This article applies the strategic parties framework to the 111th Congress and 2010 election results that followed. In 2009-2010, the Democrats pursued an ambitious agenda over the nearly unanimous opposition of Congressional Republicans, leading to a high level of partisanship on both sides. This partisanship was costly in the 2010 elections. Like other papers on this election, we find some evidence that key roll calls were linked to decreased electoral vote share. However, the clearer pattern is that overall patterns of partisanship had a consistent detrimental effect on incumbents running for reelection.
AldrichJ. H. (1995). Why parties?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AldrichJ. H.RohdeD. W. (2001). The logic of conditional party government. In DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th ed., pp. 269-292). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
3.
BradyD. W.FiorinaM. P.WilkinsA. S. (2011). The 2010 elections: Why did political science forecasts go awry?PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 247-250.
4.
Canes-WroneB.BradyD. W.CoganJ. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127-140.
5.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 598-616.
6.
CooperJ.BradyD. W. (1981). Institutional context and leadership style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn. American Political Science Review, 75, 411-425.
7.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
EriksonR. S. (1971). The electoral impact of congressional roll call voting. American Political Science Review, 65, 1018-1032.
9.
JacobsonG. C. (2011). The Republican resurgence in 2010. Political Science Quarterly, 127(1), 27-52.
10.
FromanL. A.RipleyR. B. (1965). Conditions for party leadership: The case of the House Democrats. American Political Science Review, 59(1), 52-63.
11.
KogerG. (2009). Making change: A six-month review. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 7(3), Article 8. Retrieved from http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss3/art8/
12.
KrehbielK. (1999). Paradoxes of parties in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 31-64.
13.
LeboM. J.McGlynnA. J.KogerG. (2007). Strategic party government: Party influence in Congress, 1789-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 464-481.
14.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
PattyJ. (2008). Equilibrium party government. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 636-655.
16.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
SinclairB. (1995). Legislators, leaders and lawmaking. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
SmithS. S. (2007). Party influence in Congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
TheriaultS. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
TufteE. R. (1975). Determinants of the outcomes of midterm congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 69, 812-826.
