Unprecedented in American politics, several Republican US Representatives, supported by former President Trump, led a motion in the House to remove the Speaker, providing an ideal case for understanding a strong leader’s control over the party base, conflation with the party brand, and ramifications for the health of the US party system. Leveraging this unique event, we conducted an original survey experiment of registered Republican voters to analyze how awareness of the leader’s approval influences their assessment of the ouster, approval of their party, and trust in the House. We argue that if a leader’s hold over the base and association between him and the party brand remains strong, his endorsement should boost Republican voters’ approval of the ouster, their party, and trust in the US House. We find consistent empirical support for these expectations, with significant implications for the leader -- party -- constituent relationship and the health of the American party system.
AbramowitzAI (2018) The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press.
2.
AgadjanianA (2021) When do partisans stop following the leader?Political Communication38: 351.
3.
ArvanitopoulosC (2022) The state of American democracy after trump. European View21(1): 91–99.
4.
BarberMPopeJC (2019) Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review113(1): 38–54.
5.
BartelsLM (1996) Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science40: 194–230.
6.
BartelsLM (2018) Partisanship in the trump era. The Journal of Politics80(4): 1483–1494.
7.
BernsteinJDominguezCBK (2003) Candidates and candidacies in the expanded party. PS: Political Science and Politics36(2): 165–169.
8.
BlumRM (2020) How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BlumRMCowburnM (2024) How local factions pressure parties: activist groups and primary contests in the Tea party era. British Journal of Political Science54(1): 88–109.
10.
BlumRMParkerCS (2019) Trump-ing foreign affairs: status threat and foreign policy preferences on the right. Perspectives on Politics17(3): 737–755.
11.
BlumRMCowburnMMasketS (2024) Who decides? Media. MAGA, money, and mentions in the 2022 republican primaries. Political Research Quarterly77(4): 1314–1332.
12.
ClarkeAJ (2020) Party sub-brands and American party factions. American Journal of Political Science64(4): 452–470.
13.
ClintonJDLapinskiJLentzS, et al. (2022) Trumped by trump? Public support for vote by mail voting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Election Law Journal21(1): 19–33.
14.
CohenMKarolDNoelH, et al. (2008) The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press.
15.
EspinozaM (2018) Trump and the GOP: A Marriage of Convenience?Political Insight9: 22–26.
EssigJXuPGarandJC, et al. (2021) The “trump” effect: political elite and support for free trade in America. American Politics Research49(3): 328–342.
18.
FilindraAHarbridge-YongL (2022) How do partisans navigate intra-group conflict? A theory of leadership-driven motivated reasoning. Political Behavior44(3): 1437–1458.
19.
FiorinaMPAdamsSJ (2009) Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representationin American Politics. Oklahoma, USA: University of Oklahoma Press.
20.
FoaRSMounkY (2021) America after trump: from “clean” to “dirty” democracy?Policy Studies42(5-6): 455–472.
21.
FreederSShinoE (2024) Access or experience? Determinants of distrust in US elections. American Politics Research52(2): 97–111.
22.
GalvinDJ (2020) Party domination and base mobilization: Donald trump and republican party building in a polarized era. The Forum18(2): 135–168.
23.
GervaisBTMorrisIL (2018) Reactionary Republicansm: How the Tea Party in the House Paved the Way for Trump’s Victory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
GibsonJLCotterCPBibbyJF, et al. (1983) Assessing party organizational strength. American Journal of Political Science27(2): 193–222.
25.
GrossmannMHopkinsDA (2015) Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: the asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics13(1): 119–139.
26.
GrossmannMHopkinsDA (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
GuntherRDiamondL (2003) Species of political parties. Party Politics9(2): 167–199.
28.
HeersinkB (2018) Trump and the party-in-organization: presidential control of national party organizations. The Journal of Politics80(4): 1474–1482.
29.
HeseltineM (2023) Assessing Trump’s presidential endorsements while in and out of office (2018-2022). Electoral Studies85: 102661.
30.
HoodMIIIMcKeeSC (2023) How much is a trump endorsement worth?State Politics and Policy Quarterly23(4): 380–395.
31.
HopkinsDJNoelH (2022) Trump and the shifting meaning of “conservative”: using activists’ pairwise comparisons to measure politicians’ perceived ideologies. American Political Science Review116(3): 1133–1140.
32.
JamesTS (2021) The effects of Donald trump. Policy Studies42(5-6): 755–769.
33.
JungYLeeS (2023) Trump vs. the GOP: political determinants of COVID-19 vaccination. Political Behavior.
34.
KatzRS (2019) Special issue 2019: European and American politica parties: becoming more similar?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties29(4): 427–447.
35.
KaushalNLuYShapiroRY, et al. (2022) American attitudes toward COVID-19: more trumpism than partisanship. American Politics Research50(1): 67–82.
36.
LavineHGschwendT (2007) Issues, party and character: the moderating role of ideological thinking on candidate evaluation. British Journal of Political Science37(1): 139–163.
37.
LenzGS (2012) Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press.
38.
McKeeSCSmithDAHoodMVTIII (2019) The comeback kid: Donald trump on election day in 2016. PS: Political Science and Politics52: 239–242.
39.
McKeeSCEvansHKClarkJH (2022) The “PERFECT” call: congressional representation by tweet in the midst of the Ukraine whistleblower scandal. American Politics Research50(1): 30–44.
40.
ParkerCSBarretoMA (2013) Change They Can’t Believe in: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.
41.
RahatG (2022) Party types in the age of personalized politics. Perspectives on Politics22: 213–228.
42.
ShaferBEWagnerRL (2019) The trump presidency and the structure of modern American politics. Perspectives on Politics17(2): 340–357.
43.
ShinoEMartinezMDBinderM (2022a) Determined by mode? Representation and measurement effects in a dual-mode statewide survey. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology10(1): 183–202.
44.
ShinoESmithDAUribeL (2022b) Lying for trump? Elite cue-taking and expressive responding on vote method. Public Opinion Quarterly86(4): 837–861.
45.
ShinoEMcKeeSCBinderM (2023) Voter habituation and opinion activation in misreporting voting behavior in the 2020 presidential election. The Social Science Journal1–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2023.2277030
46.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
