Skip to main content
University of Michigan Press Ebook Collection

University of Michigan Press
Ebook Collection
Browse Books Help
Get access to more books. Log in with your institution.

Your use of this Platform is subject to the Fulcrum Terms of Service.

Share the story of what Open Access means to you

a graphic of a lock that is open, the universal logo for open access

University of Michigan needs your feedback to better understand how readers are using openly available ebooks. You can help by taking a short, privacy-friendly survey.

  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Losing to Win: Why Congressional Majorities Play Politics Instead of Make Laws

Losing to Win: Why Congressional Majorities Play Politics Instead of Make Laws

Jeremy Gelman
Restricted You don't have access to this book. Please try to log in with your institution. Log in
Read Book Buy Book

  • Overview

  • Contents

  • Stats

Most everyone, voters, political scientists, even lawmakers, think Congress is dysfunctional. Instead of solving problems, Democrats and Republicans spend their time playing politics. These days Capitol Hill seems more a place to bicker, not to pass laws. The reality is more complicated. Yes, sometimes Congress is broken. But sometimes it is productive. What explains this variation? Why do Democrats and Republicans choose to legislate or score political points? And why do some issues become so politicized they devolve into partisan warfare, while others remain safe for compromise?

Losing to Win answers these questions through a novel theory of agenda-setting. Unlike other research that studies bills that become law, Jeremy Gelman begins from the opposite perspective. He studies why majority parties knowingly take up dead-on-arrival (DOA) bills, the ideas everyone knows are going to lose. In doing so, he argues that congressional parties' decisions to play politics instead of compromising, and the topics on which they choose to bicker, are strategic and predictable. Gelman finds that legislative dysfunction arises from a mutually beneficial relationship between a majority party in Congress, which is trying to win unified government, and its allied interest groups, which are trying to enact their policies. He also challenges the conventional wisdom that DOA legislation is political theater. By tracking bills over time, Gelman shows that some former dead-on-arrival ideas eventually become law. In this way, ideas viewed as too extreme or partisan today can produce long-lasting future policy changes.

Through his analysis, Gelman provides an original explanation for why both parties pursue the partisan bickering that voters find so frustrating. He moves beyond conventional arguments that our discordant politics are merely the result of political polarization. Instead, he closely examines the specific circumstances that give rise to legislative dysfunction. The result is a fresh, straightforward perspective on the question we have all asked at some point, "Why can't Democrats and Republicans stop fighting and just get something done?"
 
  • Half Title
  • Series Page
  • Title Page
  • Copyright Page
  • Dedication
  • Contents
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables
  • Acknowledgments
  • One. Introduction
  • Two. A Primer on Dead-on-Arrival Bills
  • Three. A Theory of Agenda Allocation
  • Four. The Strategic Timing of Dead-on-Arrival Bills
  • Five. Rewarding Dysfunction: Interest Groups and Intended Legislative Failure
  • Six. The Long-Term Consequences of Legislative Failure
  • Seven. Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Index
Citable Link
Published: 2020
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
ISBN(s)
  • 978-0-472-05460-2 (paper)
  • 978-0-472-07460-0 (hardcover)
  • 978-0-472-12707-8 (ebook)
Series
  • Legislative Politics and Policy Making
Subject
  • Political Science:Governance
  • Political Science:American Politics

Resources

Search and Filter Resources

Limit your search

  • Chapter 23
  • Chapter 32
  • Chapter 43
  • Chapter 54
  • Chapter 61

  • DOA bills5
  • Interest group scorecards3
  • Auction2
  • Bill types2
  • DOA bill2
  • more Keyword »

  • Gelman, Jeremy13

  • chart13

  • 201213

This is the en.blacklight.search.search_results_header

1 - 13 of 13
First Appearance Section (Earliest First) Section (Last First) Format (A-Z) Format (Z-A) Year (Oldest First) Year (Newest First)
Number of results to display per page
10 per page 20 per page 50 per page 100 per page
View results as:
List List Gallery Gallery

Search Results

Graph showing ‘Percentage of Bills on the Agenda,’ on the vertical axis. The valueson the Y axis range from 0-70, inincrements of 10 units. There are three categories on the horizontal axis: All bills, Divided Government, and Unified Government. Under each category the graph of DOA, Non-DOA, and Enacted are plotted.

Percentage of DOA and Enactable Bills, 2003-2012

From Chapter 2

Figure 2.1. Bills that Received Floor Consideration, 2003-2012

Graph showing ‘Percentage of Bills on the Agenda’ on the vertical axis.The values range from 0-80, inincrements of 10 units. There are three categories on the horizontal axis: All bills, Divided Government, and Unified Government. Under each category the graph of DOA, Non-DOA, and Enacted are plotted.

Percentage of Important DOA and Enactable Bills, 2003-2012

From Chapter 2

Figure 2.2. Important Bills that Received Floor Consideration, 2003-2012

Graph showing‘# of DOA Bills on Agenda’ on the vertical axis.Thevalues range from 0 to 60, inincrements of 20 units. The horizontal axis represents ‘Congressional Term’, with values ranging from 108 to 112, inincrements of 1unit.This is a line graph with two plot lines: The ‘House’ is represented by a solid line and the ‘senate’ is represented by a dotted line.

Dead-on-Arrival Bills, By Congress

From Chapter 2

Figure 2.3. Dead-On-Arrival Bills Brought to the Floor by Chamber, 2003-2012

Graph showing ‘Maximum bid’ on the vertical axis, and ‘Probability DOA Bill Is Enacted After Election’ on the horizontal axis.

Maximum Bid Offered by Interest Group Advocating for a DOA Bill

From Chapter 3

Figure 3.1. Maximum Bid Offered by Interest Group Advocating for a DOA Bill Note: Interest group’s maximum bid for a DOA bill as the probability it can be enacted after the election changes. The shaded area represents when the DOA legislation wins agenda space.

Graph showing ‘Maximum bid’ on the vertical axis, and ‘Probability Enactable Bill Becomes Law’ on the horizontal axis. The graph plots an increasing line that touches another horizontal line plotted on the vertical axis.

Interest Groups' Maximum Bids as Gridlock Changes

From Chapter 3

Figure 3.2. Interest Groups’ Maximum Bids as Gridlock Changes Note: The dashed line is the maximum bid for the DOA bill. The solid line is the maximum bid for the enactable bill. The shaded region represents when the intended failure wins agenda space.

Graph showing‘number of DOA bills’ onthe vertical axis and ‘months until election’ onthe horizontal axis. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 25 in increments of 5, and the horizontal axis ranges from 22 to negative 1 in decrement of 1. The graph plots one bar for each month.

Number of DOA Bills Introduced, By Month

From Chapter 4

Figure 4.1. Monthly Count of When DOA Bills Receive Floor Consideration, 2003-2012 Note: Count of DOA bills that received agenda space by month, 2003 through 2012.

Two graphs are shown for ‘all bills’ and ‘important bills’.Both the graphsshow‘Probability DOA Bill Reaches Floor’ onthe vertical axis and ‘Probability Majority Party Wins Unified Government’ onthe horizontal axis. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 0.3 in increments of 0.05 and the horizontal axis ranges from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.2. First graph plots a decreasing curve and the second graph plots a normalization curve with their either regions shaded.

Probability DOA Bill is Added to Agenda as Electoral Conditions Change

From Chapter 4

Figure 4.2. Probability DOA Bill Is Added to the Agenda as a Majority Party’s Electoral Prospects Change Note: Predicted probabilities a DOA bill receives floor consideration. The “All Bills” graph is calculated from Model 1 in Table 4.1, and the “Important Bills” graph is calculated from Model 2 in Table 4.1. Divided Government, Majority Party, Committee Member, and Committee Chair are held at 1, Subcommittee Chair and Must Pass are held at 0, and all other variables are held at their means.

Two graphs are shown for ‘all bills’ and ‘important bills’. Both the graphs show‘Probability DOA Bill Reaches Floor’ onthe vertical axis whichranges from 0 to 0.25 in increments of 0.05. The horizontal axis represents two categories: ‘unified’ and ‘divided’. Two points of different probability values are plotted on each graph.

Probability DOA Bill is Added to Agenda in Unified/Divided Government

From Chapter 4

Figure 4.3. Probability DOA Bill Is Added to the Floor Agenda in Unified and Divided Government Note: Predicted probabilities a DOA bill receives floor consideration. The “All Bills” graph is calculated from Model 1 in Table 4.1, and the “Important Bills” graph is calculated from Model 2 in Table 4.1. Majority Party, Committee Member, and Committee Chair are held at 1, Subcommittee Chair and Must Pass are held at 0, and all other variables are held at their means.

A bar graph showing‘percentage of Rated Final Votes on DOA Legislation’ onthe vertical axis whichranges from 0 to 70 in increments of 10. Several bars of different amplitude are plotted on the horizontal axis for different categories.

Percentage of Scorecards Devoted to DOA Bills

From Chapter 5

Figure 5.1. Percentage of Rated Votes on Dead-On-Arrival Bills

Graph showing‘Percentage’ on the vertical axis.Thevalues range from 0 to 50, inincrements of 10 units. The horizontal axis represents ‘Congressional Term’.Thevalues range from 108 to 112, inincrements of 1 unit. The graphhas two lines, where the solid line is denoted as ‘percentage of DOA Bills on Agenda’ and the dotted line is denoted as ‘percentage of Rated Votes on DOA Bills’.

Percentage of Agenda and Scorecards Devoted to DOA Bills

From Chapter 5

Figure 5.2. Percentage of Legislative Agenda and Scorecards Devoted to Dead-On-Arrival Bills

Two graphs are shown for ‘all bills’ and ‘important bills’. Both the graphs show‘Probability DOA Bill is rated’ onthe vertical axis, which ranges from 0 to 0.25 in increments of 0.05. The horizontal axis represents two categories: ‘opposition’ and ‘allied’. Two points of different probability values are plotted on each graph.

Probability Interest Group Rates DOA Bill

From Chapter 5

Figure 5.3. Predicted Probability Interest Groups Rate DOA Bill Note: Predicted probabilities that an interest group rates a bill in its legislative scorecard based on the interaction term from Model 1 in Table 5.5. Dead on Arrival is held at 1. Important Bill is held at 0 in the “All Bills” model and its mean in the “Important Bills” model. Log Total Donations is held at its mean.

Graph showing‘Probability DOA Bill Is Rated’ on the vertical axis and ‘Days Until the End of Legislative Term’ onthe horizontal axis. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 0.25 in increments of 0.05. The horizontal axis has two points: start of term and end of term. A decreasing straight line is plotted on the graph with its either regions shaded.

Probability DOA Bill is Rated Throughout Congressional Term

From Chapter 5

Figure 5.4. Predicted Probability of When a DOA Bill Gets Rated by an Allied Interest Group Note: Predicted probability that an allied interest group rates a bill throughout a congressional term calculated using the results from Model 1 in Table 5.6. Important Bill is held at 1.

Two graphs are shown for ‘Unified Republican Government - 109th Congress’ and ‘Unified Democratic Government - 111th Congress’. Both the graphs showpercentage of previously failed bills onthe horizontal axis,which ranges from 0 to 40 in increments of 10. Both the graphs showhorizontal bars for two main categories: non-DOA and DOA. Both the categories are subdivided into reintroduced, reconsidered, and enacted.

Outcomes of Previously Failed Bills in Next Congress

From Chapter 6

Figure 6.1. Outcomes of Previously Failed Bills in the Next Congress

University of Michigan Press Contact Us

UMP EBC

  • Browse and Search
  • About UMP EBC
  • Impact and Usage

Follow Us

  • UMP EBC Newsletter
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube

Quicklinks

  • Help/FAQ
  • Title List
  • MARC Records
  • KBART Records
  • Usage Stats
© 2024, Regents of the University of Michigan · Accessibility · Preservation · Privacy · Terms of Service
Powered by Fulcrum logo · Log In
x This site requires cookies to function correctly.