How Do Parties Employ Broad-Appeal Strategies in U.S. Congressional Elections?

• In Event: US Parties: Platforms and Positions

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which the Democratic and Republican parties implement broad-appeal strategies in Congressional elections. American political parties are notorious for their internal diversity and lack of cohesion. Among the many factors affecting party cohesion in the U.S. is the single-member-district plurality method of election, which encourages candidates to tailor their electoral appeals to their geographic constituencies and tends to reduce ideological cohesion. At the same time, American parties can also appear to be more ideologically unified than one might expect, particularly in recent years as the nationalization of elections has increased. Here, we draw on a form of text analysis to investigate the extent to which Democratic and Republican Party Congressional candidates are ideologically cohesive across districts, as well the extent to which party cohesion is shaped by the number of party supporters across electoral districts. We draw on a unique computational approach to estimate the ideological distance between party manifestos and each Congressional candidate’s political discourse scraped from their Twitter profiles in the 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 Congressional elections, regardless of candidates’ electoral victory or loser status. Our general expectation is that Congressional candidates running in electorally safe districts will be ideologically closer to their party than Congressional candidates running in competitive or volatile districts, where candidates are more likely to tailor their electoral appeals to the needs of the district. Our findings generally support this expectation. We do find less party cohesion in competitive, rather than safe, districts. These findings bear important implications for party strategies and ideological representation, suggesting that high numbers of safe districts encourage greater levels of party cohesion.

Authors

• Muhammet Furkan Karakaya, Binghamton University

• Robin E. Best, Binghamton University (SUNY)