We investigate the relationship between controversial roll call votes and support for Democratic incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Consistent with previous analyses, we find that supporters of health care reform paid a significant price at the polls. We go beyond these analyses by identifying a mechanism for this apparent effect: constituents perceived incumbents who supported health care reform as more ideologically distant (in this case, more liberal), which in turn was associated with lower support for those incumbents. Our analyses show that this perceived ideological difference mediates most of the apparent impact of support for health care reform on both individual-level vote choice and aggregate-level vote share. We conclude by simulating counterfactuals that suggest health care reform may have cost Democrats their House majority.
AldrichJ. H.RohdeD. W. (2001). The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th ed., pp. 269-292). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
ArnoldR. D. (1992). The logic of Congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
ArnoldR. D. (2005). Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BafumiJ.HerronM. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104, 519-542.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MasketS.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2006, September2). A theory of political parties. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, at Philadelphia, PA.
10.
BlodgetJ. (2010). MABLE/Geocorr2K: Geographic Correspondence Engine with Census 2000 Geography, Version 1.3.3. St. Louis: Missouri Census Data Center.
11.
BradyD. W.FiorinaM. P.WilkinsA. S. (2011). The 2010 elections: Why did political science forecasts go awry?PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 247-250.
12.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.
13.
Canes-WroneB.BradyD. W.CoganJ. F. (2002, March). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96, 127-140.
14.
Canes-WroneB.MinozziW.ReveleyJ. B. (2011). Issue Accountability and the Mass Public. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36, 5-35.
15.
CarsonJ. L. (2008). Electoral accountability, party loyalty, and roll-call voting in the U.S. Senate. In MonroeN. W.RobertsJ. M.RohdeD. W. (Eds.), Why not parties? Party effects in the United States Senate (pp. 23-38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 598-616.
17.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2007). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EriksonR. S. (1971, July). The electoral impact of Congressional roll call voting. American Political Science Review, 65, 1018-1032.
19.
FowlerE. F.RidoutT. N. (2010). Advertising Trends in 2010. The Forum, 8(4), 2.
20.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GreenM.HudakK. (2009). Congress and the bailout: Explaining the bailout votes and their electoral effect. Legislative Studies Section Newsletter, 32(1).
22.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (n.d.). Are ideologically extreme legislators really out of step?Unpublished manuscript.
23.
HeidomR.Jr. (1994, December24). Margolies-Mezvinsky: Voted out of office but hardly defeated. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B01
24.
HillS.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2007, April). The opt-in Internet panel: Survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL.
25.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199-236.
26.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010a). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 309-334.
27.
ImaiK.KeeleL.YamamotoT. (2010). Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects. Statistical Science, 25(1), 51-71.
28.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2009). Causal mediation analysis using R. In VinodH. D. (Ed.), Advances in social science research using R (pp. 129-154). New York, NY: Springer.
29.
ImaiK.LukeK.YamamotoT. (2010b). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51-71.
30.
JacobsonG. C. (1987). Running scared: Elections and congressional politics in the 1980s. In McCubbinsM. D.SullivanT. (Eds.), Congress: Structure and policy (pp. 39-81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
JacobsonG. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of US House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83, 773-793.
32.
JacobsonG. (2011). The Republican resurgence in 2010. Political Science Quarterly, 126(1), 27-52.
KastellecJ. P.LaxJ. R.PhillipsJ. (2010). Estimating state public opinion with multi-level regression and poststratification using R. Unpublished manuscript.
35.
KingdonJ. W. (1973). Congressmen’s voting decisions. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
36.
LaxJ. R.PhillipsJ. H. (2009). How should we estimate public opinion in the states?American Journal of Political Science, v53(n1), 107-121.
37.
LopachJ. J.LuckowskiJ. A. (2005). Jeanette Rankin: A political woman. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press.
38.
MannT. (1978). Unsafe at any margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
39.
MannThomas E.WolfingerE. R. (1980). Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review, 74, 617-632.
40.
MasketS. (2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
McGheeE.PearsonK. (2011). Candidates and parties in congressional elections: Revisiting candidate-centered conclusions in a partisan era. In SnidermanP. M.HightonB. (Eds.). Facing the challenge of democracy: Explorations in the analysis of public opinion and political participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
MontgomeryJ.NyhanB. (2010). Bayesian Model Averaging: Theoretical developments and practical applications. Political Analysis, 18, 245-270.
46.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2007). Ideology and Congress (2nd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
47.
PowerS. (2009, July21). GOP targets backers of climate bill. Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
48.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
49.
SackK. (2010, October27). Health care vote puts Democrats on defensive. New York Times, p. A20.
50.
SaldinR. P. (2010). Healthcare reform: A prescription for the 2010 Republican landslide?The Forum, 8(4).
SekhonJ. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(7), 1-52.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2011). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. R package version 3.0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mediation
57.
ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-719.
