Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:38:02.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agenda Control and Electoral Success in the US House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2018

David Fortunato Open the ORCID record for David Fortunato [Opens in a new window]  and
Nathan W Monroe
David Fortunato*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Nathan W Monroe
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
*
*Corresponding author. Email: fortunato@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

US CongressAgenda SettingPartiesCartel ModelElections
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 1583 - 1592
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akirav, O, Cox, GWandMcCubbins, MD (2010) Agenda control in the Israeli Knesset during Ariel Sharon’s second government. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2):251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovitz, GLandCarson, JL (2006) Position taking and electoral accountability in the US House of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly 59 (2):297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, RandKim, HA (2010) Party government and the ‘cohesive power of public plunder’. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, JL et al. (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54 (3):598–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GWandMcCubbins, MD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, GWandMcCubbins, MD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GW, Masuyama, MandMcCubbins, MD (2000) Agenda power in the Japanese House of Representatives. Japanese Journal of Political Science 1 (1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GW, Heller, WBandMcCubbins, MD (2008) Agenda power in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988-2000. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33 (2):171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durr, RH, Gilmour, JBandWolbrecht, C (1997) Explaining congressional approval. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1):175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, AC et al. (2015) On the validity of the regression discontinuity design for estimating electoral effects: new evidence from over 40,000 close races. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, JJ, Fouirnaies, FandHall, AB (2017) The majority-party disadvantage: revising theories of legislative organization. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, DandMonroe, NW (2018) Replication Data for: Agenda Control and Electoral Success in the U.S. House, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTGFRE, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, DandStevenson, RT (2016) Heuristics in context. Political Science Research and Methods. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.37.Google Scholar
Gingrich, N (2015) The ‘Hastert Rule’ is common sense for strong leadership. New York Times, 23 October 2015.Google Scholar
Green, DPandKrasno, JS (1988) Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32 (4):884–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grynaviski, JD (2010) Partisan Bonds: Political Reputations and Legislative Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, GC (1989) Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review 83 (3):773–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, GCandCarson, JL (2016) The Politics of Congressional Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jenkins, JAandMonroe, NW (2012) Buying negative agenda control in the U.S. House. American Journal of Political Science 56 (4):897–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, JAandMonroe, NW (2016) On measuring legislative agenda-setting power. American Journal of Political Science 60 (1):158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, HAandLeVeck, BL (2013) Money, reputation, and incumbency in U.S. House elections, or why marginals have become more expensive. American Political Science Review 107 (3):492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstädt, RandVander Wielen, RJ (2011) Timely shirking: time-dependent monitoring and its effects on legislative behavior in the US Senate. Public Choice 148 (1–2):119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstädt, RandVander Wielen, RJ (2014) Dynamic elite partisanship: party loyalty and agenda setting in the US House. British Journal of Political Science 44 (4):741–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, MLandJones, DR (2003) Do public evaluations of Congress matter? Retrospective voting in congressional elections. American Politics Research 31 (2):155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, OA, Cox, GWandMcCubbins, MD (2003) Agenda power in Brazil’s Câmara dos Deputados, 1989-98. World Politics 55 (4):550–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, C (2014) Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science 58 (4):1083–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, J (2015) The electoral costs of party agenda setting: why the Hastert rule leads to defeat. The Journal of Politics 77 (4):1129–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smidt, CD (2017) Polarization and the decline of the American floating voter. American Journal of Political Science 61 (2):365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, MandVan Houweling, RP (2009) The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103 (1):83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, AEandWright, JR (2008) The legislative median and partisan policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (1):5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woon, JandPope, JC (2008) Made in Congress? Testing the electoral implications of party ideological brand names. Journal of Politics 70 (3):823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Fortunato and Monroe Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTGFRE
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Fortunato and Monroe supplementary material

Appendix

Download Fortunato and Monroe supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 376.5 KB