Book contents
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Political Representation and Democratic Accountability
- Part II Continuity and Change in Party Organizations
- 6 Legislative Parties in an Era of Alternating Majorities
- 7 Parties within Parties
- 8 Where Measures Meet History
- Part III Partisanship and Governmental Performance
- Part IV Conclusions
- Index
- References
8 - Where Measures Meet History
Party Polarization during the New Deal and Fair Deal
from Part II - Continuity and Change in Party Organizations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2016
Book contents
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Political Representation and Democratic Accountability
- Part II Continuity and Change in Party Organizations
- 6 Legislative Parties in an Era of Alternating Majorities
- 7 Parties within Parties
- 8 Where Measures Meet History
- Part III Partisanship and Governmental Performance
- Part IV Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary 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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Governing in a Polarized AgeElections, Parties, and Political Representation in America, pp. 191 - 220Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James, and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–533.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce C., Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. “Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of Difference and a Monte Carlo Test.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4): 555–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce C., Poole, Keith T., Rosenthal, Howard, Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Lo, James. 2013. “The Structure of Utility in Spatial Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 57(4): 1008–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua. 2012. “Using Roll Call Estimates to Test Models of Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 15: 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. and Lapinski, John S.. 2006. “Measuring Legislative Accomplishment, 1877–1946.” American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. and Lapinski, John S.. 2008. “Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4): 511–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. and Jackman, Simon. 2009. “To Simulate or NOMINATE?” Legislative Studies Quarterly XXXIV(4): 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John. 1999. “Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 93(4): 821–835.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. III, Barrett, Andrew, and Peake, Jeffrey. 1997. “The Legislative Impact of Divided Government.” American Journal of Political Science 41(2): 545–563.Google Scholar
Fahrenthold, David A., Rucker, Philip, and Sonmez, Felicia. 2010. “Stormy 111th Congress Was Still the Most Productive in Decades.” Washington Post December 23, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205620.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, Levitt, Steven, and Snyder, James Jr. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93(1) 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc. 2009. “Putting Polarization in Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 39(2009): 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, David R. 2001. “Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock.” Political Research Quarterly 54: 125–41.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2011. “Historical Approaches to the Study of Congress: Toward a Congressional Vantage on American Political Development.” In The Oxford Handbook of The American Congress. Schickler, Eric and Lee, Frances E., eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2012. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright/W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Katnelson, Ira and Lapinski, John. 2006. “The Substance of Representation: Studying Policy Content and Legislative Behavior.” In The Macropolitics of Congress. Adler, E. Scott and Lapinski, John, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katznelson, Ira and Mulroy, Quinn Weber. 2012. “Was the South Pivotal? Situated Partisanship and Policy Coalitions during the New Deal and Fair Deal.” Journal of Politics 74(April): 604–620.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. “Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapinski, John. 2008. “Policy Substance and Performance in American Lawmaking, 1877–1994.” American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 235–251.Google Scholar
Lapinski, John. 2013. The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development and Lawmaking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2008. “Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(May): 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1966. Party Loyalty Among Congressmen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2005. “Wars and American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 3(September): 473–493.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2007. “The Policy Consequences of Political Polarization.” In The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, eds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2003. “Political Polarization and Income Inequality.” Princeton University Working Paper.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, James T. 1967. Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress, 1933–1939. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel. 2003. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics CXVIII (1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith and Daniels, Stephen. 1985. “Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 79(2): 373–399.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian. 2011. Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J. and Katznelson, Ira. 2013. “Designing Historical Social Scientific Inquiry: How Parameter Heterogeneity Can Bridge the Methodological Divide between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.” American Journal of Political Science. Published online 20 August.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by