How members of Congress align with and promote the interests of their coalitional allies is a concern for academics and the public alike. To understand the relationship between interest groups and officeholders, we must examine group ties prior to a candidate’s electoral victory. From there, we can begin to evaluate the partisan dynamics and electoral implications of candidate-group alignments. How do Democrats and Republicans differ in terms of group affiliation? Moreover, what are the consequences of these affiliations for a candidate’s performance at the ballot box? To answer these questions, we turn to a novel dataset on the recorded professional and civic group affiliations of all US congressional candidates from 2008–2014. This dataset, built on Vote Smart data, allows us to comprehensively assess the role of these group affiliations in recent elections. To complement these observational data, we conducted a survey experiment to test whether specific group affiliations influence officeholder evaluations. Ultimately, we find that few partisan groups exert any significant effect on evaluations. We find some evidence that non-partisan groups with positive reputations can mitigate outgroup hostility among opposing partisans.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1086/697253
3.
ArceneauxK.KolodnyR. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00399.x
4.
BarberM.PopeJ. (2022). Groups, behaviors, and issues as cues of partisan attachments in the public. American Politics Research, Article 21083831.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.LeechB. L. (2001). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton University Press.
6.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
7.
BonicaA. (2013). Database on ideology, Money in politics, and elections: Public version 1.0 [dataset]: Stanford University Libraries.
8.
BradyH. E.SnidermanP. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1061–1078. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956248
9.
BroockmanD. E.KaufmanA. R.LenzG. S. (2021). Heuristic projection: How interest group cues can harm voters’ judgements. Technical Report. Working Paper. https://osf.io/6yskq
10.
CampbellD. E.GreenJ. C.LaymanG. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion, and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00474.x
11.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. University of Chicago Press.
ElderE. M.O’BrianN. A. (2022). Social groups as the source of political belief systems: Fresh evidence on an old theory. American Political Science Review, 116(4), 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000326
14.
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts: Little.
15.
GilensM.PageB. I. (2014). Testing theories of american politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714001595
16.
GimpelJ. G. (1998). Packing heat at the polls: Gun ownership, interest group endorsements, and voting behavior in gubernatorial elections. Social Science Quarterly, 634–648.
17.
GogginS. N.HendersonJ. A.TheodoridisA. G. (2020). What goes with red and blue? Mapping partisan and ideological associations in the minds of voters. Political Behavior, 42(4), 985–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09525-6
18.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
19.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2015). Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: The asymmetry of american party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714003168
20.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford University Press.
21.
HillygusD. S.ShieldsT. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton University Press.
22.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
23.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
24.
KaneJ. V.MasonL.WronskiJ. (2021). Who’s at the party? Group sentiments, knowledge, and partisan identity. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1783–1799. https://doi.org/10.1086/715072
25.
KarolD. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. Cambridge University Press.
26.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
27.
LawlessJ. L.FoxR. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press.
28.
LupiaA. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944882
29.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge University Press.
30.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
31.
MasonL.WronskiJ. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12485
32.
MatterU. (2014). pvsR: An R package to interact with the Project Vote Smart API for scientific research. R package version 0.3.
33.
McDermottM. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918. https://doi.org/10.2307/449110
34.
McDermottM. L. (2006). Not for members only: Group endorsements as electoral information cues. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900207
McKelveyR. D.OrdeshookP. C. (1985). Elections with limited information: A fulfilled expectations model using contemporaneous poll and endorsement data as information sources. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(85)90079-1
37.
MiratrixL. W.SekhonJ. S.TheodoridisA. G.CamposL. F. (2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.1
38.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan.
39.
Tam ChoW. K.FowlerJ. H. (2010). Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and the dynamics of congressional legislation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002238160999051x
40.
VoldenC.WisemanA. E. (2014). Legislative effectiveness in the United States congress: The lawmakers. Cambridge University Press.
41.
VoteSmart (2015). Vote smart. Accessed on January 26, 2015.
42.
ZallerJ. (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.
