| Prior to the 2024 US Presidential Election, APSA’s Diversity and Inclusion Programs Department issued a call for submissions, entitled “2024 APSA Post-Election Reflections,” for a PSNow blog series of political science scholars who reflect on key moments, ideas, and challenges faced in the 2024 election. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors and contributors alone and do not represent the views of the APSA. |
The Role of Institutions in the 2024 Messaging Post-mortem
by SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, College of the Holy Cross
Much ink has been spilled about the Democratic messaging problem. Despite the fact that President Biden and congressional Democrats entered 2024 with accomplishments like infrastructure reform, caps on prescription drugs, and one of the strongest economic rebounds in American history, 66 percent of voters still felt that Democrats had accomplished “little or nothing.” The post-mortem for the 2024 election attributed much of this disconnect to the presentation styles of Kamala Harris, failed Democratic appeals to working class constituencies, and the perceived overuse of identity politics. Or as Pulitzer Prize columnist Josh Moon wrote in his column, “For Democrats, it’s the messaging stupid.”
The belief that Democrats “suck at messaging” is often attributed to the content of their message and pressures from a diverse constituency. As one Republican committee senior staffer I spoke to said:
“I’ve been hearing this for years that Republicans are better at messaging. While I’m not sure if that’s true, I do think that the cohesiveness in messaging, the root of it among Republicans is that we have pretty clear principles.” Others, like former Obama staffer and podcast host, Dan Pfeiffer, echoed this sentiment, “Republicans need only appeal to their base and little else, which allows for a simpler message.”
Although there are certainly challenges in managing the “big tent” of Democratic group interests, my research offers an institutional explanation for Democratic messaging troubles.In a recently published article, and an ongoing book project, I consider how leaders control public-policy messaging for rank-and-file members and their constituents. There is a notable partisan imbalance: Democratic party leaders’ communication efforts are less centralized, forceful, or organized compared to the messaging network of Republican party leaders. Using computational text analysis and dozens of interviews with members of Congress and their staff, I uncover institutionalized asymmetries in how the two parties develop, distribute, and adopt party-wide public policy messaging. As a result, rank-and-file Democrats are less cohesive messengers, while Republicans are consistently unified in how they discuss public policies.
There is a notable partisan imbalance: Democratic party leaders’ communication efforts are less centralized, forceful, or organized compared to the messaging network of Republican party leaders. Using computational text analysis and dozens of interviews with members of Congress and their staff, I uncover institutionalized asymmetries in how the two parties develop, distribute, and adopt party-wide public policy messaging.This leader-led messaging dynamic is a byproduct of institutional changes that have already been well-documented.
As chief negotiators and authors for major legislation in the Modern Congress, congressional leaders have become the primary source of information for rank-and-file members. As a result, the centralized advantages that aid committee and party leaders in the development and passage of legislation also grant them immense power in the presentation and discussion of public policy to rank-and-file members, and ultimately constituents. Committee chairs utilize hearings and witness selection to selectively frame public policy. Party leaders’ information advantages in a complex legislative negotiation allow them to strategically present messages, and leadership offices on both sides of the aisle have larger, more expert staff and more office resources to develop constituent communication.
I also document how leaders’ role of chief communicator is propelled by rank-and-file desire. As partisanship among constituents and within the chamber increases, rank-and-file members are eager to not only communicate with their constituents, but communicate in a partisan way. Rank-and-file members know that leaders are a source of valuable information regarding legislative development, passage, and even how to vote—and today, many members also put their trust in leaders as a reliable source for constituent-facing materials. Because these lines of communication are driven by party and committee leaders, the language members of Congress use to discuss often-bipartisan language is polarized.
However, one party is doing a better job at using institutions to clearly communicate party-specific policy wins.
Republican messaging is often simpler—as is evidenced by interviews and text analysis throughout my research—but it is simpler by design.Republican leaders in both chambers are blunt in their messaging demands for rank-and-file members, and in the House of Representatives, leaders will even reward message-aligned members with campaign donations or sponsorship on a leadership-written bill. Democratic leaders however are more inconsistent in their use of institutional advantages. While proactive leaders and chairs will take it upon themselves (and their staff), to distribute messages, to quote respondents, Democratic messaging is “haphazard” with “too many cooks in the kitchen” and driven by individual actors, rather than institutionalized processes. The result is an asymmetric adoption of party-wide public policy messaging. Rank-and-file Republicans are more unified, while Democratic members lack consistent evidence of shared messaging strategy.
While the challenges of the large, interest-group coalition of the Democratic party are very real, there is much that Democratic members are unified on. For instance, a YouGov survey of over 2,000 U.S. adults found that Democratic priorities, such as gun control, campaign finance reforms, paid family leave programs, higher taxes for billionaires—to name a few—were some of the highest polling public policy proposals. Yet in 2024, even with the presidential bully pulpit on their side, Democrats in Congress were unable to deliver a clear message on their policy agenda. Only 47 percent of respondents said that President Biden has given them a “very or somewhat clear idea of the policies he will enact,” compared to 86 percent of respondents who felt the same about Candidate Trump.
I argue the lack of institutionalized infrastructure to develop and distribute public policy messaging is partly to blame here.
Republican messaging is often simpler—as is evidenced by interviews and text analysis throughout my research—but it is simpler by design. Although Republicans have a more homogeneous constituency (and membership), as well as conservative news and social media networks on their side, there are still ample policy divisions within their ranks. The difference between their parties is not necessarily one of ideological division—but rather how their leaders develop, distribute, and encourage a message, and whether their rank-and-file members follow. Democratic leaders offer little consistent guidance—and rank-and-file members are less inclined to be team players. As researchers consider the messaging and leadership woes of congressional Democrats, any 2024 post-mortem should also include the institutional imbalance of resources and institutional processes dedicated to cultivating a shared message.
References: Interviews with members of Congress and staff, Institutional Review Board, University of Maryland, #1508784
SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor is a current Assistant Professor of Political Science at College of the Holy Cross, and incoming Assistant Professor of public policy and politics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia. Her work has been published or is forthcoming in Journal of Politics, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Electoral Studies and more. She is an author for the textbook Congress Explained, and is currently writing a book on the role of congressional leadership in public policy messaging. In 2019-2021, she served as an APSA Public Service Fellow for the U.S. House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Prior to receiving her PhD from the University of Maryland, she worked in the U.S. House and Senate as a press secretary and speechwriter.