Red vs. Blue

1. Red vs. Blue Is partisanship tearing us apart?

2. The map that started it all, 2000 

3. I. The “Red vs. Blue” Narrative: Some Propositions • The Pundits’ Story (clarified): • Identity: Party identity has become an important part of self-identity, so that Red (pro-Republican) and Blue (pro-Democrat) are as salient as religion, race, place, etc. • 50/50 Nation: The Red/Blue divide splits America down the middle • Polarization: The Red/Blue divide has been growing over time • Geographic Divide: Red America is a very different place than Blue America

4. B. The Polarized Public? Abramowitz’s Argument • [Polarization is increasing among ordinary people] (included in # 3) • Race, class, ideology, cultural views, and geography are reinforcing rather than cross-cutting cleavages • The Tea Party movement is an example of a radicalized mass movement

5. II. The identity thesis • Have Americans become more attached to their parties?

6. A. Party Images From Mark Brewer, Party Images in the American Electorate, 2009. • Party image = “Mental picture” that individuals have about a party • Can be treated as “likes” and “dislikes”

7. a. Party images getting stronger – barely…

8. b. What do Americans see in their major parties? • See Handout

9. c. Party images are more distinct, more salient

10. B. Partisan Loyalty: Increasing or Decreasing? • Increasing references in media • But is it real or a myth? 

11. 1. Party Identification – Long-Term Increase in Independents 2000 2004 2008 2012

12. 2. Party Leaners – Few “Pure” Independents but many “Independent” leaners

13. 3. Leaners look like “closet partisans” (80% vs. 90% loyal)

14. C. Party Salience – How important are partisan ties? • Civic engagement – how important is politics? a. Attention to political news:

15. Historical Perspective

17. b. Volunteerism: high…

18. …but not usually political

19. c. Salience of politics • Question: “Suppose that you alone could determine whether a Democrat or a Republican represents your Congressional district by paying a specific dollar amount? How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that a Congressman from your preferred party will win the office?” • Answer (yougov.com): 55% of respondents said “ZERO”

20. d. Political Activity (2008)

21. Turnout

22. III. 50/50 Nation? Closeness and Depth • Is the Country Closely Divided? • Multiple Scholars: Yes. Elections 2000 and 2004 were close, and…

23. 2. House Vote: Much closer than most of 1950-1990 2010 2006 2010

24. 3. Partisan Leanings (not ID) – Nearly Even

25. B. Polarization: Are Americans Deeply Divided? • Issues (Fiorina): No. See Figures 3.2 and 3.4. Centrism on ideology and major issues. But see also Abramowitz. Further examples…

26. Abortion: Most in the middle

28. Gay Marriage: Substantial Center Exists

29. Afghanistan (2009): Substantial Middle Ground

30. Health Care: Evidence of Polarization

31. 2. Changes in Party Identification Show Moderation Not Polarization 2000 2004 2008 2012

32. 3. Ideology: a. Public much less divided than politicians (2006)

33. State-level Ideology: no evidence of sharp divide. Centrists dominate most states Fiorina: Gap is an artifact of “winner takes all” – voters similar in both kinds of states

34. c. Even partisans are cross-pressured • Most partisans disagree with own party on at least one salient issue (common in 2000-2004: abortion, gay marriage) • Creates opportunities for persuasion during campaigns • Many apparently divisive issues are really “wedge” issues meant to peel off cross-pressured partisans, not (just) to excite the base

35. 4. Comparative Evidence (2008): Larger gaps between partisans than other countries

36. C. Conclusions • Americans are closely divided  competitive elections at national level • Americans are centrists on many “wedge” issues  creates cross-pressured voters • Evidence on public polarization is mixed, depending on issue and measure of opinion • Need more precise measures of polarization – would allow comparison over time

37. IV. Is Partisan Polarization Increasing?

38. A. Is Elite Partisanship Increasing? • Introducing NOMINATE scores: An unbiased method for measuring political differences • Assumption 1: Political decisions are connected – position on one issue helps to predict position on other issues • Assumption 2: Whatever connects issue positions is a continuum, so we can rank people on this underlying dimension

39. 2. Finding the underlying dimension: An example Three legislators, four bills (A through D). What rank-ordering best explains these voting patterns?

40. a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ

41. a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ

42. a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP

43. b. Rank-Order the Bills Options: ABCD ABDC ACBD ACDB ADBC ADCB BACD BADC BCAD BDAC CABD CBAD

44. c. Evaluate the Rank-Orderings to Predict Votes

45. i. Check each combination • First combination to check: JKP and ABCD J K P A B C D Implications: J more likely to vote for A than K  0 J more likely to vote for A than P  1 K more likely to vote for C than J  0 K more likely to vote for D than J  -1 K more likely to vote for A than P  1 K more likely to vote for B than P  -1 P more likely to vote for D than K  1 P more likely to vote for D than J  0

46. ii. Now re-check with different policy positions • First combination to check: JKP and ABCD J K P ABC D A BC D A BCD A B CD Etc…

47. iii. Repeat for every possible combination • NOMINATE scores generated using a supercomputer • Note that none of the possible orderings is likely to be correct all of the time, given dozens or hundreds of legislators and bills (all roll-call votes in which 2.5% or more disagree)

48. d. Which combination performs best? Possible Implication: K loves B and hates C, while P loves C and hates B. Everyone and everything else is moderate.

49. Example: 110th Congress by D-NOMINATE Scores

50. e. Now suppose there are multiple dimensions…. • Examples: • Social freedom vs Economic freedom • International cooperation and international militancy • All of the above (4 dimensions!) • Authors find one or two dimensions are all that is needed: • Currently just one (liberal vs. conservative). • Very high (.81) correlation with hand-coded scores of liberalism vs. conservatism – the computer found something that matches our understanding!