Running Against the Grain: Measuring Partisan Rhetoric in State-Level Campaigns

• In Event: US State Parties

Abstract

The growing theory of the nationalization of state politics has gained traction across a number of policy arenas with scholars highlighting the increasing nationalization of the electorate across the country and the growth of state-level partisan polarization as strong evidence of a decline in state variation. These trends, combined with the increase in straight-ticket voting and the growing coat-tail effects of national races into the states, reduce much of the discussion state-level policy to a reflection of national partisan agendas and polarization. While these theories highlight a growing emphasis on national issues, little work has been done to evaluate the presence of national concerns within the rhetoric of state politicians. This paper approaches the question of state-level partisan agendas and rhetoric through the lens of issue ownership within state legislative campaigns. I introduce a novel dataset that catalogues campaign website statements from state lower chamber candidates during the 2016 election and all state legislative elections during the 2018 election year. Candidate issue statements are separated and coded based on issue arena according to the Policy Agendas Project. Issue emphasis amongst partisans from different states is compared to evaluate the influence of national policy agendas on state rhetoric. The results reveal that, despite a growing emphasis on national issues amongst the electorate, historically state controlled issues including education and economic concerns still dominate the conversation at the state level. Further, significant variation exists between Republicans and Democrats across states, indicating a more divided party than the nationalization theory claims. Thus while the electorate may be dividing on national issues, state-level candidates still occasionally run campaigns tailored to their states and districts in an effort to distinguish themselves from their national counterparts.

Author

• Joshua Meyer-Gutbrod, Cornell University