Preventative Polarization: Republican Senators’ Positional Adaptation in the Tea Party Era

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Republican party Senate polarization Tea Party primary elections

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. I.

(2008). Don’t blame primary voters for polarization. The Forum, 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1210

Anderson

S. E.

Butler

D. M.

Harbridge-Yong

(2020). Rejecting compromise: Legislators’ fear of primary voters. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108768375

Avery

J. M.

Fine

J. 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

Bafumi

Herron

M. 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

Bailey

M. A.

Mummolo

Noel

(2012). Tea Party influence: A story of activists and elites. American Politics Research, 40(5), 769–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11435150

Bartels

L. 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

Bawn

DeMora

S. L.

Dowdle

Hall

Myers

M. E.

Patterson

Zaller

(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

Blalock

H. M.

(1967). Toward a theory of minority-group (1st ed.). Wiley.

Bloch Rubin

(2017). Building the bloc: Intraparty organization in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge University Press.

10.

Blum

R. M.

(2020). How the Tea Party captured the GOP: Insurgent factions in American politics. University of Chicago Press.

11.

Blum

R. M.

Cowburn

(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.

Blum

R. M.

Cowburn

Masket

(2024). Who Decides? Media, MAGA, money, and mentions in the 2022 republican primaries. Political Research Quarterly. OnlineFirst., 1–19.

13.

Boatright

R. G.

(2013). Getting primaried: The changing politics of congressional primary challenges. University of Michigan Press.

14.

Boatright

R. G.

(2014). Congressional primary elections. Routledge.

15.

Bonica

(2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12062

16.

Brady

D. W.

Han

Pope

J. 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.

Broockman

D. E.

Carnes

Crowder-Meyer

Skovron

(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

18.

Brooks

(2008, November 11). Opinion | Darkness at dusk. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html

19.

Burden

B. C.

(2001). The polarizing effects of congressional primaries. In Galderisi

P. F.

Ezra

Lyons

(Eds.), Congressional primaries and the politics of representation. Rowman & Littlefield.

20.

Carney

T. P.

(2009, April 27). Did DeMint’s endorsement of Toomey set off specter? Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did-demints-endorsement-of-toomey-set-off-specter

21.

Clarke

A. 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

22.

Cook Political Report . (2017). Cook PVI. The Cook Political Report. https://www.cookpolitical.com/pvi-0

23.

Cowburn

(2022). Partisan polarization in congressional nominations: How ideological & factional primaries influence candidate positions. Doctoral Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin.

24.

Cowburn

(2024). Party transformation in congressional primaries: Faction and ideology in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Cowburn

Kerr

(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.

Cowburn

Knüpfer

C. 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.

Cowburn

Oswald

M. 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.

Cowburn

Sältzer

(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.

Curry

J. M.

Lee

F. 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

30.

DeCrescenzo

M. G.

(2020). Do primaries work? Constituent ideology and congressional nominations. Doctoral Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://github.com/mikedecr/dissertation/blob/8087d244e52edbc0eb732c04471c531f171c0e6f/_book/MGD-thesis.pdf

31.

DeMint

(2011). The great American awakening: Two years that changed America, Washington, and Me. B&H Books.

32.

DiSalvo

(2012). Engines of change: Party factions in American politics, 1868-2010. Oxford University Press.

33.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.

34.

Elving

(2022, June 18). In a time of national division, polarizing primaries are part of the problem. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/18/1105927483/in-a-time-of-national-division-polarizing-primaries-are-part-of-the-problem

35.

FEC . (2023). Election and voting information. FEC.Gov. https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/election-and-voting-information/

36.

Fenno

R. F.

(1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Longman.

37.

Fenno

R. F.

(1998). Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation. University of Oklahoma Press.

38.

Fiorina

M. P.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2006). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. In Nivola

P. S.

Galston

W. A.

(Eds.), Characteristics, causes, and consequences of America’s polarized politics (pp. 49–71). Brooking Institution Press.

39.

Gailmard

Jenkins

J. 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.

Gelman

Shor

Bafumi

Park

(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.

Gervais

B. T.

Morris

I. L.

(2018). Reactionary republicanism: How the Tea party in the house paved the way for Trump’s victory. Oxford University Press.

42.

Giles

M. W.

Buckner

M. 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.

Hacker

J. S.

Pierson

(2006). Off center: The republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. Yale University Press.

44.

Hazan

R. Y.

Rahat

(2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. In Democracy within parties. Oxford University Press.

45.

Hill

S. 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.

Hirano

Snyder

J. M.

Ansolabehere

Hansen

J. M.

(2008). Primary competition and partisan polarization in the U.S. senate. 39.

47.

Hirano

Snyder

J. M.

Ansolabehere

S. D.

Hansen

J. M.

(2010). Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 169–191.

48.

Hopkins

D. J.

Noel

(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.

Huckfeldt

R. R.

Kohfeld

C. W.

(1989). Race and the decline of class in American politics. University of Illinois Press.

50.

Jewitt

C. E.

Treul

S. A.

(2019). Ideological primary competition and congressional behavior. Congress and the Presidency, 46(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2019.1600173

51.

Kabaservice

(2020, December 4). Perspective | The forever grievance. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/04/tea-party-trumpism-conservatives-populism/

52.

Karni

(2022, March 27). Elise Stefanik, reinvented in Trump’s image, embodies a changed G.O.P. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/us/politics/elise-stefanik.html

53.

Karol

(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

54.

Kreiss

McGregor

S. C.

(2023). A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms. New Media & Society, 26(1), 556. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231161880

55.

Lawless

Theriault

S. M.

(2021). The people, the president, and the congress at a crossroads: Can we turn back from gridlock? In Perry

B. A.

Nelson

(Eds.), The presidency: Facing constitutional crossroads (pp. 72–85). University of Virginia Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/191/edited_volume/book/82395

56.

Lee

F. E.

(2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.

57.

Lewis

J. B.

Poole

K. T.

Rosenthal

Boche

Rudkin

Sonnet

(2021). Voteview: Congressional roll-call votes database. Voteview. https://voteview.com/

58.

C. Y. H.

(2012). Astroturf versus grass roots: Scenes from early Tea Party Mobilization. In Rosenthal

Trost

(Eds.), Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520274228.003.0005

59.

Lott

J. R.

Bronars

S. 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.

Mann

T. E.

Ornstein

N. J.

(2008). The broken branch: How congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. Oxford University Press.

61.

Martin

Allen

Vandehei

(2007, March 28). Republicans fear 2008 meltdown. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/story/2007/03/republicans-fear-2008-meltdown-003353

62.

Masket

(2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. University of Michigan Press.

63.

Mayhew

D. R.

(1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.

64.

McCarty

Poole

K. T.

Rosenthal

(2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.

65.

Meyer

C. 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

66.

Moore

(2010, August 27). The weekend interview with senator Jim DeMint: A senator and his ‘disciples’. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703579804575441331350216628

67.

Nemerever

Rogers

(2021). Measuring the rural continuum in political science. Political Analysis, 29(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.47

68.

Noel

(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

69.

Noel

(2016b, March 1). Opinion | Why can’t the G.O.P. Stop Trump? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/opinion/campaign-stops/why-cant-the-gop-stop-trump.html

70.

Nokken

T. P.

Poole

K. T.

(2004). Congressional party defection in American history. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(4), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298004x201294

71.

Parker

Menasce Horowitz

Brown

Fry

Cohn

Igielnik

(2018). What unites and divides urban, suburban and rural communities. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/what-unites-and-divides-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/

72.

Pew Research Center . (2019). Trump’s staunch GOP supporters have roots in the Tea Party. Pew Research Centre. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/05/16/trumps-staunch-gop-supporters-have-roots-in-the-tea-party/

73.

Phillips

(2016, February 5). What about white voters? Center for American progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-about-white-voters/

74.

Poole

K. T.

Rosenthal

(1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111172

75.

Porter

R. A.

(2021). Estimating the ideology of congressional primary electorates. Working Paper. https://rachelporter.org/files/estimating_ideology.pdf

76.

Pyeatt

(2013). Strategic entry and congressional behavior: Primary challenges to House incumbents. Journal of Political Science, 41(1).

77.

Roberts

J. 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.

Rohde

D. W.

(1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. University of Chicago Press.

79.

Rouse

S. M.

Hunt

Essel

(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

80.

Rubin

(2021, March 30). Opinion | Are primaries the primary problem? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/30/are-primaries-primary-problem/

81.

Ryan

(2013, October 8). Hastert: Primary challenges making congress ‘kind of neurotic’. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/08/230256554/hastert-primary-challenges-making-congress-kind-of-neurotic

82.

Schumer

C. E.

(2014, July 21). Opinion | End partisan primaries, save America. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/charles-schumer-adopt-the-open-primary.html

83.

Senate Toss Up Chart . (2021, January 6). Cook political report. https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/senate/senate-charts/updated-senate-toss-chart

84.

Sides

Tausanovitch

Vavreck

Warshaw

(2020). On the representativeness of primary electorates. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700062X

85.

Skocpol

Williamson

(2012). The Tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism. Oxford University Press.

86.

Stefanik

(2022, May 12). I am ultra-MAGA. And I’m proud of it. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/RepStefanik/status/1524884422696247296

87.

Steinhauer

(2012, December 6). Tea party hero is leaving the senate for a new pulpit. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/politics/jim-demint-to-leave-senate-to-run-heritage-foundation.html

88.

Street

DiMaggio

A. R.

(2011). Crashing the Tea Party: Mass media and the campaign to remake American politics (1st ed.). Routledge.

89.

Tausanovitch

Berger

(2019, December 5). The impact of the filibuster on federal policymaking. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/

90.

Theriault

S. 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.

Theriault

S. M.

(2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge University Press.

92.

Theriault

S. M.

(2013). The gingrich senators: The roots of partisan warfare in congress. Oxford University Press.

93.

Tien

(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.

Vanbeek

J. 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

95.

Volden

Wiseman

A. E.

(2024). Legislative effectiveness: The elements of success: Democracy journal. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 74(2). https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/73/legislative-effectiveness-the-elements-of-success/.

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.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB