–82.
26.
LaymanGeoffreyCarseyThomasHorowitzJuliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science9:83–110.
27.
LeeFrances. 2009. Beyond Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LeeFrances. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LottTrentDaschleTomStrenfeldJon. 2016. Crisis Point. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
30.
LowandeKennethRitchieMelindaLauterbachErinn. 2019. “Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress: Evidence from 80,000 Congressional Inquiries.” American Journal of Political Science63(3): 644–59.
31.
MaltzmanForrestSigelmanLee. 1996. “The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics58(3):819–30.
32.
MannThomasOrnsteinNorman. 2012. It’s Even Worse than It Looks. New York: Basic Books.
33.
MasonLilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
McCartyNolanPooleKeithRosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
35.
MintaMichael. 2011. Oversight: Representing the Interests of Blacks and Latinos in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36.
MorrisJonathan S.2001. “Reexamining the Politics of Talk: Partisan Rhetoric in the 104th House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly26 (1): 101–21.
37.
OlsonLauren EdwardsOlsonLaraFineJeffrey. 2010. “Substantive Religious Representation in the U.S. Senate: Voting Alignment with the Family Research Council.” Political Research Quarterly63 (1): 68–82.
38.
RagusaJordan. 2016. “Partisan Cohorts, Polarization, and the Gingrich Senators.” American Politics Research44 (2): 296–325.
39.
RohdeDavid. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
RussellAnnelise. 2018. “US Senators on Twitter: Asymmetric Party Rhetoric in 140 Characters.” American Politics Research46 (4): 695–723.
41.
SellersPatrick. 2009. Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SetzlerMarkYanusAlixandra B. 2018. “Why Did Women Vote for Donald Trump?”PS: Political Science and Politics51 (3): 523–27.
43.
SinclairBarbara. 2006. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
44.
SmithSteven S.2014. The Senate Syndrome: The Evolution of Procedural Warfare in the Modern U.S. Senate. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
45.
SnoweOlympia. 2013. Fighting for Common Ground: How We Can Fix the Stalemate in Congress. New York: Weinstein Books.
46.
StrausJacob R.WilliamsRaymond T.ShoganColleen J.GlassmanMatthew E. 2016. “Congressional Social Media Communications: Evaluating Senate Twitter Usage.” Online Information Review40 (5): 643–59.
47.
SwersMichelle. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
SwersMichelle. 2005. “Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Sex Differences in Cosponsorship Activity.” Legislative Studies Quarterly30 (3): 407–33.
49.
TateKatherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TheriaultSean. 2006. “Party Polarization in the US Congress: Member Replacement and Member Adaptation.” Party Politics12 (4): 483–503.
52.
TheriaultSean. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TheriaultSean. 2013. The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
ValentinoNicholasWayneCarlyOcenoMarzia. 2018. “Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Political Opinion Quarterly82 (Suppl. 1): 799–821.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
