Can district interests mitigate partisan differences over climate policy? While debates over climate policy are highly partisan, local economic and national defense interests may create cross-cutting pressures that reduce polarization. Here, we analyze whether district characteristics mitigate partisan differences on climate change, particularly public opinion and exposure of military installations to weather-related damage. Using two studies—one using a large language model to measure the positions lawmakers take in congressional email newsletters and another employing a survey experiment testing framing effects—we assess whether national defense and economic concerns mitigate partisan divisions. Our findings suggest that Republicans representing districts where severe weather events threaten local military infrastructure express more support for “pro-climate” policy than other Republicans, and that Democrats representing environmentally conservative districts express less support. However, our experiment found no evidence that the issue frame influences voters’ opinions.
AdlerE. ScottCaytonAdam F.GriffinJohn D.. 2018. “Representation when Constituent Opinion and District Conditions Collide.” Political Research Quarterly71 (3): 681–94.
2.
AdlerE. ScottJenkinsJeffrey A.ShipanCharles R.. 2021. The United States Congress. W. W. Norton.
3.
BarkerDavid C.CarmanChristopher J.. 2012. Representing Red and Blue: How the Culture Wars Change the Way Citizens Speak and Politicians Listen. Oxford University Press.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.ArnoldLaura W.ZornChristopher J.. 1997. “The Strategic Timing of Position Taking in Congress: A Study of the North American Free Trade Agreement.” American Political Science Review91 (2): 324–338.
6.
BursteinPaul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly56 (1): 29–40.
7.
ButlerDaniel M.NickersonDavid W.. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science6 (1): 55–83.
8.
CaytonAdamDawkinsRyan. 2022. “Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008–2014.” Perspectives on Politics20 (3): 916–30.
9.
CormackLindsey. 2017. “DCinbox—Capturing Every Congressional Constituent e-newsletter from 2009 Onwards.” The Legislative Scholar2 (1): 27–34.
10.
CurryJames M.LeeFrances E.. 2020. The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era. University of Chicago Press.
11.
DolšakNivesPrakashAseem. 2018. “The Politics of Climate Change Adaptation.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources43 (1): 317–341.
12.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 57–79.
13.
EasterlingDavid R.EvansJenniGroismanP. YaKarlThomasKunkelKennethAmbenjePeter. 2000. “Observed Variability and Trends in Extreme Climate Events: A Brief Review.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society81 (3): 417–26.
14.
EganPatrick J.2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge University Press.
15.
EganPatrick J.MullinMegan. 2012. “Turning Personal Experience into Political Attitudes: The Effect of Local Weather on Americans’ Perceptions About Global Warming.” The Journal of Politics74 (3): 796–809.
16.
EganPatrick J.MullinMegan. 2024. “Us Partisan Polarization on Climate Change: Can Stalemate Give Way to Opportunity?” PS: Political Science & Politics57 (1): 30–35.
17.
ElliottRobert J.Nguyen-TienVietStroblEric A.TveitThomas. 2023. “Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Voting Behavior: Evidence from Environmental Legislation in the US Senate.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists10 (3): 753–786.
18.
EllisChristopherStimsonJames A.. 2012. Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
19.
EnnsPeter K.KellstedtPaul M.McAvoyGregory E.. 2012. “The Consequences of Partisanship in Economic Perceptions.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (2): 287–310.
20.
FarrerBenjamin. 2024. “Political Communication as a Tragedy of the Commons.” Political Studies72 (2): 701–718.
21.
FordhamBenjamin O.2008. “Economic Interests and Public Support for American Global Activism.” International Organization62 (1): 163–82.
22.
FowlerErika FranklinFranzMichael M.MartinGregory J.PeskowitzZacharyRidoutTravis N.. 2021. “Political Advertising Online and Offline.” American Political Science Review115 (1): 130–149.
23.
GaynorSoRelle W.2025. “Following the Leaders: Asymmetric Party Messaging in the U.S Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly50 (1): 85–106.
24.
GreenJonShoubKelseyBlumRachelCormackLindsey. 2024. “Cross-Platform Partisan Positioning in Congressional Speech.” Political Research Quarterly77 (3): 653–668.
25.
GriffinJohn D.2006. “Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis.” The Journal of Politics68 (4): 911–21.
26.
GriffinJohn D.NewmanBrian. 2005. “Are Voters Better Represented?” The Journal of Politics67 (4): 1206–27.
27.
GrimmerJustinWestwoodSean J.MessingSolomon. 2014. The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability. Princeton University Press.
28.
HaiZuhadPerlmanRebecca L.. 2022. “Extreme Weather Events and the Politics of Climate Change Attribution.” Science Advances8 (36): eabo2190.
29.
HaltermanAndrewKeithKatherine A.. 2025. “Codebook LLMs: Evaluating LLMs as Measurement Tools for Political Science Concepts.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10747.
30.
HopkinsDaniel J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
31.
HurleyPatricia A.HillKim Q.. 2003. “Beyond the Demand-Input Model: A Theory of Representational Linkages.” The Journal of Politics65 (2): 304–326.
32.
KnutsonThomas R.McBrideJohn L.ChanJohnny, et al.2010. “Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change.” Nature Geoscience3 (3): 157–63.
33.
LazarusJeffrey. 2010. “Giving the People what they Want? The Distribution of Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 338–53.
34.
LazarusJeffreyReillyShauna. 2010. “The Electoral Benefits of Distributive Spending.” Political Research Quarterly63 (2): 343–55.
35.
LeeFrances E.2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
36.
LeiserowitzAnthony. 2006. “Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values.” Climatic Change77 (1): 45–72.
37.
LinegarMitchellKocielnikRafalAlvarezR. Michael. 2023. “Large Language Models and Political Science.” Frontiers in Political Science5: 1257092.
38.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. Yale University Press.
39.
McCrightAaron M.DunlapRiley E.. 2011. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly52 (2): 155–94.
40.
MillerWakken E.StokesDonald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review57 (01): 45–56.
41.
RosenstielLeah. 2025. “The Distributive Politics of Grants-in-Aid.” American Political Science Review119 (1): 152–164.
42.
ShepsleKenneth A.WeingastBarry R.. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review81 (1): 85–104.
43.
SidmanAndrea H.2019. Pork Barrel Politics: How Government Spending Determines Elections in a Polarized Era. Columbia University Press.
44.
StockerThomas F.QinDahePlattnerGian-Kasper, et al.2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
45.
StottPeter A.StoneDáithíAllenMyles. 2004. “Human Contribution to the European Heatwave of 2003.” Nature432 (7017): 610–14.
46.
ThorpeRebecca U.2014. The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending. University of Chicago Press.
47.
TörnbergPetter. 2024. “Large Language Models Outperform Expert Coders and Supervised Classifiers at Annotating Political Social Media Messages.” Social Science Computer Review: OnlineFirst.
ZuzakCaseyMowrerMatthewGoodenoughEmilyBurnsJordanRanalliNicholasRozelleJesse. 2022. “The National Risk Index: Establishing a Nationwide Baseline for Natural Hazard Risk in the US.” Natural Hazards114 (2): 2331–2355.
Supplementary Material
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.
