Contemporary public opinion in the United States has been characterized by affective polarization and the nationalization of political behavior. In this paper, we examine whether local framing can decrease voters’ reliance on national partisan identities when evaluating their representatives in the United States Congress. Relying on both an experimental study and observational data from senators’ Facebook posts, we find evidence that “talking local” is an effective means for representatives to bypass the “perceptual screen” of partisanship . Candidates who “go local” in their communication style are able to expand their electoral coalition by appealing to independents and outpartisans alike. Observational findings suggest that many politicians, especially those representing competitive districts, are aware of this and “go local” strategically.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39(3), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479
2.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.StewartC.III. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290
ButlerD. M.HughesA. G.CraigV.WisemanA. E. (2019). Do constituents know (or care) about the Lawmaking effectiveness of their representatives?Center for Effective Lawmaking (CEL) Working paper.
5.
CainB.FerejohnJ.MorrisF. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Harvard University Press.
6.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The american voter. University of Chicago Press.
7.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 598–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00449.x
8.
ChristleyO. R. (2021). Traditional gender attitudes, nativism, and support for the radical right. Politics & Gender, 18(4), 1–27.
9.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. University of Chicago Press.
10.
ConversePhilip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review.
11.
CoppockAlexanderMcClellanOliver A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1).
12.
CostaM. (2020). Ideology, not affect: What Americans want from political representation. American Journal of Political Science, 65(2), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12571
13.
CostaM.SchaffnerB. F. (2018). How gender conditions the way citizens evaluate and engage with their representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 46–58.
14.
CramerK. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press.
15.
CutlerF. (2007). Context and attitude formation: Social interaction, default information, or local interests?Political Geography, 26(5), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.04.001
16.
DarrJ. P.HittM. P.DunawayJ. L. (2018). Newspaper closures polarize voting behavior. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1007–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy051
17.
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Longman Publishing Group.
18.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2005). Culture war: The myth of a polarized America. Pearson Long.
19.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
20.
GogginS. N. (2016). Personal politicians: Biography and its role in the minds of voters. University of California.
21.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Representational style in congress: What legislators say and why it matters. Cambridge University Press.
22.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in Congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00517.x
23.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN.HarrisonB. F. (2014). Public preferences for bipartisanship in the policymaking process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12048
24.
HayesD.LawlessJ. L. (2015). As local news goes, so goes citizen engagement: Media, knowledge, and participation in US House Elections. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1086/679749
25.
HerreraR.YawnM. (1999). The emergence of the personal vote. The Journal of Politics, 61(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647778
HillS. J.TausanovitchC. (2015). A disconnect in representation? Comparison of trends in congressional and public polarization. The Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1058–1075. https://doi.org/10.1086/682398
28.
HopkinsD. A. (2017). Red fighting blue: How geography and electoral rules polarize American politics. Cambridge University Press.
29.
HopkinsD. J. (2018). The Increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
30.
HuntC. R. (2022). Home field advantage: Roots, reelection, and representation in the modern congress. University of Michigan Press.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
33.
JacobsN.MunisB. K. (2022). Place-based resentment in contemporary US elections: The individual sources of America’s urban-rural divide. Political Research Quarterly, 106591292211248. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221124864
34.
JacobsN. F.MunisB. K. (2019). Place-based imagery and voter evaluations: Experimental evidence on the politics of place. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918781035
35.
JacobsN. F.MunisB. K. (2020). Staying in place: Federalism and the political economy of place attachment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(4), 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa024
36.
JacobsonG. C. (2015). It’s nothing personal: The decline of the incumbency advantage in US House elections. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1086/681670
37.
JardinaA. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.
38.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. University of Chicago Press.
39.
KlarS.KrupnikovY. (2016). Independent politicts. Cambridge University Press.
40.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 585–598.
41.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
44.
MasonLillianaHuddyLeonieAarøeLene (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.
45.
MathewsN. (2020). Life in a news desert: The perceived impact of a newspaper closure on community members. Journalism, 23(6), 1250–1265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920957885
46.
MaxminC.WoodwardC. (2022). Dirt road revival: How to rebuild rural politics and why our future depends on it. Beacon Press.
47.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
48.
MoskowitzD. J. (2020). Local news, information, and the nationalization of US Elections. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000829
49.
MunisB. K. (2020). Divided by place: The enduring geographical fault lines of American politics. PhD diss, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia. https://doi.org/10.18130/v3-z7hw-1r58
50.
MunisB. K. (2021). Place, candidate roots, and voter preferences in an age of partisan polarization: Observational and experimental evidence. Political Geography, 85(2), 102345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102345
51.
MunisB. K. (2022). Us over here versus them over there…literally: Measuring place resentment in American politics. Political Behavior, 44(3), 1057–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09641-2
52.
MunisB. K.SaldinP. (2021). Gone Country: Why Democrats need to play in rural America and how they can do it again. The Niskanen Center.
53.
NoelH. (2014). Political ideologies and political parties in America. Cambridge University Press.
54.
PanagopoulosC.BaileyK. (2020). “Friends-and-Neighbors” mobilization: A field experimental replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2019.1
55.
ParkerDavid C.W. (2014). Battle for the Big Sky: Representation and the Politics of Place in the Race for the US Senate. CQ Press.
56.
PetersonE. (2017). The role of the information environment in partisan voting. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1191–1204. https://doi.org/10.1086/692740
57.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press.
58.
ProshanskyH. M.FabianA. K.KaminoffR. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(83)80021-8
59.
ReevesA.GimpelJ. G. (2012). Ecologies of unease: Geographic context and national economic evaluations. Political Behavior, 34(3), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9167-8
60.
SaldinR. P.MunisB. K.BurkeR. J. (2021). Local beats, national consequences: The link between local news and democratic health. The Niskanen Center.
Van KesselP.HughesA.MessingS. (2018a). Taking sides on Facebook: How congressional outreach changed under president Trump. Dataset:Pew Research Center.
63.
Van KesselP.HughesA. (2018). Moderates in Congress go local on Facebook more than most ideological members. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/2LkK7Vh.
64.
VisalvanichN. (2017). When does race matter? Exploring white responses to minority congressional candidates. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(4), 618–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1146152
65.
WolakJ. (2020). Compromise in an age of party polarization. Oxford University Press.
66.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. 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.
