Barbara Sinclair
University of California, Riverside
7 Papers
103 Citations
Barbara Sinclair is an academic researcher from University of California, Riverside. The author has contributed to research in topics: House of Representatives & Voting. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 7 publications.
Chat about Author
Papers
Party Realignment and the Transformation of the Political Agenda: The House of Representatives, 1925—1938*
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the New Deal realignment to determine whether, in fact, a significant transformation took place and, if so, what its characteristics were, and argued that a major transformation of policy did take place and that, in the process, the ideological distance between the parties increased.
59
Senate Styles and Senate Decision Making, 1955-1980
TL;DR: For instance, this paper found that between the mid-1950s and the 1980s, the Senate floor became a much more active decision-making arena; both the contested workload and the amount of amending activity show large increases.
57
The Emergence of Strong Leadership in the 1980s House of Representatives
TL;DR: In this article, a comparison of four carefully selected congresses, the authors show that the current House majority party leadership is more involved in and more decisive in organizing the party and the chamber, setting the House agenda, and affecting legislative outcomes.
Senate Process, Congressional Politics, and the Thomas Nomination
Abstract: “The wrenching testimony of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, accuser and accused, constituted a defining moment for the country that will forever change how the U.S. Senate reviews Supreme Court nominees” (Biskupic 1991, 2948). Thus did sober, factual Congressional Quarterly judge the consequences of the Hill-Thomas hearings. Most news accounts were considerably more fervid. Reporters as well as commentators claimed that the hearings demonstrated that the confirmation process is a complete fiasco. The Hill-Thomas hearings did not expose some fundamental flaw in the process per se. To be sure, a lot of less than admirable behavior and some procedural misjudgments characterized the latter part of the Thomas confirmation hearings. But a situation such as this one will always be difficult for the Senate or any similar body to handle. Structural changes in the process cannot make it easy or painless. Most of the “reforms” proposed would not work or would be counterproductive. According to a second theme in the media coverage, the hearings demonstrated that senators—at least the ones on the Judiciary Committee—are incompetent, inadequate for their jobs, and out of touch with the American people. To the contrary, I think that both Democrats and Republicans followed strategies that made excellent sense given the political context in which they operated. Incompetence is not the problem. If the simple process and personnel-based critiques are off base, was the widespread disquiet the hearings generated misplaced? There are reasons for concern but somewhat more subtle ones than those most often raised.
6
An Effective Congress and Effective Members: What Does it Take?
TL;DR: What are the skills needed to serve effectively in Congress and how do politicians acquire them?
2