PUBLICATIONS
Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States
Published in the American Journal of Political Science
​
I examine the influence of partisan donors on the district-level ideological polarization of congressional candidates in the United States. I use data from 2002–10 U.S. House elections, which provide for the placement of major party primary winners on the same ideological dimension as their primary, general election, and partisan donor constituencies. Using this unique data set, I find strong evidence that the influence of donors in nominating contests is a source of polarization in the United States. House nominees are more responsive to their donor constituencies than either their primary or general electorates. I also find some evidence that the lack of general election competition affects nominee extremity. In safer districts, Democratic incumbents appear more responsive to donors. However, Republican donors seem to demand proximity regardless of district competitiveness. Overall, the polarizing effects of donor constituencies dominate any moderating effects, resulting in ideologically extreme nominees and, ultimately, members of Congress.
WORKING PAPERS
Unconventional Nominations: Party Conventions and Representation in the United States
​
This work analyzes the effects of party conventions on the ideological positioning of nominees for U.S. Congress. In some congressional districts, party conventions are held prior to any primary election as part of the nominating process. To examine the effects of these conventions, I analyze U.S. House elections from 2002-2010 using data which place major party nominees on the same ideological dimension as their primary and general electorates. I find evidence that party conventions weaken the ideological relationship between congressional nominees and their primary constituencies by reducing the threat of a primary election. In contrast to non-convention districts, I find little ideological relationship between House nominees and rank-and-file party members in convention-holding districts. Instead, candidates appear to be responsive to elites at conventions leading to more extreme nominees. These findings suggest the widespread use of primary elections in the U.S. leads to congressional nominees that are ideologically responsive to their primary electorates.
​
Ideological Positioning and the Electoral Success of Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives
​
This work analyzes the effect of candidate positioning on the primary and general election success of U.S. House candidates. I analyze data from 2002-2010 U.S. House elections that include the ideological placement of major party candidates on the same ideological scale as their primary, general election, and partisan donor constituencies. I find evidence that the influence of partisan donors affects the electoral success of congressional candidates in primary elections. I find that the likelihood of facing a primary challenger is related to an incumbent’s proximity to their donor base. The further incumbents are from the average partisan donor in their district the more likely they will face a primary opponent. The proximity of major party House candidates to their donor constituencies also appear to affect the likelihood that candidates win the nomination as the closer they are to their donor base the more likely they were to win their party’s primary. I also find that the ideological proximity of House candidates to the average co-partisan in their district affects their success at the nomination stage. The closer candidates are to their primary electorate, relative to their leading primary challenger, the higher their primary vote share and the more likely they are to win nomination.