Republicans in Congress have, by almost any measure, become significantly more conservative over the last 25 years. We propose that the changing pressures they face when seeking reelection helps explain this trend. Rather than moderating towards the general election median voter as they had previously done, Republican senators became more conservative when seeking reelection to avoid the emergence of, or mitigate the threat from, a primary opponent after the Tea Party emerged. We also show that at the height of the Tea Party era—the 111th to 113th congresses—retiring senators moderated their voting behavior, suggesting that their personal preferences were more moderate than their expressed preferences. During the Trump era, we report mixed results, suggesting that the threat posed by primary challengers was not solely ideological, though the new dynamics and behaviors that emerged in the Tea Party era have continued to shape the Republican Party in the Senate.
AndersonS. E.ButlerD. M.Harbridge-YongL. (2020). Rejecting compromise: Legislators’ fear of primary voters. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108768375
3.
AveryJ. M.FineJ. A. (2012). Racial composition, white racial attitudes, and black representation: Testing the racial threat hypothesis in the United States senate. Political Behavior, 34(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9173-x
4.
BafumiJ.HerronM. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000316
5.
BaileyM. A.MummoloJ.NoelH. (2012). Tea Party influence: A story of activists and elites. American Politics Research, 40(5), 769–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11435150
6.
BartelsL. M. (2020). Ethnic antagonism Erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22752–22759. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2007747117
7.
BawnK.DeMoraS. L.DowdleA.HallS.MyersM. E.PattersonS.ZallerJ. (2019). Policy voting in U.S. house primaries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 29(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1669611
8.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group (1st ed.). Wiley.
9.
Bloch RubinR. (2017). Building the bloc: Intraparty organization in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BlumR. M. (2020). How the Tea Party captured the GOP: Insurgent factions in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
11.
BlumR. M.CowburnM. (2024). How local factions pressure parties: Activist groups & primary contests in the Tea Party Era. British Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123423000224
12.
BlumR. M.CowburnM.MasketS. (2024). Who Decides? Media, MAGA, money, and mentions in the 2022 republican primaries. Political Research Quarterly. OnlineFirst., 1–19.
13.
BoatrightR. G. (2013). Getting primaried: The changing politics of congressional primary challenges. University of Michigan Press.
14.
BoatrightR. G. (2014). Congressional primary elections. Routledge.
15.
BonicaA. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12062
16.
BradyD. W.HanH.PopeJ. C. (2007). Primary elections and candidate ideology: Out of step with the primary electorate?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007x201994
17.
BroockmanD. E.CarnesN.Crowder-MeyerM.SkovronC. (2021). Why local party leaders don’t support nominating centrists. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 724–749. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000309
BurdenB. C. (2001). The polarizing effects of congressional primaries. In GalderisiP. F.EzraM.LyonsM. (Eds.), Congressional primaries and the politics of representation. Rowman & Littlefield.
ClarkeA. J. (2020). Party sub-brands and American party factions. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12504
CowburnM. (2022). Partisan polarization in congressional nominations: How ideological & factional primaries influence candidate positions. Doctoral Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin.
24.
CowburnM. (2024). Party transformation in congressional primaries: Faction and ideology in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.
25.
CowburnM.KerrR. (2023). Inclusivity and decentralisation of candidate selectorates: Factional consequences for centre-left parties in England, Germany, and the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 76(1), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221081213
26.
CowburnM.KnüpferC. B. (2024). The emerging fault line of alternative news: Intra-party division in republican representatives’ media engagement. Party Politics, 30(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231157579
27.
CowburnM.OswaldM. T. (2020). Legislator adoption of the fake news label: Ideological differences in republican representative use on Twitter. The Forum, 18(3), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2020-2015
28.
CowburnM.SältzerM. (2024). Partisan communication in two-stage elections: The effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections. Political Science Research and Methods, First View, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.62
29.
CurryJ. M.LeeF. E. (2021). One obstacle among many: The filibuster and majority party agendas. The Forum, 19(4), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2021-2033
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Longman.
37.
FennoR. F. (1998). Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation. University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
FiorinaM. P.LevenduskyM. S. (2006). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. In NivolaP. S.GalstonW. A. (Eds.), Characteristics, causes, and consequences of America’s polarized politics (pp. 49–71). Brooking Institution Press.
39.
GailmardS.JenkinsJ. A. (2007). Negative agenda control in the senate and house: Fingerprints of majority party power. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00568.x
40.
GelmanA.ShorB.BafumiJ.ParkD. (2007). Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What’s the matter with Connecticut?Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00006026
41.
GervaisB. T.MorrisI. L. (2018). Reactionary republicanism: How the Tea party in the house paved the way for Trump’s victory. Oxford University Press.
42.
GilesM. W.BucknerM. A. (1993). David Duke and black threat: An old hypothesis revisited. The Journal of Politics, 55(3), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131995
43.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2006). Off center: The republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. Yale University Press.
44.
HazanR. Y.RahatG. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. In Democracy within parties. Oxford University Press.
45.
HillS. J. (2015). Institution of nomination and the policy ideology of primary electorates. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015023
46.
HiranoS.SnyderJ. M.AnsolabehereS.HansenJ. M. (2008). Primary competition and partisan polarization in the U.S. senate. 39.
47.
HiranoS.SnyderJ. M.AnsolabehereS. D.HansenJ. M. (2010). Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S.Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 169–191.
48.
HopkinsD. J.NoelH. (2021). Trump and the shifting meaning of “conservative”: Using activists’ pairwise comparisons to measure politicians’ perceived ideologies. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 1133–1140.
49.
HuckfeldtR. R.KohfeldC. W. (1989). Race and the decline of class in American politics. University of Illinois Press.
50.
JewittC. E.TreulS. A. (2019). Ideological primary competition and congressional behavior. Congress and the Presidency, 46(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2019.1600173
KarolD. (2015). Forcing their hands? Campaign finance law, retirement announcements and the rise of the permanent campaign in U.S. senate elections. Congress and the Presidency, 42(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2014.990650
LawlessJ.TheriaultS. M. (2021). The people, the president, and the congress at a crossroads: Can we turn back from gridlock? In PerryB. A.NelsonM. (Eds.), The presidency: Facing constitutional crossroads (pp. 72–85). University of Virginia Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/191/edited_volume/book/82395
56.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
LoC. Y. H. (2012). Astroturf versus grass roots: Scenes from early Tea Party Mobilization. In RosenthalL.TrostC. (Eds.), Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520274228.003.0005
59.
LottJ. R.BronarsS. G. (1993). Time series evidence on shirking in the U.S. house of representatives. Public Choice, 76(1–2), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049346
60.
MannT. E.OrnsteinN. J. (2008). The broken branch: How congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. Oxford University Press.
MasketS. (2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. University of Michigan Press.
63.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
64.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
65.
MeyerC. B. (2021). Getting “primaried” in the senate: Primary challengers and the roll-call voting behavior of sitting senators. Congress and the Presidency, 49(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2021.1922541
NemereverZ.RogersM. (2021). Measuring the rural continuum in political science. Political Analysis, 29(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.47
68.
NoelH. (2016a). Ideological factions in the republican and democratic parties. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662433
NokkenT. P.PooleK. T. (2004). Congressional party defection in American history. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(4), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298004x201294
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111172
PyeattN. (2013). Strategic entry and congressional behavior: Primary challenges to House incumbents. Journal of Political Science, 41(1).
77.
RobertsJ. M. (2007). The statistical analysis of roll-call data: A cautionary tale. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007781699636
78.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. University of Chicago Press.
79.
RouseS. M.HuntC.EsselK. (2022). Growing tea with subnational roots: Tea party affiliation, factionalism, and GOP politics in state legislatures. American Politics Research, 50(2), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211041150
SidesJ.TausanovitchC.VavreckL.WarshawC. (2020). On the representativeness of primary electorates. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700062X
85.
SkocpolT.WilliamsonV. (2012). The Tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism. Oxford University Press.
TheriaultS. M. (2006). Party polarization in the US congress: Member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068806064730
91.
TheriaultS. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge University Press.
92.
TheriaultS. M. (2013). The gingrich senators: The roots of partisan warfare in congress. Oxford University Press.
93.
TienC. (2001). Representation, voluntary retirement, and shirking in the last term. Public Choice, 106(1/2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005235603078
94.
VanbeekJ. R. (1991). Does the decision to retire increase the amount of political shirking?Public Finance Quarterly, 19(4), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/109114219101900405
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.
