In this article we examine every tweet congresspersons sent from the time the media broke the news of President Trump’s fateful July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky up to a week after House Speaker Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry. Our aim is to understand the type of rhetoric Members of Congress (MCs) engaged in with respect to what we call the Ukraine Whistleblower Scandal (UWS). It is evident from our analysis that Democrats were more likely to sound off on the UWS, which comports with the fact that it was a Republican President who got into trouble. Further, there are characteristics of MCs that make them more likely to frame and discuss the UWS in certain ways, like House Representatives holding law degrees or serving on one of the House committees investigating the UWS. Finally, in this age of hyper-polarized parties, party affiliation was consistently the most important factor shaping representatives’ Twitter statements on the UWS. In historical perspective, the overriding importance of party affiliation is lamentable since the charges against President Trump were solemn and serious.
AbramowitzA. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.
2.
American Political Science Association. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system: A report of the committee on political parties. American Political Science Review, 44, 1–96.
3.
AmiraK.JohnsonL.McCrayD.RagusaJ. (2019). Adversaries or allies? Donald Trump’s Republican support in Congress. Perspectives on Politics, 17, 756–771.
4.
AzariJ.HetheringtonM. J. (2016). Back to the future? What the politics of the late nineteenth century can tell us about the 2016 election. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667, 92–109.
5.
BarberáP.CasasA.NaglerJ.EganP. J.BonneauR.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and Agenda Setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113, 883–901.
6.
CasasA.MorarD. (2015). Different channel, same strategy? Filling empirical gaps in Congress literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September 2015.
7.
ClarkJ. H.EvansH. K. (2020). Let’s talk about sex: Examining the factors influencing congressional response to #MeToo on Twitter. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53, 51–56.
8.
CohenR.CookC. (2019). The almanac of American politics 2020. Columbia Books and Information Services.
9.
DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I. (2016). Congress reconsidered. CQ Press.
EvansH. K. (2016). Do women only talk about ‘female issues’? Gender and issue discussion on Twitter. Online Information Review, 40, 660–672.
12.
EvansH. K.ClarkJ. H. (2016). ‘You tweet like a girl!’: How female candidates campaign on Twitter. American Politics Research, 44, 326–352.
13.
EvansH. K.OvalleJ.GreenS. (2016). Rockin’ robins: Do congresswomen rule the roost in the Twittersphere?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 268–275.
14.
FleisherR.BondJ. R. (2004). The shrinking middle in the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 429–451.
15.
GainousJ.WagnerK. M. (2013). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. Oxford University Press.
16.
GelmanJ. (2021). Partisan intensity in Congress: Evidence from Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Political Research Quarterly, 74, 450–463.
17.
GlassmanM. E.StrausJ. R.ShoganC. J. (2010). Social networking and constituent communications: Member use of Twitter during a two-month period in the 111th Congress. Congressional Research Service. Government Printing Office.
18.
GolbeckJ.GrimesJ. M.RogersA. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612–1621.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
21.
JacobsonG. C. (2019). Extreme referendum: Donald Trump and the 2018 midterm elections. Political Science Quarterly, 134, 9–38.
22.
JacobsonG. C. (2020). Donald Trump and the parties: Impeachment, pandemic, protest, and electoral politics in 2020. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 50, 762–795.
23.
JacobsonG. C. (2021). The presidential and congressional elections of 2020: A national referendum on the Trump presidency. Political Science Quarterly, 136, 11–45.
24.
JacobsonG. C.CarsonJ. L. (2020). The politics of congressional elections. Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
LassenD. S.BrownA. R. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection?Social Science Computer Review, 29, 419–436.
26.
LeboM. J.O’GeenA. J. (2011). The president’s role in the partisan congressional arena. The Journal of Politics, 73, 718–734.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
30.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
31.
McCloskyH. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58, 361–382.
32.
MorganR. P. (1996). Nixon, Watergate, and the study of the presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 26, 217–238.
33.
PaschallC.SulkinT.BernhardW. (2020). The legislative consequences of congressional scandals. Political Research Quarterly, 73, 293–307.
34.
PereiraM. M.WaterburyN. W. (2019). Do voters discount political scandals over time?Political Research Quarterly, 72, 584–595.
35.
PetersonR. D. (2012). To tweet or not to tweet: Exploring the determinants of early adoption of Twitter by House members in the 111th Congress. The Social Science Journal, 49, 430–438.
36.
RaeN. C.CampbellC. C. (2004). Impeaching Clinton: Partisan strife on Capitol Hill. University Press of Kansas.
37.
RussellA. (2018). U.S. senators on Twitter: Asymmetric party rhetoric in 140 characters. American Politics Research, 46, 695–723.
38.
RussellA. (2021). Minority opposition and asymmetric parties? Senators’ partisan rhetoric on Twitter. Political Research Quarterly74(3), 615–627.
39.
SchaffnerB.AnsolabehereS.LuksS. (2021). Cooperative election study common content, 2020. Harvard Dataverse, V1.
40.
SellersP. (2009). Cycles of spin: Strategic communication in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge University Press.
41.
StrausJ. R.GlassmanM. E.ShoganC. J.SmelcerS. N. (2013). Communicating in 140 characters or less: Congressional adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46, 60–66.
42.
StrausJ. R.WilliamsR. T.ShoganC. J.GlassmanM. E. (2016). Congressional social media communications: Evaluating Senate Twitter usage. Online Information Review, 40, 643–659.
43.
TheriaultS. M. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
44.
WagnerK. M.GainousJ.HolmanM. R. (2017). I am woman, hear me tweet! Gender differences in Twitter use among congressional candidates. Journal of Women Politics & Policy, 38(4), 430–455.
