Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mm7gn Total loading time: 0.384 Render date: 2022-08-13T10:14:22.808Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Justin Grimmer*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
*
e-mail: jgrimmer@fas.harvard.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Political scientists lack methods to efficiently measure the priorities political actors emphasize in statements. To address this limitation, I introduce a statistical model that attends to the structure of political rhetoric when measuring expressed priorities: statements are naturally organized by author. The expressed agenda model exploits this structure to simultaneously estimate the topics in the texts, as well as the attention political actors allocate to the estimated topics. I apply the method to a collection of over 24,000 press releases from senators from 2007, which I demonstrate is an ideal medium to measure how senators explain their work in Washington to constituents. A set of examples validates the estimated priorities and demonstrates their usefulness for testing theories of how members of Congress communicate with constituents. The statistical model and its extensions will be made available in a forthcoming free software package for the R computing language.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Author's note: I thank the Center for American Political Studies and the Institute for Quantitative Social Science for financial support. I have benefited from conversations with Ken Benoit, Matt Blackwell, Daniel Carpenter, Jacqueline Chattopadhyay, Andrew Coe, Brian Feinstein, Rob Franzese, Claudine Gay, Jeff Gill, David Hadley, Frank Howland, Emily Hickey, D. Sunshine Hillygus, Daniel Hopkins, Michael Kellerman, Gary King, Burt Monroe, Clayton Nall, Stephen Purpura, Kevin Quinn, Brandon Stewart, seminar participants at Harvard University, participants at the 2008 Summer Political Methodology meeting, and 2009 Southern Political Science Association meeting.

References

Aitchison, John. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Elizabeth, Carpenter, Daniel, and Hojnacki, Marie. 2006. “Whose deaths matter? Mortality, advocacy, and attention to disease in the mass media.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31(4): 729–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1992. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press.Google Scholar
Associated Press. 2007. “‘Biotown’ receives federal grant.” Times of Nortwest Indiana (accessed May 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Associated Press. 2008. “Chicago to receive 9.6 million for hybrid buses”. Chicago Tribune (accessed June 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Banerjee, Arindam, Dhillon, Inderjit S., Ghosh, Joydeep, and Sra, Suvrit. 2005. “Clustering on the unit hypersphere using von Mises-Fisher distributions.” Journal of Machine Learning Research 6: 1345–82.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1996. “Politicians and the press: Who leads, who follows?Presentation at the Annual Meeting of APSA, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Billheimer, D., Guttorp, Peter, and Fagan, William F. 2001. “Statistical interpretation of species composition.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 96(456): 1205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingaman, Sen. Jeff. 2007. “Bingaman and Domenici introduce legislation to dramatically expand renewable fuel sources.” http://bingaman.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Bishop, Christopher. 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Blei, David, and Lafferty, John. 2006. “Dynamic topic models.” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, June 25–29, 2006. 113–20.Google Scholar
Blei, David, Ng, Andrew Y., and Jordan, Michael. 2003. “Latent Dirichlet allocation.” Journal of Machine Learning and Research 3: 9931022.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Louis. 2008. “WCopyFind.” Software. http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html (accessed June 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. 1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambliss, Sen. Saxby 2007. “Chambliss Touts focus on BioFuels in Next Farm Bill.” (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Collins, Sen. Susan 2007. “Senator Collins announces $894,918 for Domtar, Fraser mill workers.” http://collins.senate.gov/public/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Cook, Timothy. 1988. “Press secretaries and media strategies in the House of Representatives: Deciding whom to pursue.” American Journal of Political Science 32(4): 1047–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Timothy. 1989. Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the US House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Craig, Sen. Larry 2007. “Senate confirms Randy Smith.” http://craig.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Durbin, Sen. Richard 2008. “Durbin announces a 9.6 million DOT grant for CTA hybrid buses.” http://durbin.senate.gov/ (accessed June 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Fraley, Chris, and Raftery, Adrian. 2002. “Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 97(458): 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Mathhew, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2007. “Estimating the effect of elite communications on public opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 1013–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating incumbency advantage without bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grassley, Sen. Chuck. 2007. “Grassley questions big oil's commitment to lessening US dependence on foreign oil.” http://grassley.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harkin, Sen. Tom 2007. “Lawmakers make renewable fuels availability, energy efficiency a top priority for Congress.” http://harkin.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Hastie, Trevor, Tibshirani, Robert, and Friedman, Jerome. 2001. The elements of statistical learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Hurley, Patricia. 2002. “Symbolic speeches in the US Senate and their representational implications.” Journal of Politics 64(1): 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillard, Dustin, Purpura, Stephen, and Wilkerson, John. 2008. “Computer-assisted topic classification for mixed-methods social science research.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 4(4): 3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel, and King, Gary. Forthcoming. “Extracting systematic social science meaning from text.” American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Jordan, Michael, Ghahramani, Zoubin, Jaakkola, Tommi, and Saul, Lawrence K. 1999. “An Introduction to variational methods for graphical models.” Machine Learning 37: 183233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “Constituency service and the incumbency advantage.” British Journal of Politics 21(1): 119–28.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1989. Congressmen's voting decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyl, Sen. John. 2007. “Senate approves Kyl Feinstein provision adding judgeship.” http://kyl.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Lautenberg, Sen. Frank 2007. “Lautenberg Bill to reverse Bush administration's weakening of toxic releases reporting,” Press Release.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances. 2008. “Dividers, not uniters: Presidential leadership and Senate partisanship, 1981–2004.” Journal of Politics 70(4): 914–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipinski, Daniel. 2004. Congressional communication: Content and consequences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugar, Sen. Richard 2007. “Biotown awarded 1.71 million USDA grant.” http://lugar.senate.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
MacKay, David. 2003. Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher, Raghavan, Prabhakar, and Schütze, Hinrich. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew, and Quinn, Kevin. 2008. “Markov chain Monte Carlo package (MCMCpack).” Software, R Package.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCombs, Maxwell. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
McLachlan, Geoffrey, and Peel, David. 2000. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, Geoffrey, and Krishnan, Thriyambakam. 1997. The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Menendez, Sen. Robert, 2007. “Lautenberg Bill to reverse Bush administration's weakening of toxic releases reporting,” Press Release.Google Scholar
Mimno, David, and McCallum, Andrew. 2008. “Topic models conditioned on arbitrary features with Dirichlet-multinomial regression.” Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Plenary Presentation, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Ng, Andrew, Jordan, Michael, and Weiss, Yair. 2002. “On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John. 1996. “Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study.” American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Martin. 1980. “An algorithm for suffix stripping.” Program 14(3): 130–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Kevin, Monroe, Burt, Colaresi, Michael, Crespin, Michael, and Radev, Dragomir. Forthcoming. “How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs.” American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian. 2006. “Local news coverage and the incumbency advantage in the US house.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4): 491511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, Wendy. 2000. Partners and rivals: Representation in US Senate delegations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Buell, Emmitt. 2004. “Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns, 1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 650–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Adam. 2002. The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, 2007. “Sens. Snowe, Collins announce NEG Funding.” Bangor Daily News, November 2, 2007 (accessed June 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue politics in congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teh, Y., Jordan, M., Beal, M., and Blei, D. 2006. “Hierarchical Dirichlet processes.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 101(476): 1566–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, Danielle. 2002. Through local eyes: Local media coverage of congress. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Satosi. 1969. Knowing and guessing: A quantitative study of inference and information. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Webb, Sen. Jim 2007. “Senators Warner and Webb announce recommendations for judgeships.” http://webb.senate.gov (accessed January 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. H., and Macready, W. G. 1997. “No free lunch theorems for optimization.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1(1): 6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiannakis, Diana Evans 1982. “House members’ communication styles: Newsletter and press releases.” Journal of Politics 44(4): 1049–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Shi, and Ghosh, Joydeep. 2003. “A unified framework for model-based clustering.” Journal of Machine Learning 4 (Nov.): 1001–37.Google Scholar
You have Access
261
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *