This dissertation explores the "supply side" of partisan cues by investigating how and when political elites talk about the parties in their communications with voters. I begin with data on congressional candidates' televised political advertising to show that elites are predictably strategic about the circumstances under which they use partisan symbols. In deciding whether to use party brand labels in their TV ads, candidates respond to both district-level factors and the institutional context in which they must campaign. Subsequent analyses investigate how elite rhetoric about the parties helps to shape political behavior at the mass level. I leverage early Gallup surveys to evaluate the effect of FDR's attempted "purge" of conservatives from the Democratic Party on attitudes toward the idea of responsible party government. In another paper I examine whether candidates who rhetorically distance themselves from their parties do better at the polls. Using data on congressional candidates' campaign ads coupled with survey data from recent elections, I identify the conditions under which candidates who engage in such strategies benefit by gaining support among independents or are hurt by losing support among their copartisans in the electorate. Finally, I demonstrate the effect of anti-liberal campaign rhetoric on voters' self-reported ideology and their evaluations of Democratic candidates. Taken together, these papers contribute to our understanding of the causes and consequences of political elites' strategic calculations regarding the use of partisan symbols on the campaign trail, a crucial linkage that provides new insight into the dynamics of party brands.