Search

In this article we examine every tweet congresspersons sent from the time the media broke the news of President Trump’s fateful July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky up to a week after House Speaker Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry. Our aim is to understand the type of rhetoric Members of Congress (MCs) engaged in with respect to what we call the Ukraine Whistleblower Scandal (UWS). It is evident from our analysis that Democrats were more likely to sound off on the UWS, which comports with the fact that it was a Republican President who got into trouble. Further, there are characteristics of MCs that make them more likely to frame and discuss the UWS in certain ways, like House Representatives holding law degrees or serving on one of the House committees investigating the UWS. Finally, in this age of hyper-polarized parties, party affiliation was consistently the most important factor shaping representatives’ Twitter statements on the UWS. In historical perspective, the overriding importance of party affiliation is lamentable since the charges against President Trump were solemn and serious.

Political communication is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that has grown in stature and reach in recent decades, becoming more international in scope and orientation while gaining respect in po...

Allegations of sexual assault and violence engulfed the confirmation hearings surrounding President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee (and now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh. Our work examines congressmembers’ communication concerning sexual assault and #MeToo during this critical time of the Kavanaugh hearing and how this relates to perceptions of gender and partisanship today. While previous research demonstrated a strong role of gender in influencing which members discussed #MeToo, we show that partisanship played a much larger role in discussions of sexual assault during this hearing. The findings highlight the shifting narrative surrounding the #MeToo movement and how the multiple identities of members of Congress, namely partisanship and gender, can be activated and produce changes in how elites communicate about the issue, which may have broader policymaking implications.

This article considers whether candidates strategically use emotional rhetoric in social media messages similar to the way that fear appeals are used strategically in televised campaign advertisements. We use a dataset of tweets issued by the campaign accounts of candidates for the US House of Representatives during the last two months of the 2018 midterm elections to determine whether candidate vulnerability predicts the presence of certain emotions in social media messages. Contrary to theoretical expectations, we find that vulnerability does not appear to inspire candidates to use more anxious language in their tweets. However, we do find evidence of a surprising relationship between sad rhetoric and vulnerability and that campaign context influences the use of other forms of negative rhetoric in tweets.

This article examines the factors that influence whether members of Congress tweet about the #MeToo movement. Whereas social-identity theory suggests that congresswomen would be more likely to tweet about #MeToo, congressional research argues that increased polarization has resulted in congresswomen bucking gender stereotypes and embracing more partisan behavior than might otherwise be expected (Pearson and Dancey 2011). We examine how gender, partisanship, and ideology shape the Twitter activity of members of Congress surrounding the #MeToo movement using an original dataset of their tweets since October 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained prominence on Twitter. Our findings show that gender and ideology are the strongest predictors of whether Congress members tweet about the #MeToo movement. Liberals—particularly liberal women—are leading the charge in bringing prominence to the #MeToo movement on Twitter.

Previous literature on partisan campaign behavior shows that third-party candidates do not have the same presence online as major-party candidates, and these differences have been linked regularly to campaign finance. Twitter, however, has changed the online campaigning game. Because Twitter essentially is free, third-party candidates can even the playing field with major-party candidates who have more financial resources. The question asked in this article is whether this is actually the case. Evans, Cordova, and Sipole (2014) showed that in 2012, third-party candidates were less likely to have accounts on Twitter; however, those who had accounts tweeted more often than major party candidates. This article updates those findings to consider the behavior of third-party candidates during the 2014 and 2016 congressional races. Using a dataset of all candidates for both the US House and the US Senate, we show that the gap has begun to close between major- and minor-party candidates on Twitter. Third-party candidates, however, continue to have a different way of communicating with their followers on Twitter when compared to Democrats and Republicans.

In a recent study regarding online lecture videos, Evans (2014) shows that lecture videos are not superior to still slides. Using two Introduction to American Government courses, taught in a 4-week summer session, she shows that students in a non-video course had higher satisfaction with the course and instructor and performed better on exams than those in a course with lecture videos. In this follow-up study, we examine whether the same findings hold over a longer, more traditional semester with more students. Like Evans (2014), we find that in a longer semester, students in a non-video course reported higher satisfaction, but, unlike Evans (2014), students in the video section did better on exams. The implications of these findings for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are explored.

We investigate the Twitter activity of all congressional candidates leading up to the 2012 U.S. House elections to assess whether there are significant differences in the tone and content of the tweets from male and female candidates. We argue that the electoral environment will have a significant effect over whether candidates engage in negative tweeting, address political issues, and discuss so-called “women’s issues” on Twitter. We find that gender has both a direct and contextual effect on candidates’ communication style on Twitter. Female candidates tweet significantly more “attack-style” messages than their male counterparts, discuss policy issues at a significantly higher rate, and women representatives focus more on “women’s issues.” We also find strong contextual effects in races with more female candidates: There is significantly more tweeting about political issues as well as significantly more negative attack-style tweets. However, with more female candidates, the number of tweets about “women’s issues” declines.

This article examines how House candidates used Twitter during the 2012 campaign. Using a content analysis of every tweet from each candidate for the House in the final two months before the 2012 election, this study provides a snapshot of House candidates’ “Twitter style.” In particular, this article shows that incumbents, Democrats, women, and those in competitive races tweet differently than challengers, Republicans, minor party candidates, men, and those in safe districts.

Research on U.S. congressional elections has placed great emphasis on the role of competitiveness, which is associated with high levels of campaign spending, media coverage, and interest group and party involvement. Competitive campaigns have been found to increase citizens' participation, engagement and learning. However, little is known about whether the effects of competitive campaigns have enduring consequences for citizens' attitudes and behavior. Analyzing a survey of citizens conducted one year after the 2006 congressional elections that includes an oversample of respondents from competitive House races, we examine whether exposure to a competitive House campaign affects voters' political knowledge and political interest as well as their consumption of political news. We find that competitive elections have positive effects that endure for at least a year beyond the campaign season, reinforcing the idea that political competition plays a robust role in American representative democracy.

In this article, the author addresses both the costs and benefits of implementing clickers into an introductory political science course. Comparing student responses to a mid-semester survey in both a clicker and non-clicker course, the results show that students have higher satisfaction of the course and instructor, higher exam scores, and feel more comfortable participating in class when using clickers. The author finds that the benefits of using clickers in a large introductory course greatly outweigh the costs and encourages others to try the technology.

Publication in scholarly journals is a key to scholarly success. However, previous studies have shown that across many disciplines, including political science, women publish significantly less than men and prefer to use qualitative methodology. In this article, we explore the accuracy of these trends by examining a decade's worth (2000–09) of women's publications in four top political science journals (the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and PS: Political Science and Politics). Using a systematic content analysis, we determine the gender ratio of the authors, funding sources, methods, and the ratio of qualitative and quantitative studies. We find that while women publish less than men in each of these venues, their publication rates resemble their representation in the field.

Scholarly publication in peer-reviewed journals is widely regarded as the road to scholarly success. However, in a diversity of fields such as sociology, economics, and political science, it has been shown that the rate of publication is much lower for women than for men. The question of whether a systematic relationship exists between gender and research methods has also frequently been debated. In this paper, we explore patterns of authorship and scholarship in two influential interdisciplinary journals, Political Communication and the International Journal of Press/Politics, over the last decade. A systematic content analysis was conducted to determine the gender ratio of authors, the methods and theories employed, and the ratio of quantitative to qualitative research studies. In addition, we tracked the use of primary or secondary data sources and the prevalence of research funding by gender. Overall, we find that while women are publishing less than men, their rate of publication is somewhat higher than their representation in the field.