Parties and Polarization Final

Causes of Polarization: What, if at all, effect did culture wars have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

Contributed to affective polarization. Some culture war issues have seemingly low impact on the lives of average people, but seem to cause intense negative feelings like political correctness and whether confederate monuments should be taken down. Moreover, if culture becomes apart of a person's political identity, which happens with demographic sorting, when cultural issues arise and identities are attacked, this will bring up intense negative feelings for the other side attacking their identity.

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did gerrymandering have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not?

Gerrymandering did not have a major impact on polarization because: 1) The timing of redistricting doesn't match the timing of polarization. If it were gerrymandering, we'd see big jumps in polarization following redistricted elections. 2) Competitive districts aren't really much more moderate. If they were, we'd see a bunch of D/Rs clustered around zero when the vote is at national median. Instead, we see responsiveness flatten over time. 3) Senate has polarized nearly as much as the house. You can't gerrymander Senate districts, b/c they are elected by the hwole state. Still, this suggests perhaps some small effect of gerrymandering.

Basics in Polarization: What is the difference between ideological, coalitional, and affective polarization?

Ideological- Increasing divergence between parties in terms of the outcomes sought by parties in government. People's ideologies will move to the ends of the poll Coalitional- Increase in party as a dominant, homogeneous social identity. How much people think of themselves or act as partisans (mostly a mass phenomenon) Affective- An increase in negative feelings, beliefs and behaviors towards members of the outparty (also a mass phenomenon). Some measures include: -Outgroup stereotyping -Outgroup attribution -Feeling thermometers -Willingness to interact -Feelings towards elites -General increase in emotional reaction to political content

Causes of Polarization: In 2018, do party elites want polarization? Why or why not?

In 2018, party elites don't want polarization (mostly said in private) because in both parties, the base in many ways now appears to have more extreme preferences than the elites, demonstrating that they've lost the handle of mass affective polarization. Evidence of this is that the DNC explicitly did not want to move to the left and the RNC has been trying to figure out ways to increase cross-appeal and moderate since 2008.

Consequences of Polarization: Accelerationism-Social Reset

Moving away from multiculturalism in the social climate is unlikely because it's morally wrong, the U.S. is tipping towards a non-white majority, and there has been a decrease in discontent towards people of color e.g. a dramatic dive in non-blacks who would oppose a relative marrying a black person.

Causes of Polarization: What effects does online media have on news consumption?

Online media serves as an echo chamber. Their is a lack of exposure to alternative viewpoint, and people are more likely to gain their information from headlines as opposed to reading articles.

Mass Polarization: How much are values polarized by partisan identity, compared to other identities?

Partisan identity is, by far, the most sorted of all identities in terms of political values.

Mass Polarization: How accurate are public perceptions of polarization? How are they biased?

The public in general thinks the public has polarized more than it actually has over time...and the more into politics you are, the more you tend to overestimate polarization...and we especially perceive the other side as polarized.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, gerrymandering?

There is a case for gerrymandering being a cause of polarization is that parties redraw district lines to maximize apportionment, creating many uncompetitive districts created, giving partisans in these districts no incentive to move to center, and allowing extremist candidates increasingly win office over time.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, primaries?

There is a case for primaries being a cause of polarization because primaries cause the base to select a candidate at the party median, where then that candidate faces pressure not to swing to the national median in the general. Also, over time, parties have increasingly lost control of these elections.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining this factor, intense policy demanders (IPDs)?

These primary polarization drivers include interest groups, social movements, wealthy individuals, and activists.

Basics in Polarization: What is the difference between elite and mass polarization?

These two groups of people have polarized in different ways: - Elite polarization refers to the group of elected officials, IPDs, people working within party orgs, acquainted officials, interest groups, the very wealthy, extreme activists, etc. - They are more likely to be ideologically polarized (more extreme views) VS. - Mass polarization refers mostly to the average voter, sometimes includes moderately involved activists - They take cues from elites, but are not ideologically polarized themselves - They are more affectively/coalitionally polarized

Elite Polarization: What modern alternatives to DW-NOMINATE exist? How do they compare?

Use campaign finance (Adam Bonica): Assumes donors must have a certain ideology if they give to a candidate; estimates ideology of donors and candidates simultaneously; similar process of guessing; confirms DW-NOMINATE's findings, but overestimates polarization a bit more

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did traditional media have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both? If it's a group/industry: how has its influence changed over time? Its motives?

- Before the 1990s, media strived to be seen as the most competent and moderate news source. After the 90s, media was motivated to increase views with the end of Fairness Doctrine (1987) that ignited conservative radio shows and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 permitting national syndication. This gives rise to niche political news that massively influences polarization. -Traditional media is responsible for rise in all forms of mass polarization, especially starting in late 1990s, and is probably a good explanation for rise of polarization in older generations. It is a mid-game accelerant b/c studies show media is more ideological than ratings-maximizing, and the rise of niche media occurs prior to most mass polarization. Its influence is potentially declining as social media displaces traditional media sources.

Basics in Polarization: How has polarization generally changed over time?

- It has increased over time. 6 systems: System 1: Relatively high at start, but dissipates to all-time lows quickly (Adams) System 2: Relatively high throughout, but Whigs still weak opposition party (Jackson) System 3: Extremely high throughout, major battles over class and identity *most similar to our current system (Lincoln) System 4: Mostly low throughout, progressives are key political identity (Teddy) System 5: Extremely low throughout, intraparty regional differences high (Roosevelt, JFK) System 6: Extremely high, growing stronger, more mass involvement than ever before (Obama, Trump)

Consequences of Polarization: What is brinkmanship? What are key examples of it? What effects does it have?

-Brinkmanship is basically the two parties playing chicken. They both don't want to deal with problems like budget negotiations and debt ceilings so they push the issue as far as they can go (without actually dealing with it), hoping the other party might deal with it, but no one will. -Results of brinkmanship: More and longer government shutdowns - this risks the economy, federal workers, and retraining and recruitment costs; Credit downgrading by international agencies = market downturns; Borrowing becomes increasingly expensive; the US riskes losing status as "global economic leader"

Solutions of Polarization: The Seventh Party System

-Republican party likely excises "Trump" and "evangelical" wings of the party (most heavily dependent on older voters). -Democrats may alienate moderates by moving farther to the left economically. -These moves would likely restore competitive balance to the parties, and force each party to compete for cross-pressured groups. -But given that party IDs are sticky, polarization will rise again.

Causes of Polarization: Why did Trump, but not polarization generally, increase turnout?

-Rise in voter turnout, by definition, comes from shift in low-interest voters -Most people don't pay attention to/care about politics, or know what's going on, but Trump has increased interest by pushing the limits and warping realtiy, and people do pay attention to how crazy their world is.

Causes of Polarization: What evidence do we have that Trump has polarized us on race?

-Big studies on economics vs race: regarding race, we see white working class voters who dislike immigrants turn to Trump to a large degree. -If you look at racial resentment, Trump's racial resentment scores are vastly greater than Mccain or Romney. -On specific issues like race and immigration, Trump is extreme, especially in his rhetoric, but he's not ideologically strong on other policies.

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Race)

-Blacks, esp. black women, reliably Democrats -Latinx are increasingly Democrats since New Deal and especially 1960s, 70s movements (not monolithic, Cubans=Rep), -Asians are increasingly Democrats (partisanship new, recent in last 25 yrs)

Causes of Polarization: Do business groups want polarization? Why or why not?

Business groups, while they are likely responsible for economic ideological polarization, do not care for polarization. They are not monolithic in ideology b/c each one wants a very specific set of regulations/taxes removed, and subsidies added, but overall don't care. Probably don't like coalitional and affective polarization b/c gridlock, but still benefit from small legislation, polarized federalism, and corporate branding. Coalitional polarization means they'll have increasingly difficult time influencing Democrats.

Basics in Polarization: Why does the Downsian model fail in practice?

- Parties have clearly moved away from the center in recent decades (shown from DW-NOMINATE) -Branding has given new incentives; competing to develop brand loyalty, then they can alter their policy however they want - Maybe voters just don't care about ideology much? More drawn to branding, other factors within the parties -Prefer to keep IPDs happy rather than the average voter...very afraid of losing IPD support -Are moderates just becoming more rare ? Distribution is apparently moving away from center; "consistent" conservatives and republicans are much more common than they used to be. -Valuable voters are increasingly on the ends: those most engaged tend to be much more likely to fall further from the center, and are more likely to vote, donate, etc. that only come when certain people win and stay in office -Evidence suggests that party members are simply unaware of what their voters truly want (Fiorina--Leapfrog Representation)

Basics in Polarization: How have the parties polarized asymmetrically from one another?

- Republican elites are more polarized than Democrats - Most likely because they faced more pressure from interest groups, or because they are naturally more inclined to be ideologically oriented (vs Democrats being more group-oriented)

Causes of Polarization: Trends on Key Issues in Culture Wars--Which are polarizing? Which aren't? (Misc.)

-"Political Correctness": Large partisan differences exist, as about 1 in 6 Republicans support it, while a little over half of Democrats support it. Millennials show rapid transformation on issue (low-intensity trap, as well as random news events). -Gun Control: Clear evidence of polarization on gun control, driven entirely by changes amongst Republicans with Republicans leaning towards gun control (40%) in 2000, and Republican support for gun rights doubling (80%) in 2017. -Marijuana: Legalization is a low polarization issue, and generally always has been. Majority support for legalization now exists within both parties, and Republican opposition is mostly a function of age.

Causes of Polarization: Key Moments In Which Media Changed Over Time

-1970- 1990 Newspapers were largely moderate. In 1940s to 1950s rise of networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, all of which were moderate. Basic cable debuts in 1976 and CNN begins broadcasting in 1980. Revenue coming from subscriptions allows for the first niche audiences. In 1987 the End of Fairness Doctrine ignites conservative radio shows. In 1996 Telecommunications Act permits national syndication. Fox News launches in 1996, spurring the rise of niche political news media contributing significantly to affective polarization. -1995 to present: message boards allow niche culture access to average Americans. Reddit created in 2005 offering more user created content, saturates mainstream culture by 2012. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter go mainstream in 2006. All of this challenges traditional media gatekeepers and allows for the development of niche and anonymous cultures.

Mass Polarization: How have feelings towards one's own party changed over time? The other party?

-Affect towards one's own party has been and remains consistently high. -Affect towards the other party has steadily, significantly declined. -The degree of dislike between parties is more easily measured in willingness to describe the other side using extreme language. -Our political disagreements often spill over into our social lives. -Partisans are increasingly isolated from each other in terms of close contact. -Partisans are now far more likely to reject the idea of familial, romantic, and sexual mixing across party lines.

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Intersections of Social Identities)

-Age + Gender: The trend is driven heavily by women, who usually sort towards Democrats. Unprecedented sorting of youth and women towards Democrats. -Age + Race: The trend of young POCs massively sorting to Democrats is also heavily driven by the increased percent of nonwhites among millennials. Only among millennials are a majority of white people Democrats.

Solutions of Polarization: Wait.

-All generational groups are polarized, but the 35-and-under set is not closely divided (+21 D), decisive on culture war issues, and very demographically mixed. -Generational replacement will force end of Sixth Party System -Temporary one-party dominance will end gridlock...while exposing new tensions -Republican party likely excises "Trump" and "evangelical" wings of the party (most heavily dependent on older voters), and Democrats may alienate moderates by moving farther to the left economically. These moves would likely restore competitive balance to the parties, and force each party to compete for cross-pressured groups. But given that party IDs are sticky, polarization will rise again.

Causes of Polarization: What, if at all, effect did sorting have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

-As parties become ideologically distinctive, minority of ideologues re-sort into the correct party, the majority of partisans slowly "relearn" their ideology with a rise in ~coalitional~ demographic sorting based on their social identities like race, religiosity, education, age, class, and intersections of those. Rise in geographic sorting is also dependent on these social identities. -As both sides increasingly want different things, dislike and distrust should rise The other side now appears to want what you don't want not just some of the time, but almost all of the time. AFFECTIVE POL.

Mass Polarization: What is an attribution error? What attributions do we make about the party?

-Attribution error: Attenuation of negative attributions of other side's preferences and goals, which leads to misinformation that is really difficult to correct due to motivated reasoning and negativity bias, and that it is extremely difficult to disseminate information. -Attributions about party: Negative attribution towards those who agree with them is low (5%). Negative attribution towards those who disagree with them is much higher (49%). -Ingroup has higher average score of good minus bad explanation. With the ingroup, 81% believe selfless motivation is good explanation for donating to charity. With the outgroup, only 42% attribute selfless motivation as a good explanation.

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did IPDs have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? What, if at all, effect did IPDs have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both? If it's a group/industry: how has its influence changed over time? Its motives?

-Business, evangelical, and conservative IPDs massively mobilized right before Republican ideological polarization. To maintain/incorporate groups, Republican elites now had strong reason to polarize on taxes and regulations, government spending, cultural/moral issues, and race (dog whistles). Left-wing IPDs "played defense" for decades, and only now are poised to take over Democrats in the same way. -IPDs are likely the first movers of elite ideological polarization, but affective/coalitional polarization probably was driven more by party elites, because party identity is the key variable in polarization and IPDs historically less interested in masses than elites. -Business groups are likely responsible for economic ideological polarization. Identity and ideological groups probably act as key accelerants to affective and coalition polarization in modern times. As identity IPDs increasingly mobilize to fight for identity-based rights and recognition, IPDs are increasingly likely to impact affective polarization in a way even parties do not.

Consequences of Polarization: Why does polarization increase the likelihood of gridlock?

-Coalitional - you want to deny the other party of all possible victories as an election strategy -Ideological - increasingly, you really don't want what the other party wants -Affective - your base will be furious with you for "shaking hands with the devil" -Compromise is unpopular amongst committed partisans; however, social desirability bias causes legislators to say they want compromise b/c it is known as a good thing, but they expect the other side to do the compromising

Causes of Polarization: Why does demographic sorting lead to polarization?

-Coalitional demographic sorting increased b/c partisan group incorporation (evangelicals, feminists), intensified partisan group maintenance (wealthy), increased urbanization (geography, race, age), increased presence of non-whites among youth (age), and maybe Trump (education?). -Demographic sorting leads to polarization because we judge out-groups based on the presence of "people like us" in them. If groups are heterogenous, it's hard to maintain high levels of out-group animosity. As groups become homogenous, they become an unknown "other." Once identities become homogenous, this is very difficult to reverse.

Causes of Polarization: What, if at all, effect did traditional media have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

-Contributes to affective polarization. The rise of niche political news media in the 90s tracks with affective polarization. There is strong evidence that suggests that people learn how to treat other side by watching how party elites and media figures do. Incivility in media encourages one side to treat the other in a negative manner. In addition "talking head" framing encourages a threat response in audiences. -Contributes to coalitional polarization because echo chambers giving different factual realities pushes sorting -An increase in ideological polarization may be limited to small set of ideologues who actually watch it, as a study shows that exposure to reporting on polarization leads to ideological moderation, but increased affective polarization.

Causes of Polarization: What, if at all, effect did new media have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

-Contributes to affective polarization. With the proliferation of new media the quality of information is low. Facts and opinions are disseminated through memes and short videos with is no discussion and assumed superiority. The comments on real news stories, when uncivil, can have a big impact on reader interpretation of content of the actual article. With thousands of strangers inputting their view, no one has an incentive to present their best selves. This causes one side to read through comments and see the other side in a negative light.

Solutions of Polarization: Find ways to restore a shared factual reality

-Create new technologies to identify, tag, discourage, and eliminate disinformation -Facilitate improved access to expert opinions and knowledge -Enforce partisan elite accountability to the truth: Create amendment to make strict debates and regular press interaction mandatory, as well as find ways to shame/punish politicians who routinely lie

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Education)

-Education has been a poor predictor of party in the past -College education increasingly predicts Democrats, though weak until recently -In 2016 significant predictor because education predicted racial attitudes -Postgrads heavily sorted into Democrats

Consequences of Polarization: What is democratic accountability? How does polarization threaten it?

-Elected officials should: Pass legislation supported by a rough majority, communicate honestly with the public, and manage public goods lawfully and transparently -But they probably won't, unless the public: Pays attention, forms independent opinions, and is willing to punish their own team for bad behavior whenever necessary. However, in a polarized society, the public will be increasingly unable to perform these duties. -Ideological sorting means that the stakes for one party to beat the other are rising, and that information, and therefore preferences, are increasingly controlled by co-partisans -Affective polarization means that there is increased anger/fear in the decision-making process, causing the desire to defend your own team to override the desire to punish bad behavior (so we are less likely to hold our leaders accountable)

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did elites have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"?

-Elites, unsurprisingly, likely played a strong autonomous role in polarization. Elites are likely no longer the primary drivers of polarization. -They probably weren't first movers on ideological polarization, but close to it as primary accelerants. They played a huge role in coalition and affective polarization during 1980s and 1990s, especially Republicans. -In terms of the mass public, in trying to get the other side to be seen by voters as corrupt, party elites may have gotten the ball rolling on mass affective polarization. -In terms of themselves, coalitional polarization is led by Republicans asymmetrically polarizing to establish party branding and do whatever it takes to win key elections. In turn, the parties become closed and divided from each other with centralization and going negative.

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did culture wars have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both? If it's a group/industry: how has its influence changed over time? Its motives?

-Evidence from polls of the public from a variety of demographics about culture suggests that culture was a primary factor that contributed to polarization before ideological and demographic sorting. -Republicans and Democrats elites first sorted ideologically, with the public following by sorting demographically and identifying around culture. Specific beliefs, whether conservative or liberal, became apart of the identity of parties and the demographics apart of them. -It is an accelerant that primarily affects the mass public, as its impact on affective polarization is more about responses to related events than causing the issue.

Solutions to Polarization: Mitigating the effects of affective polarization (not reducing it, but giving it less power)

-Examples: Emphasizing shared identities (e.g. Americans); reducing partisan cues in non-political decisions (ex: healthcare.gov vs. healthsherpa.com) -Problems: Uses limited to context, doesn't actually address underlying issues

Solutions to Polarization: Facilitating interpartisan contact

-Examples: Increase frequency of partisan interactions (e.g. reduce network homophile); improve quality of partisan interactions -Problems: Increased contact between low-affect groups usually makes problems worse and solutions (deep contact, mediated or trained interaction) are hard to scale

Solutions to Polarization: Changing partisan misperceptions

-Examples: correct stereotypes of how different other party is; attenuate negative attributions of other side's preferences and goals -Problems: Extremely difficult to correct misinformation because of motivated reasoning and negativity bias and extremely difficult to disseminate information

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Age)

-Gen X and Baby Boomers not super sorted -Silent Generation shows emerging Republican gap -Millennials most heavily sorted generation ever measured b/c we don't really observe mass ideological sorting until the early 90s. -Elite ideological polarization —> Mass ideological sorting -Mass ideological sorting —> Mass affective polarization -Data on Gen Z extremely scarce, but they appear to be very similar to Millennials in pro-Democrat direction. Maybe even more so.

Consequences of Polarization: What is gridlock? Why is the American system more likely than others to experience it?

-Gridlock refers to a situation when there is difficulty passing laws that satisfy the needs of the people. A government is gridlocked when the ratio between bills passed and the agenda of the legislature decreases. -When opposing parties control the institutional levers of power in the American system of separated powers, gridlock will naturally follow, as both parties see a chance to enact their preferences and hence press their advantage. -The American system is more likely to experience it because of all of the veto points we have (more than a lot of countries), and all are elected separately form the other. There are 4 ½ main veto points that comes from the House (esp. committees), the Senate (plus supermajority), the Presidency (plus override), the Courts (sometimes), and and the States (their constitutions): -Majority approval in one chamber of legislature; Executive veto and override; Independent judicial review; Approval by non-federal level actors

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Class)

-Growing differences over time in stratification by wealth (increase in income inequality strongly correlates with increase in polarization) -Poor (under 30k) trend towards Democrats over time -Republican identification most popular amongst upper-middle class (not wealthiest) -In terms of class (white only), upward social mobility appears to drive whites towards Republican party (at least prior to 2000)

Elite Polarization: How has elite polarization changed over time?

-Highest points after Washington and Progressive Revolt of 1910 outside of current party system -In Progressive Revolt of 1910, Speaker Cannon had most control, corruption, both parties don't like it, progressives on both sides vote to strip of Speaker of power, pops bubble of partisan polarization at that time -Post-Washington was because the country was figuring out how to first deal with parties, and there was a change of major rules (VP no longer runner up, etc.), but this only lasted about 10/15 years until Era of Good Feelings -More stable after first party system -Polarization spikes in 1994 - Gingrich and Republicans take over the house, work together against the other side -2010 sees second spike - explanations more varied, could be general reaction to Obama, recession driving people in different directions, midterm red wave with Tea Party Republicans changed constituency

Elite Polarization: What differences in polarization exist between the chambers of Congress? Why?

-House and senate polarize to different degrees -House almost always more polarized than senate: House dealing with smaller localities, Senators represent bigger body of people, have to moderate at least somewhat; more members in the House vs Senate (435 vs 100) causing them to face more collective action problems, so they organize behind a leader, organization → get everyone on board with one ideology

Mass Polarization: What is the difference between ideological sorting and ideological polarization?

-Ideological polarization is about differences between parties in terms of outcomes sought by parties in government -Ideological sorting is about how a particular type of person becomes increasingly affiliated with a single party...could be geographically, demographically, or ideologically

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did sorting have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both?

-Ideological sorting caused by elite ideological polarization, which causes mass affective polarization -Social sorting is an extremely powerful explanation for affective polarization. Race, class, and religion were early sorts. Gender, geography, age, and education are more recent sorts. -Sorting is a source of polarization, an accelerant stemming out of elite ideological polarization, primarily affecting mass coalitional (demographic and geographic) and affective polarization.

Why, according to political psychologists, does affect matter so much?

-In terms of political psych and emotions, your ability to separate fact from fiction is completely dependent on your emotional processing. When you are presented with some stimuli, your limbic system gets the first crack at it. And it asks two questions: How good/bad is this? How new/old is this? The related emotion is produced (e.g. "fear" = bad + new; "relaxed" = good + old). By the time you've experience conscious thought, this evaluation has already taken place. sensory input -> emotion -> cognition/behavior -In terms of political psych and associational earning, humans learn mostly through repeated pairings, and do so subconsciously (physical or sensory). Emotions pair particularly well with stimuli. We increasingly associate the other party with extremely negative emotions. -If we can't help but process the world emotionally and we cannot help but feel intense emotion whenever partisan politics comes up, we drunk drive with political decisions. This is also often rational: many good reasons for feeling intense emotions. Trust your emotions, but be conscious of your bias.

Causes of Polarization: Does they primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both? If it's a group/industry: how has its influence changed over time? Its motives? What, if at all, effect did elites have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

-In terms of the mass public, in trying to get the other side to be seen by voters as corrupt, party elites may have gotten the ball rolling on mass affective polarization. -In terms of themselves, coalitional polarization is led by Republicans asymmetrically polarizing to establish party branding and do whatever it takes to win key elections. In turn, the parties become closed and divided from each other with centralization and going negative. -Motives for Elite Polarization: Elites (especially Republicans) appealed to Intense Policy Demanders (IPDs) with more extreme preferences in order to win their support, resources, etc., not for ideology or appealing to an extremely polarized base.

Basics in Polarization: How does the Downsian model work in theory?

-In theory, parties want to maximize their voter base by aligning their policies as close to the 'median' preference as possible because in theory most people views will tend to cluster toward the middle -Parties should be scared to stray too far from the middle or risk losing people to the other side

Elite Polarization: How should one interpret the "ideology" that DW-NOMINATE picks up on?

-Judge the people voting for and against a bill -Negative and positive side of the scale, will give score - people can match to the republicans, etc.

Mass Polarization: What is "leapfrog representation"? Is it happening? Why or why not?

-Leapfrog Representation (Fiorina): A moderate public only chooses from extreme elites. -Political scientists think Type 2 Moderates (have highly variant preferences that average to zero) are more common than Type 1 (prefer their policies tightly clustered around zero) in the U.S. -There's a huge difference between a world in which people: A) have strongly-held moderate preferences B) appear to be in the center, but hold weak or nonexistent preferences. -Legislators are LESS likely to show up at extremes.

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Key Demographics Over Time in Sorting (Religiosity)

-Less religious tend away from Republicans since 1990 -Republicans heavily dominate Evangelicals, Anglicans, Methodists, and Mormons -Catholics and Presbyterians split (white Catholics moving slightly towards Republicans) -Democrats heavily dominate non-Christians and historically black churches

Elite Polarization: What ideological dimensions exist? How has their relevance changed over time?

-Liberal-conservative (economic and social) and race (segregation, right to vote, bussing, basic civil rights) -Parties go in both directions on economic and social issues -Race operated strong 1860-1960 (civil war - civil rights), after that parties "solved" major issues, seemed almost "nonexistent", but appears to be coming back -Lib-cons may start explaining race: all democrats vote in similar ways, etc. -Would change if Democrats split on racial issues

Solutions of Polarization: Rewrite the Constitution, start over with a new political system

-Logic: Embrace factions. Encourage multiple parties. Reduce veto points. -Examples: Proportional voting; ranked choice voting -Problems: Building the coalition to do this would be extraordinarily difficult and require unprecedented national consensus.

Solutions of Polarization: Strengthen parties

-Logic: If special interest extremity party, help party leaders withstand their influence -Examples: Centralize party control of primaries and Congress; restrict campaign finance to stay within parties -Problems: Unpopular, legal challenges, and close competition still incentivizes polarization

Mass Polarization: What evidence do we have that partisans dislike interacting with the other party?

-Massive increase of people who would be "displeased" if their child married someone from another political party. -When asked in a test on INGROUP: DATING ON TINDER, "What if you found out a potential partner was a member of YOUR party?" 38% were more interested. -When asked in a test on OUTGROUP: DATING ON TINDER, "What if they were a member of the OTHER party?" only 1 of 3 were undeterred, and 17% were not interested at all.

Mass Polarization: What are negative and positive partisanship? How do their effects differ?

-Negative partisanship determines willingness to support compromise, like voting out of fear of what the opposition party will do. -Positive partisanship determines willingness to participate, like voting because of the good things you hope your party will do. -More and more voters are motivated by their dislike and fear of the other party than by their enthusiasm for their own ticket.

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did new media have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both? If it's a group/industry: how has its influence changed over time? Its motives?

-New Media allows for homophily b/c social networks are designed to support your own preference. Thus, people only consume news within their own political reality, causing them to assume that the other side is automatically wrong. Message boards, social networks, and niche news sites increasingly create echo chambers with a lot of low-quality information. -It is a late stage accelerant that affects the mass public. Is an accelerant in that people operate in false information, its key effects operating through the dissemination of false information and exposure to mass partisan trolls/idiots. It may be better explanation for polarization among younger groups than old.

Elite Polarization: What problems exist with DW-NOMINATE as a measure of ideological polarization?

-Only takes into account proposals that come up for a vote, not the extreme platforms (underestimates differences within/between parties bc of speaker's role) -Cannot describe behavior of people who are not in congress: Rhetoric informs how we think about politics; extreme candidates more likely to lose, so never make it to congress to show up -Might be showing more coalitional than ideological polarization I.e. Trump effect on Republicans: Party members whipped away from actual preferences; none of the members may actually hold those views; incentives/party control; does not differentiate between ideological and coalitional polarization

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, Donald Trump?

-POTUS with the greatest degree to which a POTUS governed divisively at divisive time -A majority of the public associates him with polarization

Consequences of Polarization: Is polarization likely to result in wide-scale societal transformation? Why or why not? (Current changes)

-Polarization clearly makes vulnerable groups more likely to rise up and fight because polarization is a threat that causes vulnerable groups to become increasingly sorted. This perception of a threat causes a group consciousness that leads to organized activism. -With this, it is likely that some aspects of representation will get better, with marginalized voices more likely to be heard. Also, with partisan differences much more obvious, choices for the public are clearer. -For others, even though, more people paying attention, things could get worse, as people are far more likely to "take their party's word for it" than challenge their party.

Consequences of Polarization: How does polarization change who runs for office? Why does it matter?

-Polarization seems to spur key societal groups in action, with a record number of female and minority candidates in 2018. -Even though women are more likely to think that politics is an inefficient way to deal with public affairs, they are more than ever running for office. -Polarization makes vulnerable groups more likely to rise up and fight. -However, with less young adults wanting to be president, this leaves us as a society way more vulnerable to sociopaths gaining power.

Basics in Polarization: What did political scientists use to worry about regarding polarization versus today?

-Political scientists in 1950 (during 5th party system, a time of extremely low polarization) were worried that we were not different enough/not polarizing enough to make most people active in politics (didn't care much about the difference between the parties so they were not interested in politics, in a country that prides itself on democratic values) -Today political scientists are worried about the danger effects of extreme polarization, increased affect and coalitional sorting in masses and increased elite ideological polariziation causes much power to be in the hands of the periphery, gridlock, breakdown of conversation and democratic principles

Consequences of Polarization: What evidence exists of weakened accountability (performance/policy evaluation)?

-Politicians are increasingly willing to advance or pass legislation that is not supported by the majority, but unpopular legislation is also increasingly likely to be forgotten or forgiven by the party base by the next election. -Politicians are increasingly willing to pass any policies their base wants them to, regardless of their unpopularity -Politicians are increasingly willing to use any procedures available to them, regardless of their unpopularity -We used to determine who became president in great part based on their perceived handling of the economy (a national mood), but not so much anymore -Selective perception - Because it benefits your party, you say it's good. When it doesn't benefit your party, you say it's bad. -Selective attribution - When it is too obvious that there is something good going on, you say that the other side didn't do it. Instead, you claim that someone/something else is the reason that the good thing happened.

Elite Polarization: What might explain why Republican elites have polarized more than Democrats?

-Possibility 1: Democrats shifted earlier; Republicans just catching up...some truth - Democrats do shift to left 1950-1980, but: Republicans still much more extreme since 1992, and Northern Democrats have stayed the same or gotten more conservative since 1950 -Possibility 2: Northern Democrats really have gotten more liberal in 70 years? Gay marriage, clean energy, increasing openness to socialism, etc....Remember: Don't obsess on policy meaning of algorithm-generated ideologies because culture wars, identity politics often don't manifest as votes and much of what the lefitst base talks about doesn't get voted on -Possibility 3: Republicans more ideologically-oriented than Democrats, so they orient their politics more around ideology...Has virtue of being true, but also could be circular logic. Are Republicans polarizing bc they are ideological? Or ideological bc they are polarizing? -Possibility 4: Republicans more affected by whatever out there is causing polarization than Dems are...Media? Interest groups? Activists? Trump? Sorting?, too complicated to figure out now

Causes of Polarization: Trends on Key Issues in Culture Wars--Which are polarizing? Which aren't? (Race Proxies)

-Race Proxies: 1) Policing--4 in 5 Republicans think police treat racial groups equally. 1 in 4 Democrats think the same. HUGE partisan differences. 2) Confederacy--89% of Republicans think monuments should remain. 47% of Democrats think the same. Clear divide (low-intensity trap). 3) Immigration--Republican opinion over time is generally negative and flat w/ legal immigration, and in favor of a wall for illegal. Democrats have become especially pro immigrant, especially after Trump. Partisanship is driving immigration views.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, culture wars?

-Refers to non-economic, social and cultural political conflicts. -Refers to identity politics: race/nationality, gender/sexuality, religion. -Also includes: Drug politics (sentencing, legalization); "Life" politics (abortion, guns, euthanasia, death penalty); Religious politics (school prayer, evolution)

Mass Polarization: What explains why the public ideologically sorted into the parties over time?

-Republican elites formed strong preferences in 70s-80s because of: Intense policy demanders, party branding efforts -Democrats responded by working on their own brand -Transforming media makes it easier to communicate those preferences to party members: talk radio, cable news, social media -BUT: we're still not that sorted

Causes of Polarization: Trends on Key Issues in Culture Wars--Which are polarizing? Which aren't? (Gender/Sexuality)

-Similarity in LGB acceptance between parties, heavily moderated by age and religion. QT+ (low-intensity trap) has great partisan divide, with partisanship is the best indicator of gender equality acceptance, even outperforming age and religion. -Women's Issues: Wide partisan gaps on whether women still face key obstacles in society, with 34% of Republicans think they still do, while it is at 74% for Democrats -Abortion: Democrats "learn" pro-choice is correct position 1988-1992 and Republicans shift more pro-life 1992-2004. Polarization demonstrated in 2017, as those who say abortion should be illegal in most/all cases are 2 in 3 Republicans, 1 in 4 Democrats. This polarization highly localized among educated, high-income whites.

Consequences of Polarization: In what ways does polarization impact our social lives? Our mental health?

-Social lives: Partisans vastly more likely to prefer getting their information from their echo chamber. There are clear partisan differences in TV preferences. Partisans are more likely to live in an echo chamber amongst friends. Ending discussions (or friendships) for political reasons are somewhat common (especially after 2016 election). Partisans are more likely to marry into an echo chamber and inter-partisan marriages are increasingly likely to fail. -Mental health: Polarization is stressing everyone out, particularly millennials and Gen-Zers, and particularly vulnerable populations within those groups.

Elite Polarization: How does polarization compare across states? What explains some of the variation?

-States have polarized, but without a clear pattern...sometimes one party or the other or both, all over the place -California most polarized, Western states tend to have more polarization -Don't know what causes the variation, but they are homogenous (maybe physical geography?) -LESS polarization over than nationally

Elite Polarization: How was elite polarization in each system?

-System 1: A Good Start--Minimal regional division, relatively strong economy, party leaders generally respectful, dissolution of both parties, Era of Good feelings -System 2: Confusion, Rising Tension--Relatively low polarization, growing over time, lead up to the Civil War does not require high polarization bc made by states, not Congress, Jackson as unifier, slavery main source of polarization, Whigs internally polarized -System 3: Record High Polarization--Bad start with the Civil War causing chaos, each party has potentially winning coalition, activist rise - abolitionists, suffragettes, revivalists, socialists, anarchists, multiple major recessions, dominance of politics by business interests, major demographic shifts with mass European immigration -Systems 4&5: nearly a century of low polarization, main divisions are not the parties A) System 4: progressives v establishment B) System 5 south dems v northern dems--unifying conditions of falling immigration, inequality, and then economic prosperity, the Great Depression where one party clearly does better, wars = teamwork -System 6: new high point in polarization--utter chaos, each party potentially winning coalition, activist rise - feminists, ideologues, civil rights, evangelicals, socialists, multiple major recessions, dominance of politics by business interests, major demographic shifts - growth of non white population

Consequences of Polarization: How does the filibuster contribute to gridlock? Why don't senators get rid of it?

-The filibuster is the primary reason why gridlock now occurs, as it can only be overcome, in rare instances (once a year), by the Reconciliation Process seen with parts of Obamacare and the Trump Tax Cut, which requires legislation that only involves monetary changes. -The filibuster can be eliminated by a simple majority vote; however, they do not kill the filibuster because of respect for tradition, the minority party wants some form of power, fear of public reprisal, fear of elite reprisal, and fear of long-term policy instability

Mass Polarization: How have levels of interest in politics in the public changed over time?

-The public is Increasingly Active, with a 25% increase in people who care about who wins office (although pattern is less clear for voter turnout...but 2018 may indicate something big is happening?). -Presidential Elections Are More Competitive. Presidents used to win by big margins, meaning the country is largely responding in unison to some "national mood." When margins are consistently small today, it means people are mostly just voting their party in every election regardless of context.

Causes of Polarization: What is the link between polarization, income inequality, and immigration?

-This goes back to the idea that the rise in our Gini index score (which measures economic inequality) and polarization index score have a strong correlation. They've both been on the rise. -One explanation for this is provided by McCarty and Rosenthal in Polarized America, where they say that these numbers also correspond with a rise in percentage of U.S. residents born outside of the U.S. They say that immigrants are more likely to earn below the mean income and that 1st generation immigrants often cannot vote. Because of that, there is less of an incentive for the Democratic party to fight as hard on the front of economic inequality.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factors, traditional and new media?

-Traditional Media refers to the newspaper, television, and radio. -New Media refers to message boards, social networks, and niche news sites.

Causes of Polarization: What, if at all, effect did Donald Trump have on ideological polarization? Coalitional? Affective?

-Trump doesn't have much of an ideology considering his frequent party changes and position changes. However, even if there's no clear design to increase extremity on policy, Trump's rhetoric has clearly inflamed polarization on identity issues, particularly race. He has the possibility of long term splitting the Republican party, and causing return to a two-dimensional model for elite ideology. -Trump sparks (racial) attitudes and perpetuates a coalitional polarization that is unprecedented in terms of political interest, activism and attention. Many new polarizing behavior measures during Trump era. Affect towards Trump and Republicans increased by questionable ethics and multitude of lies and misleading claims.

Causes of Polarization: What key elite figures developed partisan warfare? What were their tactics?

1) Newt Gingrich's key idea was that Republicans had an opportunity be a ruling party, but they'd have to change their strategy by stopping compromise, clarifying party brand, purging liberal Republicans, and control media attention 2) Roger Stone's key idea was that Republicans needed to do whatever it took to win key elections with court controversy, going negative, spreading disinformation, and splitting votes. 3) Former RNC chariman Lee Atwater's key idea was that Republicans needed to do whatever it took to win key elections with dog whistles, the Power of Insinuation, and the motto "everything is framing."

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did Donald Trump have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not? Is it what we might call a "first mover" effect, or an "accelerant"? Does it primarily impact the mass public? Elites? Both?

-Trump is likely an accelerant of polarization, (scant evidence now) and largely a product of existing polarization. He is possibly an instigator of ideological polarization on identity issues, especially race, as well as a beneficiary of coalitional polarization who tests its limits even further, raises political interest, and warps reality He has an extreme impact on affective polarization, seems obvious, likely, evidence to come over next several years. -Ideological polarization affects elites who have to stick behind him since he is the leader of the Republcian party, as well as more affective polarization between elites due to Trump's inconsistences/lies. The masses experience greater coalitional and affective polarization.

Consequences of Polarization: How does polarization impact voter turnout? What does the evidence say?

-Turnout has been relatively high recently (specifically in the 2018 midterm primary and midterm general elections). -Timeline wise, there is no similarities in high turnout and higher periods of polarization. In fact, evidence from comparing ideological divergence in states suggest polarization actually decreases voter turnout. -The recent turnout bump are likely not from political polarization, but instead the present of societal turmoil.

Consequences of Polarization: How does policy get made when the federal gov't is gridlocked? Who makes it? Where?

-Unitary Executive - increasingly expanded in the last 30 years through use of executive orders for major policy shifts: executive agreements in place of Senate treaties, unilateral use of force, and national emergencies -Polarized federalism - intense policy demanders increasingly likely to seek legislative relief at the state and local levels, not the federal government

Causes of Polarization: Trends of Geographic Sorting

-Urban voters have been Democrats for a very long time. Rural voters increasingly identify as Republican. Suburban voters split but trend towards Republican party. Regional differences reveal how much urban/rural matters (and, in some cases, doesn't). -Regional differences are, perhaps, a better way to divide partisans than urban/rural. Regional sorting on party is a phenomenon that is more recent (post-2000), and did not precede or arrive with early polarization. -Researchers think geographic sorting clearly has big impacts on politics and polarization but we don't think people are sorting on party. Rather, party is correlated with what people are sorting on (density, jobs, income). Some evidence that geography influences party more than other way around.

Elite Polarization: How did we use to measure it? What problems exist with doing it this way?

-Was measured through Interest Group Scores. This was the first method of measuring elite polarization; political scientists measured and compared scorecards created by interest groups such as the American Conservative Union. -Some problems with it include: 1. since interest groups only score divisive issues, these lead to an overestimation of polarization 2. they only go so far back in time 3. they are left up to subjective determination

Mass Polarization: What stereotypes do people have about the parties? Especially the other party?

-We tend to assume proportionality between strength of trait association and size of group population, and one is PARTICULARLY bad at it if they're judging an outgroup. -Republicans always overestimate more than Democrats. -Democrats almost always overestimate more than Republicans. -The stronger your involvement in politics is, the more negative your beliefs are about the other party.

Mass Polarization: How do strong partisans differ from weak partisans in terms of sorting?

-Weak partisan have ideologically sorted based on elite ideological polarization, with pretty clear issue differences between each side's voters on issues that tend to be highly salient and visible to the public. Those who pay little attention to politics are unimodal ("moderation" is typical). -Activists are particularly-sorted, as ideological polarization becomes increasingly clear among the highly interested/educated. Coalitional polarization clearly strongest amongst activist types. Activists, those who pay a lot of attention to politics, are bimodal (moderation is far less common than ideological consistency).

Elite Polarization: What assumptions underlie DW-NOMINATE (Poole and Rosenthal 1980s and 90s)? Do you understand its methodology?

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. All legislators know what they want when they vote 2. All legislators have choices between two or more options 3. All legislators have preferences that can be mapped on relatively few dimensions 4. All legislators are governed by some behaviors sometimes not captured by the model METHODOLOGY: -Binary for/against votes: Acknowledges that all congress sees is proposed legislation - get a set of up or down choices between status quo or change -Single peaked privileges with diminishing marginal utility - people want stuff, as it looks less like the stuff that they want, they want it less -Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Ideal Points -Generated from algorithm - no human bias involved -Agnostic to meaning of ideology

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, elites?

All members of the party in government and party organization, which does NOT include interest groups, wealthy activists, or the mass public.

Causes of Polarization: When, if at all, did primaries have a major impact on polarization? If it didn't, why not?

Primaries did not have a major impact on polarization because: 1) The McGovern-Fraser reforms kick in during the 1972 election, but we don't observe any clear polarization for another eight years. 2) This should impact both parties equally, but it instead polarizes Republicans but not Democrats. 3) In many cases, it's not clear that voters primarily vote based on ideological coherence, given that they don't even know the candidate's ideologies. 4) The evidence that primary access rules impact candidate extremity is weak. 5) Primary voters don't clearly have more extreme preferences than general election voters. 6) There's still just not that many competitive primaries. 7) Extremists that survive primaries often just lose in their general election.

Causes of Polarization: How are we defining the factor, sorting?

Refers to a particular type of person becoming increasingly affiliated with a group with a certain set of attributes similar to them. There is ideological, demographic, and geographic sorting.

Consequences of Polarization: Accelerationism-Political Reset

Reset on voting systems/institutions is unlikely because we've never held a constitutional convention, most people have no idea or interest in procedural political reforms, there is no chance of civil war in a middle-class society, writers of new rules will be likely determined by existing coalitions, and there is no guarantee we'd ever be able to ratify a new Constitution.

Consequences of Polarization: Accelerationism-Economic Reset

Reset that entails moving away from or restructuring capitalism) is unlikely, even though socialism is way more popular than ever before because it is, at best, extremely contested even among very young Americans, and most people don't care enough to reorder society. Also, in a period of chaos, there's never a guarantee your side will come out on top.

Mass Polarization: What are some issues and values the parties have sorted on?

Role of government, healthcare law, taxes, abortion, immigration, environmental law (climate change)

Consequences of Polarization: Is polarization likely to result in wide-scale societal transformation? Why or why not? (Accelerationism)

Some think existing societal arrangements need to completely be reset. Polarization might even hasten this current party system's demise, but society is very hard to change, most people don't pay attention, and while polarization leads to societal effects, it does not necessarily lead to transformations.

Mass Polarization: Has the public ideologically polarized? What does the evidence say?

THEORETICAL BASIS -While party elites have ideologically polarized, the public has not...Politicians are misrepresenting the public -The public has not gotten any more extreme in policy preferences over the past several decades -People pay very little attention to politics -People often do not have stable issue preferences -When preferences are stable, it's usually because they came from party elites -People often do not know where parties stand EVIDENCE 1) "Moderate" holds strong 2) Centrism is most common 3) Little public change on big issues 4) Public misperceives polarization 5) Intense political interest is rare