Rage on the Record: Angry Emotional Appeals in Congress

Abstract

Members of Congress rely on social media to cultivate political narratives, with anger and an indignant message becoming increasingly central to their self-presentation. Given its heightened capacity for virality and mobilization, angry rhetoric serves as a powerful tool in political communication. This short article examines the role of partisan dynamics in fueling the escalation of angry rhetoric in representatives’ reputation-building online, finding persisting trends that predate President Donald Trump’s notable use of Twitter for agenda-setting. Leveraging computational textual analysis of over 2.2 million official congressional tweets, we demonstrate asymmetric partisan patterns in representatives’ use of angry rhetoric, finding that Democrats are disproportionately driving this trend. These findings further our understanding of lawmakers’ digital reputation-building, contributing to broader discussions about the interplay between partisan politics and the communication strategies lawmakers employ while in office.

Keywords

Congress Communication Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ballard

A. O.

DeTamble

Dorsey

Heseltine

Johnson

(2022). Incivility in congressional tweets. American Politics Research, 50(6), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x221109516

Ballard

A. O.

DeTamble

Dorsey

Heseltine

Johnson

(2023). Dynamics of polarizing rhetoric in congressional tweets. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 105–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12374

Barberá

Jost

J. T.

Nagler

Tucker

J. A.

Bonneau

(2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542.

Berger

Milkman

K. L.

(2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Bougie

J. R. G.

Pieters

Zeelenberg

(2003). Angry customers don’t come back, they get back: The experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303254412

Brader

Valentino

N. A.

Elizabeth

(2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x

Costa

(2025). How politicians polarize: Political representation in an age of negative partisanship. University of Chicago Press.

Dube

Maute

(1996). The antecedents of brand switching, brand loyalty and verbal responses to service failure. In T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown (Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management: Research and Practice Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vol. 5, (pp. 127–151).

Evans

H. K.

Jennifer

H. C.

(2016). “You tweet like a girl!” how female candidates campaign on Twitter. American Politics Research, 44(2), 326–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x15597747

10.

Ferrucci

Hopp

Vargo

C. J.

(2020). Civic engagement, social capital, and ideological extremity: Exploring online political engagement and political expression on Facebook. New Media & Society, 22(6), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819873110

11.

Gadarian

S. K.

van der Vort

(2018). The gag reflex: Disgust rhetoric and gay rights in American politics. Political Behavior, 40(2), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9412-x

12.

Gamson

W. A.

Modigliani

(1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in Political Sociology, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Vol. 3, (pp.137–177).

13.

Gaynor

S. W.

(2024). Following the leaders: Asymmetric party messaging in the US congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly.

14.

Gelman

Wilson

S. L.

(2022). Measuring congressional partisanship and its consequences. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12331

15.

Gervais

B. T.

Evans

H. K.

Annelise

(2020). Fear and loathing on Twitter: Exploring negative rhetoric in tweets during the 2018 midterm election. In The roads to congress 2018 (pp. 31–52). Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Gervais

B. T.

Evans

H. K.

Russell

(2020). Tweeting for hearts and minds? Measuring candidates’ use of anxiety in tweets during the 2018 midterm elections. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(4), 652–656.

17.

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.

18.

Grimmer

Stewart

B. M.

(2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028

19.

Groeling

(2010). When politicians attack: Party cohesion in the media: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Gross

(2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x

21.

Grossmann

Hopkins

D. A.

(2016). Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.

22.

Hacker

J. S.

Paul

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

23.

Heseltine

(2025). Asymmetric polarization in online media engagement in the United States congress. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231211800

24.

Heseltine

Dorsey

(2022). Online incivility in the 2020 congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 75(2), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221078863

25.

Hirano

Snyder

James

(2019). Primary elections in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

26.

Jiang

Zhang

Kim

Pevehouse

Shah

(2024). Talking past each other on Twitter: Thematic, event, and temporal divergences in polarized partisan expression on immigration. Political Communication, 41(2), 244–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2263400

27.

Lewis

J. B.

Poole

Rosenthal

Boche

Rudkin

Sonnet

(2026). Voteview: Congressional roll-call votes database. https://voteview.com/

28.

Lukito

Macdonald

Chen

Brown

M. A.

Prochaska

Yang

Greenfield

Suk

Zhong

Dahlke

Borah

(2025). Candidates be posting: Multi-platform strategies and partisan preferences in the 2022 US midterm elections. Social Media+ Society, 11(2), 20563051251337541. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251337541

29.

Macdonald

Maggie

Whitney

Annelise

(2024). “Constrained communication and negativity bias: Gendered emotional appeals on Facebook.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 45(2): 261-274.

30.

Mohammad

S. M.

Turney

P. D.

(2013). Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x

31.

Rathje

Van Bavel

J. J.

Sander Van Der Linden . (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118

32.

Ridout

T. N.

Kathleen

(2011). It's my campaign, i'll cry if I want to: How and when campaigns use emotional appeals. Political Psychology, 32(3), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00819.x

33.

Russell

(2018). US senators on Twitter: Asymmetric party rhetoric in 140 characters. American Politics Research, 46(4), 695–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17715619

34.

Russell

(2021a). Minority opposition and asymmetric parties? Senators’ partisan rhetoric on Twitter. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920921239

35.

Russell

(2021b). Tweeting is leading: How senators communicate and represent in the age of Twitter: Oxford University Press.

36.

Russell

Evans

H. K.

Bryan

(2024). Not ready to make nice: Congressional candidates’ emotional appeals on Twitter. Social Science Quarterly, 105(5), 1848–1856. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13439

37.

Russell

Macdonald

Whitney

(2023). Sit still, talk pretty: Partisan differences among women candidates’ campaign appeals. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 44(3), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2023.2194232

38.

Sältzer

(2022). Finding the bird’s wings: Dimensions of factional conflict on Twitter. Party Politics, 28(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820957960

39.

Scherer

K. R.

(1982). Emotion as a process: Function, origin and regulation. Social Science Information, 21(4–5), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021004004

40.

Straus

Jacob R.

(2018). Social media adoption by members of congress: Trends and congressional considerations. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

41.

Straus

J. R.

Williams

R. T.

Shogan

C. J.

Glassman

M. E.

(2016). Congressional social media communications: Evaluating Senate Twitter usage. Online Information Review, 40(5), 643–659.

42.

Strawbridge

M. G.

Clark

C. J.

Anna

M. M.

Brown

N. E.

(2025). Rhetorical promises: Gender diversity among congressional black caucus members’ representation on Twitter. Political Communication, 42(3), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2025.2454629

43.

Theriault

S. M.

(2013). The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.

44.

Tromble

(2018). The great leveler? Comparing citizen–politician Twitter engagement across three Western democracies. European Political Science, 17(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0022-6

45.

Weber

(2013). Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912449697

46.

Wright

J. M.

Jennifer

H. C.

Evans

H. K.

(2022). “They were laughing”: Congressional framing of Dr. Christine blasey ford’s sexual assault allegations on Twitter. Political Research Quarterly, 75(1), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920987631

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.

0.67 MB

0.00 MB