Abstract
For decades US senators have maximized their limited resources to juggle policy, party politics, and constituents, but the rise of social media sheds new light on how they make these strategic choices. David Mayhew’s seminal study of Congress (1974) argues that lawmakers engage in three types of activities – credit claiming, advertising, and position taking, but equally important is understanding how lawmakers make strategic choices among these activities. Senators’ limited resources and attention forces them to prioritize and make trade-offs among these activities, and new media platforms, like Twitter, offer a window into that decision-making process. This article examines what influences senators’ decisions to publicly communicate these activities on Twitter. By using senators’ daily Twitter activity in 2013 and 2015 as a measure of their individual agenda, I find that senators are most likely to prioritize position-taking activities. Women and committee leaders allocate the most attention to policy positions, but attention to policy may come at a cost. When senators do choose to prioritize policy through position taking, they often make trade-offs that lead to decreased attention to advertising and credit claiming. These activities and the choices among them not only have implications for lawmakers’ behavior in Congress, but also the type of representation and information constituents can expect from their elected leaders.
Appendix
| 2013 Senators | ||
| Name | Age | Total Tweets |
| Alexander | 73 | 418 |
| Ayotte | 45 | 1812 |
| Baldwin | 51 | 992 |
| Barrasso | 61 | 666 |
| Baucus | 72 | 150 |
| Begich | 51 | 188 |
| Bennet | 49 | 198 |
| Blumenthal | 67 | 569 |
| Blunt | 64 | 1269 |
| Boozman | 63 | 328 |
| Boxer | 73 | 260 |
| Burr | 58 | 328 |
| Cantwell | 55 | 520 |
| Cardin | 70 | 1195 |
| Carper | 67 | 868 |
| Casey | 53 | 536 |
| Chambliss | 70 | 309 |
| Coats | 70 | 681 |
| Coburn | 65 | 389 |
| Cochran | 76 | 458 |
| Collins | 61 | 271 |
| Coons | 50 | 543 |
| Corker | 61 | 673 |
| Cornyn | 62 | 2272 |
| Crapo | 62 | 2094 |
| Cruz | 43 | 1826 |
| Donnelly | 58 | 511 |
| Durbin | 69 | 667 |
| Enzi | 70 | 576 |
| Feinstein | 80 | 365 |
| Fischer | 62 | 468 |
| Flake | 51 | 269 |
| Franken | 62 | 196 |
| Gillibrand | 47 | 1968 |
| Graham | 58 | 1075 |
| Grassley | 80 | 563 |
| Hagan | 60 | 706 |
| Harkin | 74 | 51 |
| Hatch | 79 | 51 |
| Heinrich | 42 | 466 |
| Heitkamp | 58 | 1142 |
| Heller | 53 | 1098 |
| Hirono | 66 | 394 |
| Hoeven | 56 | 244 |
| Inhofe | 79 | 905 |
| Isakson | 79 | 228 |
| Johanns | 63 | 53 |
| Chiesa | 48 | 30 |
| Johnson | 67 | 266 |
| Kaine | 55 | 1177 |
| King | 69 | 656 |
| Kirk | 54 | 721 |
| Klobuchar | 53 | 484 |
| Landrieu | 58 | 708 |
| Lautenberg | 89 | 375 |
| Leahy | 73 | 1348 |
| Lee | 42 | 644 |
| Levin | 79 | 198 |
| Manchin | 63 | 999 |
| Markey | 67 | 596 |
| McCain | 73 | 1562 |
| McCaskill | 60 | 403 |
| McConnell | 71 | 1999 |
| Menendez | 59 | 1035 |
| Merkley | 57 | 449 |
| Mikulski | 77 | 1077 |
| MCowan | 44 | 243 |
| Moran | 59 | 781 |
| Murkowski | 56 | 316 |
| Murphy | 40 | 1348 |
| Murray | 63 | 1846 |
| Nelson | 71 | 74 |
| Paul | 50 | 1057 |
| Portman | 58 | 758 |
| Pryor | 50 | 663 |
| Reed | 64 | 862 |
| Reid | 74 | 623 |
| Risch | 70 | 118 |
| Roberts | 77 | 319 |
| Rockafeller | 76 | 865 |
| R Johnson | 58 | 161 |
| Rubio | 42 | 285 |
| Sanders | 72 | 2121 |
| Schatz | 41 | 174 |
| Schumer | 63 | 940 |
| Scott | 48 | 487 |
| Sessions | 67 | 230 |
| Shaheen | 66 | 882 |
| Shelby | 79 | 23 |
| Stabenow | 63 | 248 |
| Tester | 57 | 61 |
| Thune | 52 | 580 |
| T Udall | 65 | 470 |
| Toomey | 52 | 896 |
| Udall | 63 | 904 |
| Vitter | 52 | 834 |
| Warner | 59 | 1071 |
| Warren | 64 | 179 |
| Whitehouse | 58 | 578 |
| Wicker | 62 | 429 |
| Wyden | 64 | 433 |
| 2015 Senators | ||
| Name | Age | Total Tweets |
| Alexander | 74 | 912 |
| Ayotte | 46 | 2223 |
| Baldwin | 52 | 3328 |
| Barrasso | 62 | 671 |
| Bennett | 50 | 280 |
| Blumenthal | 68 | 1739 |
| Blunt | 64 | 1352 |
| Booker | 45 | 4428 |
| Boozman | 64 | 479 |
| Boxer | 74 | 392 |
| Brown | 62 | 414 |
| Burr | 59 | 606 |
| Cantwell | 56 | 619 |
| Cardin | 71 | 1695 |
| Carper | 67 | 882 |
| Casey | 54 | 1040 |
| Cassidy | 57 | 611 |
| Coats | 71 | 1392 |
| Cochran | 77 | 413 |
| Collins | 62 | 314 |
| Coons | 51 | 1348 |
| Corker | 62 | 634 |
| Cornyn | 62 | 3308 |
| Cotton | 37 | 1421 |
| Crapo | 63 | 288 |
| Cruz | 44 | 778 |
| Daines | 52 | 1328 |
| Donnelly | 59 | 1086 |
| Durbin | 70 | 2217 |
| Enzi | 70 | 928 |
| Ernst | 44 | 584 |
| Feinstein | 81 | 1085 |
| Fischer | 63 | 924 |
| Flake | 52 | 363 |
| Franken | 63 | 231 |
| Gardner | 40 | 1046 |
| Gillibrand | 48 | 2613 |
| Graham | 59 | 612 |
| Grassley | 81 | 835 |
| Heinrich | 43 | 780 |
| Heitkamp | 59 | 2472 |
| Heller | 54 | 1470 |
| Hirono | 67 | 430 |
| Hoeven | 57 | 561 |
| Inhofe | 80 | 404 |
| Isakson | 70 | 1034 |
| J. Tester | 58 | 990 |
| Kaine | 56 | 1478 |
| King | 70 | 677 |
| Kirk | 55 | 1375 |
| Klobuchar | 54 | 1281 |
| Lankford | 46 | 756 |
| Leahy | 74 | 2387 |
| Manchin | 67 | 1060 |
| Markey | 68 | 1809 |
| McCain | 78 | 2510 |
| McCaskill | 64 | 440 |
| McConnell | 72 | 1784 |
| Menendez | 61 | 557 |
| Merkley | 68 | 762 |
| Mike Lee | 43 | 532 |
| Mikulski | 78 | 733 |
| M Capito | 61 | 1350 |
| Moran | 60 | 391 |
| Murkowski | 57 | 1066 |
| Murphy | 41 | 3438 |
| Murray | 64 | 1914 |
| Nelson | 72 | 36 |
| Paul | 51 | 4071 |
| Perdue | 65 | 1001 |
| Peters | 56 | 1057 |
| Portman | 59 | 1262 |
| Reed | 65 | 869 |
| Reid | 75 | 561 |
| Risch | 71 | 90 |
| R Johnson | 59 | 895 |
| Roberts | 78 | 1581 |
| Rounds | 60 | 716 |
| Rubio | 43 | 2382 |
| Sanders | 73 | 2793 |
| Sasse | 42 | 466 |
| Schatz | 42 | 331 |
| Schumer | 64 | 2339 |
| Scott | 49 | 1687 |
| Sessions | 68 | 237 |
| Shaheen | 67 | 955 |
| Shelby | 80 | 390 |
| Stabenow | 64 | 247 |
| Sullivan | 50 | 686 |
| Thune | 54 | 851 |
| Tillis | 54 | 801 |
| Toomey | 53 | 435 |
| Udall | 67 | 639 |
| Vitter | 53 | 2203 |
| Warner | 60 | 639 |
| Warren | 65 | 416 |
| Whitehouse | 59 | 949 |
| Wicker | 63 | 599 |
| Wyden | 65 | 1068 |
| Additional Coding Examples | |
| Position Taking (Position on a vote, a bill, discussion of legislation, policy preferences.) | More than half of Americans “baffled” by #ObamaCare impacts. That’s why I support efforts to defund this #TrainWreck. http://t.co/eqK28Mg1Hy I have repeatedly made it clear I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless we address why we are going further in debt |
| Credit Claiming (Local project involvement, policy with local implications, credit for introducing policy and/or projects) | What does #OMDP4NM stand 4?#NMJobs & future gens. Proud to introduce #OrganMountains #publiclands bill today: http://t.co/RhOeYMcM3V Plateau’s #broadband expansion in #NM critical 4 #smallbiz #jobs-proud 2 be in Moriarty 2 celebrate #ARRA investment http://t.co/kWb6vbbIrs |
| Advertising (Promoting your political brand through media, press, visits, and talks) | RT @Whereruproulx: #Tourism Press Conference with @SenatorShaheen at #WeirsBeach #NH. Int’l visitors spend $4500 per ind. on avg. http://t’_ Had a great time talking w/the barbers at Unique Reflections but told them my loyalty lies w/my barber back in #RVA http://t.co/7AhiSC9Eae |
References
Auter, Zachary J., and Jeffrey A. Fine. 2016. “Negative Campaigning in the Social Media Age: Attack Advertising on Facebook.” Political Behavior 38 (4): 999–1020.10.1007/s11109-016-9346-8Suche in Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Christopher F. Karpowitz, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2012. “A Field Experiment on Legislators’ Home Styles: Service versus Policy.” Journal of Politics 72 (2): 474–486.10.1017/S0022381611001708Suche in Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chi, Feng, and Nathan Yang. 2010. “Twitter Adoption in Congress.” Review of Network Economics 10 (1). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1620401.10.2202/1446-9022.1255Suche in Google Scholar
Congressional Management Foundation. 2015. “#SocialCongress 2015 Report.” http://www.congressfoundation.org/news/press-releases/1123-new-report-outlines-how-congress-and-citizens-interact-on-social-media.Suche in Google Scholar
Dearing, James W., and Everett M. Rogers. 1996. Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452243283Suche in Google Scholar
Dolan, Julie, and Jonathan S. Kropf. 2004. “Credit Claiming from the U.S. House: Gendered Communication Styles.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 9 (1): 41–59.10.1177/1081180X03260073Suche in Google Scholar
Edwards, George. C. III, and B. Dan Wood. 1999. “Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media.” American Political Science Review 93: 327–344.10.2307/2585399Suche in Google Scholar
Evans, Heather K., and Jennifer H. Clark. 2015. “You Tweet Like a Girl: How Female Candidates Campaign on Twitter.” American Politics Research 44 (2): 326–352.10.1177/1532673X15597747Suche in Google Scholar
Evans, Heather K., Victoria Cordova, and Savannah Sipole. 2014. “Twitter Style: An Analysis of How House Candidates Used Twitter in their 2012 Campaigns.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47 (2): 454–462.10.1017/S1049096514000389Suche in Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Suche in Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone to the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2013. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139207782Suche in Google Scholar
Grossman, Matt, and David A. Hopkins. 2015. “Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (1): 119–139.10.1017/S1537592714003168Suche in Google Scholar
Highton, Benjamin, and Michael Rocca. 2005. “Beyond the Roll-Call Arena: The Determinants of Position Taking in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 58: 303–316.10.1177/106591290505800210Suche in Google Scholar
Hwang, Sungwook. 2013. “The Effect of Twitter Use on Politicians’ Credibility and Attitudes toward Politicians.” Journal of Public Relations Research 25 (3): 246–258.10.1080/1062726X.2013.788445Suche in Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman Classics.Suche in Google Scholar
Larsson, Ander Olof, and Hallvard Moe. 2011. “Studying Political Microblogging: Twitter Users in the 2010 Swedish Election Campaign.” New Media & Society 14 (5): 729–747.10.1177/1461444811422894Suche in Google Scholar
Lassen, David S., and Adam Brown. 2011. “Twitter: The Electoral Connection?” Social Science Computer Review 29 (4): 419–436.10.1177/0894439310382749Suche in Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. 2000. “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason, edited by Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805813.009Suche in Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Peterson, Rolfe D. 2012. “To Tweet or Not to Tweet: Exploring the Determinants of Early Adoption of Twitter by House Members in the 111th Congress.” The Social Science Journal 49 (4): 430–438.10.1016/j.soscij.2012.07.002Suche in Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2013. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 101–127.10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242Suche in Google Scholar
Sevenans, Julie, Stefaan Walgrave, and Debby Vos. 2015. “Political Elites’ Media Responsiveness and Their Individual Political Goals: A Study of National Politicians in Belgium.” Research and Politics 2 (3): 1–7.10.1177/2053168015593307Suche in Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Suche in Google Scholar
Sharp, Adam. 2013. “100 Senators and the 57th Inauguration.” Twitter Blog. https://blog.twitter.com/2013/100-senators-and-57th-inauguration.Suche in Google Scholar
Shearer, Elisa, and Jeffery Gottfried. 2017. “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017.” Pew Research Center: Journalism and Media. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/.Suche in Google Scholar
Shogan, Colleen. 2010. “Blackberries, Tweets, and YouTube: Technology and the Future of Communicating with Congress.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (2): 231–233.10.1017/S1049096510000041Suche in Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: McMillan.Suche in Google Scholar
Small, Tamara A. 2011. “What the Hashtag? A Content Analysis of Canadian Politics on Twitter.” Information, Communication & Society 14 (6): 872–895.10.1080/1369118X.2011.554572Suche in Google Scholar
Straus, Jacob R., Matthew E. Glassman, Colleen Shogan, and Susan Navarro Smelcer. 2013. “Communicating in 140 Characters or Less: Congressional Adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1): 60–66.10.1017/S1049096512001242Suche in Google Scholar
Straus, Jacob R., Colleen Shogan, Raymond T. Williams, and Matthew E. Glassman. 2016. “Congressional Social Media Communications: Evaluating Senate Twitter Usage.” Online Information Review 40 (5): 643–659.10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0334Suche in Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2014. Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731930.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Towner, Terri L., and David A. Dulio. 2012. “New Media and Political Marketing in the United States: 2012 and Beyond.” Journal of Political Marketing 11 (1–2): 95–119.10.1080/15377857.2012.642748Suche in Google Scholar
Walgrave, Stefaan, Michiel Nuytemans, and Stuart Soroka. 2008. “The Mass Media’s Political Agenda-Setting Power: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media, Parliament and Government in Belgium (1993–2000).” Comparative Political Studies 41 (6): 814–836.10.1177/0010414006299098Suche in Google Scholar
Williams, Christine B., and Girish J. Gulati. 2010. “Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less.” Working Papers. Paper 42.Suche in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Intro-summer
- Following Fenno: Learning from Senate Candidates in the Age of Social Media and Party Polarization
- Explaining Trump’s Support: What We Saw and Heard At His Campaign Rallies
- The Trump Effect: Filing Deadlines and the Decision to Run in the 2016 Congressional Elections
- What if Hillary Clinton Had Gone to Wisconsin? Presidential Campaign Visits and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election
- The Fight for American Restoration: Understanding the Paradoxical Foundations of the Trump Presidency
- Invisible Coattails: Presidential Approval and Gubernatorial Elections, 1994–2014
- When Yes Means No: GOP Congressional Strategy and the Reauthorization of the VRA in 2006
- Help or Hindrance? Outside Group Advertising Expenditures in House Races
- The Politics of Prioritization: Senators’ Attention in 140 Characters
- Book reviews
- Strategic Party Government: Why Winning Trumps Ideology
- Insecure Majorities
- Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the US Congress
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Intro-summer
- Following Fenno: Learning from Senate Candidates in the Age of Social Media and Party Polarization
- Explaining Trump’s Support: What We Saw and Heard At His Campaign Rallies
- The Trump Effect: Filing Deadlines and the Decision to Run in the 2016 Congressional Elections
- What if Hillary Clinton Had Gone to Wisconsin? Presidential Campaign Visits and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election
- The Fight for American Restoration: Understanding the Paradoxical Foundations of the Trump Presidency
- Invisible Coattails: Presidential Approval and Gubernatorial Elections, 1994–2014
- When Yes Means No: GOP Congressional Strategy and the Reauthorization of the VRA in 2006
- Help or Hindrance? Outside Group Advertising Expenditures in House Races
- The Politics of Prioritization: Senators’ Attention in 140 Characters
- Book reviews
- Strategic Party Government: Why Winning Trumps Ideology
- Insecure Majorities
- Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the US Congress