Month: November 2024

Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs

by Corinne Connor & Annelise Russell

How do elected officials signal what matters to them when agenda-setting isn’t just about picking issues, but also deciding how to respond? In our recent paper, we dig into this question by looking at how U.S. senators reacted to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the earlier draft opinion leak.

Twitter (or X, if you must) remains a go-to platform for today’s legislators—a direct line to advocates, the media, and political elites. Unlike traditional media, it lets lawmakers respond instantly and unfiltered, making it the perfect stage for showing where they stand. We explored how senators used Twitter during two moments: the shock of the draft opinion leak and the expected court ruling. By examining their “rhetorical agendas”— the issues they highlight and how they frame them online — we uncovered insights into how they communicate their priorities in real time

We tested the following hypotheses:

Time Hypothesis (a): More ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to react more quickly to theleaked court opinion on Twitter.

Time Hypothesis (b): Democratic senators will be more likely to react more quickly to the leaked court opinion on Twitter.

Frame Hypothesis (a): The most ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to frame the Dobbs leak and decision in terms of pro-life or pro-choice alternatives.

Frame Hypothesis (b): Senators with greater electoral security will be more likely to adopt pro-choice or pro-life responses to the leak and/or decision.

Image Description

Using 5,163 tweets from senators’ official Twitter accounts from the week surrounding both events, our analysis revealed clear distinctions in senators’ reactions. We found strong support for the Time Hypotheses regarding the leak. Ideologically extreme members were quicker to respond to the Dobbs leak compared to their more moderate peers. Democrats, as anticipated, were generally more prompt in addressing the leak, reflecting their platform’s commitment to reproductive rights. Interestingly, response timing for the court’s final decision did not follow the same pattern, suggesting that anticipation allowed for more calculated, uniform engagement across ideological lines.

Image Description

The results of our analysis, on the other hand, did not support our Frame Hypotheses. We found that partisanship and extremity of partisanship were significant predictors of whether a senator would adopt a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” position relative to the other issue frames. However, electoral vulnerability and ideological extremity did not seem to be significant predictors of issue framing—with the exception that ideological extremity predicted pro-life/pro-choice frames).

Image Description

Our study aims to understand how lawmakers’ attention and agenda-setting behavior as a response to highly salient events. During the Dobbs leak, uncertainty prompted quicker, more polarized responses. Conversely, the anticipated ruling enabled senators to prepare and standardize their communications, highlighting the difference between reactive and proactive agenda setting. Rapid-response platforms—like Twitter—compel lawmakers to not only choose whether to engage but how quickly and with what narrative. 

This study opens avenues for exploring digital responses to other unexpected events, such as acts of political violence or security crises, and how they compare to anticipated policy announcements. Additionally, further research could investigate whether similar patterns hold in the U.S. House or within other political systems that also use social media for agenda setting. Understanding these dynamics could deepen our grasp of modern policymaking and communication strategies in a digital landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Connor, Corinne and Annelise Russell. 2024. “ Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 751–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12553.

About the Authors

Corinne Connor is a program analyst with The Heinz Endowments.





Annelise Russell is an associate professor at the University of Kentucky.





, , ,

Staying on the Democratic Script? A Deep Learning Analysis of the Speechmaking of U.S. Presidents

by Amnon Cavari, Akos Mate, & Miklós Sebők

In a representative democracy like the United States, we expect that the policy priorities expressed by politicians on the campaign trail or in stump speeches reflect the same priorities that they pursue while in office. We further expect that politicians would continue their policy commitment in their programmatic messages as well as in their daily activities and speeches. When they do that, we say that they stay on the democratic script.

We test this proposition, focusing on the relationship between the programmatic addresses of US presidents and the daily speeches by comparing the annual State of the Union address (SOU) with subsequent day-to-day speeches, which we refer to as occasional remarks (ORs). Occasional remarks are crucial because they allow the president to show the electorate that they are following through on their promises. They can also serve as testing grounds for new ideas or messages. 

Using the American Presidency Project, we gathered all State of the Union addresses and occasional remarks for every president from Harry Truman to Donald Trump. We then coded the documents using the codebook of the  Comparative Agendas Project, which defines 20 policy categories. Because of the large volume of documents that made up our dataset (16,523 speeches divided into nearly 2 million sentences), we used a large language model to conduct the bulk of our coding, supplemented with some manual coding used to train and refine our language model. 

We used the coded data to test three hypotheses:

  • H1: The policy agenda of the most important programmatic speech (SOU) and of routine remarks (ORs) each year will be positively correlated.
  • H2: The correlation between the policy agenda of the most important programmatic speech (SOU) and that of the routine remarks (ORs) will steadily decline over the course of the year.
  • H3a: Major domestic and foreign events decrease the diversity of the presidents’ routine attention (measured in ORs) relative to that presented in strategic communication (based on SOU).
  • H3b: The effect of domestic and foreign events on the diversity of routine agenda would be conditioned on the diversity of the annual agenda in the SOU.
Image Description

Figure 1. Correlations between speech types by policy topic.

As the above figure illustrates, across the 20 coded policy topics, there’s a strong correlation between the topics that are emphasized in State of the Union addresses and those that subsequently appear in occasional remarks, giving credence to Hypothesis 1. Applying regression analysis, we also found that, as time goes on, the policy topics addressed in occasional remarks diverge from those emphasized in the State of the Union, supporting Hypothesis 2. 

As for Hypothesis 3, we found a positive correlation between the diversity of policy topics referenced in the State of the Union and those referenced in occasional remarks; but, in contrast to our expectation, we do not find that major events (e.g., foreign conflicts, natural disasters, etc.) have a major impact on shifting the focus of presidential remarks. 

Our results show that, generally speaking, U.S. presidents are staying on the democratic script: The policy priorities that they outline in their State of the Union addresses are the same priorities to which they return in subsequent remarks. By comparing State of the Union addresses to occasional remarks, we’ve shown a link between programmatic and occasional communications that may have broader applicability beyond the presidency. We have also demonstrated the value of using large language models for parsing large volumes of policy texts, as our model’s coding displayed a higher accuracy rating than our manual coders, and at a fraction of the time. There are numerous avenues for building upon the insights outlined here, including examining the relationship between speechmaking and public opinion, how different speech types intersect with the policymaking process, and exploring the populations exposed to these speeches and how they respond to the speeches.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Cavari, Amnon, Akos Mate and Miklós Sebők. 2024. “ Staying on the Democratic Script? A Deep Learning Analysis of the Speechmaking of U.S. Presidents.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 709–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12534.

About the Authors

Amnon Cavari is Associate Professor and head of the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Reichman University, Israel. Prof. Cavari’s main research interests are in the interrelationship between actions of elected officials and public opinion in the United States and in Israel. He is the author of The Party Politics of Presidential Rhetoric.
Twitter/X: @ACavari 

Akos Mate is a computational social scientist whose research interests are political economics and quantitative methodology. He is a research fellow at the Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest. He also teaches as visiting faculty at the Central European University, Vienna, and served as a consultant for the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office.

Twitter/X: @aakos_m

Miklós Sebők is a Senior Research Fellow at the HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences (CSS), Budapest. He serves as the research co-director of the Artificial Intelligence National Lab at CSS, the principal investigator of the V-SHIFT Momentum research project, and the convenor of the COMPTEXT conference. His main research interest lies at the intersection of policy studies and natural language processing.
Twitter/X: @Miklos_Sebok

, , , ,

Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies as Policy Actors

by Mary R. Anderson & Jonathan Lewallen

Popular culture likes to view the First Lady as a symbol of American womanhood, the nation’s hostess, fashion icon, and mom-in-chief. Yet, modern First Ladies often develop their own policy priorities and programs, and the Office of the First Lady is integral to modern presidential administrations. In this article we make the case for studying First Ladies as policy actors by examining the audiences to which First Ladies speak, the roles they adopt in doing so, including an explicit policy role, and the degree of substantive policy content in their public speeches and remarks. 

We use archived First Lady public speeches and remarks from 1993-2022 covering First Ladies Clinton, Laura Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden to illustrate that First Ladies actively adopt policy roles across their speeches and other appearances; speak to policy-focused audiences like policy summits, interest groups, and government personnel and often discuss substantive policy issues in these appearances.

First Ladies adopt roles beyond the ceremonial role established by Martha Washington. She also plays the roles of policy advocate and party supporter and leader.  We depart from other scholars in our view that these roles are not “either-or” but rather “both-and,” the First Lady can be both engaging in a ceremonial role AND a policy role. For example, when the First Lady gives a commencement speech, she is acting in a ceremonial role. She may also discuss policy in that speech, in which case she is acting in a policy role, thus she is assuming both roles simultaneously, ceremonial and policy. Our analysis of First Lady roles demonstrates that the combination of Policy + Ceremonial roles is the most common configuration in our data. While First Ladies adopt the Ceremonial role more often than the others, the Policy role is a large part of the First Lady’s activities, about 72% of the data involve a Policy role in some way. 

Image Description

We argue that First Ladies are significant policy actors and that they discuss policy when they are addressing various audiences. Our data supports this characterization because we see First Ladies often addressing policy relevant audiences in their activities. Our analysis shows that First Ladies talk to three “clusters” of groups.  Excluding the broad “other” category, First Ladies have spoken most often to national interest groups (14.4%) and at policy events (14%).

Image Description

Figure 1: Percentage of First Lady Speeches and Remarks Delivered to Different Audiences

Finally, we find that First Ladies address substantive policy content frequently. We find that First Ladies address substantive policy content in about 63% of their speeches; when we dive more deeply into those observations where the First Lady adopted a Policy role, they addressed substantive policy issues about 90% of the time.  The presence of substantive policy content varies across First Ladies’ audiences as shown in the figure below.  First Ladies since 1993 mentioned some substantive policy issue in about 91% of their remarks to party supporters and 90% to policy events. 

Image Description

Figure 2: Speeches and Remarks with Substantive Policy Mentions by Audience

In this article, we challenge the traditional view of the First Lady as a largely ceremonial public figure and behind-the-scenes presidential advisor. Using her public speeches and remarks over a 30-year period we find that First Ladies consistently discuss policy issues across their different audiences and adopt the Policy role in more than three-quarters of their speeches in statements. Over time the role of the First Lady has evolved, their unique position permits them to play a role in policy that might not be obvious at first glance. They are particularly well-situated and well-resourced to engage in the policy process as executive branch actors and thus should be studied more often for their engagement in policymaking. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Anderson, Mary and Jonathan Lewallen. 2024. “ Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies As Policy Actors.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12558.

About the Authors

Mary Anderson is the brodsky chair for Constitutional Democracy and Culture and professor of Political Science at Salve Regina University in Newport, RI. She studies women and politics and civic participation.



Jonathan Lewallen is an associate professor of political science at the University of Tampa. His research focuses on agenda setting and the policy process and how issues and institutions evolve together over time. Dr. Lewallen’s book Committees and the Decline of Lawmaking in Congress was published in 2020 by the University of Michigan Press.

, ,

An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework

by Moshe Maor

Policy process theories can be powerful tools for understanding complex policy processes—when they properly account for the emotional context. My latest conceptual research aims to do precisely this with regard to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), which emerged in 1984 as an approach for studying how policies are formulated and adopted, particularly by examining how problems, policies, and politics align to produce policy change. This conceptual piece demonstrates how integrating emotions can deepen our understanding of the emotional factors that drive policy decisions. Emotions refer here to “reactions to signals about the significance that circumstances hold for an individual’s goals and well-being” (Gadarian & Brader 2023, 192). 

In its original design, the MSF includes the concept of “public mood,” but this is limited to a fleeting, often generalized state of public sentiment. This perspective overlooks more intense, targeted emotional reactions that can significantly impact each stream within the framework. My study sharpens this view by incorporating specific emotional triggers and conditions, introducing new concepts such as emotional agenda (policy) windows, emotional decision windows, and emotional policy entrepreneurs. These elements shed light on how positive and negative emotions, discrete emotions (e.g., anger, hope), and bundles of emotions can create moments when policy change becomes particularly likely.

The concept of emotional agenda (policy) windows describes moments when heightened public emotions make issues seem urgent, creating prime opportunities for policy advocates. This is often observed during crises, where fear or outrage pushes a problem into the spotlight. Similarly, an emotional decision window refers to the period when public and policymaker emotions align, opening an opportunity for adopting new policies.

Another key player in this framework is the emotional policy entrepreneur. Whereas some policy entrepreneurs ignore emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs employ emotions in addition to ‘salami tactics’ and other strategies in pursuit of their policy goals. Unlike traditional policy entrepreneurs who advocate solutions based on practical needs, emotional policy entrepreneurs use emotional strategies to increase or decrease the intensity of a particular emotion, or to change the type of emotion (e.g., turning anxiety into anger), thereby shifting public opinion and mobilizing support. By leveraging collective emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs can create emotional needs, control their intensity, and bring them to an end, thereby significantly influencing agenda-setting. This strategy can sometimes achieve rapid policy change, though it may also face challenges in sustaining intense emotions over time.

Through viewing and interpreting the MSF while sharpening its core concepts, my research aims to clarify how emotions interact with each of the MSF’s assumptions (see Table 1) and structural components (e.g., the streams), enhancing the MSF’s capacity to explain agenda-setting and decision-making in emotionally charged contexts. Ultimately, this approach calls for scholars to view policy settings not just as platforms for debate but as spaces deeply affected by emotional dynamics, where policy decisions reflect public sentiments as much as strategic calculations.

This research can help both policymakers and analysts to predict when emotional dynamics might open policy windows and shape the outcomes of political processes—making it a valuable tool in today’s complex, emotionally-loaded policy landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Maor, Moshe. 2024. “ An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12568.

About the Author

Moshe Maor is a Professor of Political Science at Reichman University and past incumbent of the Wolfson Family Chair in Public Administration at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests focus on disproportionate policy response, emotions and public policy, and bureaucratic politics. He has published a few books as well as numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals including Democratization, Disasters, European Journal of Political Research, Governance, International Review of Public Policy, Journal of Environment Policy and planning, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Journal of Public Policy, Journal of Theoretical Politics, Policy Design & Practice, Policy & Politics, Policy &Society, Policy Sciences, Public Administration, and Public Administration Review. His current work revolves around developing the Ladder of Disproportionate Policy (European Policy Analysis, forthcoming)—an objective scale of disproportionate policies based on assessing the gap between the scope of the audience that the policy ostensibly serves and how the policy tools are set and adjusted to serve the actual audience. His book, entitled Policy Over- and Underreactions: Collected Essays, is forthcoming (Feb. 2025) in Edward Elgar.

, , , ,

What lessons do professionals learn about government from implementing policy?

by Patricia Strach

A professional on a recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) webinar that we participated in noted that stigma doesn’t just affect people who use drugs (the clients), it also affects the professionals providing services to them. We weren’t surprised. In our interviews, focus groups, and participant observation of roughly 200 professionals, we heard the same frustration, which was backed up with examples of lower salaries, less respect, and few opportunities to use professional discretion.

While researchers have shown that clients or even community members learn lessons about how government works from their direct or indirect interactions, we don’t know what effect policies have on another invested group: professional implementors. Yet professionals in substance-use disorder services—including general healthcare, drug treatment, and harm reduction (such as syringe exchange) programs—are very aware that they have a different experience from professionals working with other clients.

Substance-use disorder services, then, offer a window into how policies designed for marginalized and negatively constructed populations affect the advantaged, policy professionals administering them with broader implications for the true effects of public policy.

In our research, we find that policy implementors learn by proxy: they witness a government that does not care about people who use drugs; they experience a government that is not committed to providing positive care services to their clients and does not value the professionals who work with them; and in witnessing and experiencing together, they learn that the disadvantaged status of people who use drugs affects the benefits and burdens on the professionals who administer them too.

One treatment provider summed up the effect of extensive and proscriptive rules that punish clients at the same time they remove clinical discretion from well-qualified providers as having “less to do …with whether or not they believe the patient. It’s really how much they respect the opinion or the information provided by the clinician. So I think that stigma follows not only the clients and patients that we see, but I think they don’t always believe us.”

These lessons shape implementors’ views of government. They believe government does not care and has chosen not to take meaningful action in ways that are at odds with what their advantaged status—as counselors, nurses, doctors, managers, and executives in health systems—might suggest. They do not see government as supportive, or politics as winnable. Instead, their status as professionals allows them to compare their experience to other professionals’ and their clients’ experience with other clients’, and they recognize the unfairness in how government treats clients and professionals.

Our article, “Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors Views of Government,” suggests that policy affects more than clients or community members. It spills over to the professionals who implement them, shaping their experience and perspective of government too. Our research offers lessons for scholars of drug policy, policy feedback, administrative burdens, and social construction of target populations.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Strach, Patricia, Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués and Katie Zuber. 2024. “ Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors’ Views of Government.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12554.

About the Author

Patricia Strach, PhD is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Public Administration & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY) and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, SUNY. With Katie Zuber and Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués, she examines the opioid epidemic in local communities, engaging people on the frontlines including judges, lawyers, sheriffs, service providers, elected officials, community activists, and people who use drugs and their families. She is the author most recently of The Politics of Trash: How Governments Used Corruption to Clean Cities, 1890–1929 (Cornell 2023) as well as articles published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Studies Journal, and the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. She has presented her findings to federal and state policymakers and has appeared on panels across New York State. Strach received the Outstanding Public Engagement in Health Policy Award from the American Political Science Association’s Section on Health Politics and Policy in 2020 and was a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at Harvard (2008-2010).

, , ,