Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates
Abstract
This book provides a candidate entry explanation for partisan polarization in Congress. Danielle M. Thomsen draws on quantitative data to show that ideological moderates are less likely to run for and remain in Congress than those at the extremes. The book introduces a party fit argument for why moderates have opted out of congressional politics. It suggests that the personal and professional benefits of congressional service have diminished for liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats as the parties have drifted apart. Although the political center has long been deemed a coveted position in the legislature, it is now a lonely and lowly place to be. Opting Out of Congress argues that partisan polarization is unlikely to diminish if ideological moderates do not run for office, and reformers who seek to restore bipartisanship in Congress must consider how to encourage moderates to launch congressional candidacies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right.
“Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right10,27,31,34,37,72,342,343).”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [342]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 115
- Authors
- Thomsen, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thomsen, Danielle M.
- ORCID
- Thomsen, Danielle M.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2017-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W3168468408
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 14.72
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- partisan polarization, congressional elections, candidate entry, Liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, political center, bipartisanship, United States Congress
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review