A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases | Political Analysis | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are 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.

References

Aitchison, John. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google 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

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: 993–1022.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

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

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.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating incumbency advantage without bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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): 31–46.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: 183–233.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.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

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.Google 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.Google 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): 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiller, Wendy. 2000. Partners and rivals: Representation in US Senate delegations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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

Wolpert, D. H., and Macready, W. G. 1997. “No free lunch theorems for optimization.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1(1): 67–82.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