The Science of Politics

Protests are heating up over police brutality in the middle of a presidential election year. Can protests change election outcomes or the future of the parties? New research suggests that protests do leave their mark--and the Trump protest era has been quite active. Daniel Gillion finds that liberal protests help Democrats win elections, stimulating new campaign contributions, public support, and candidacies, and increasing their vote share. Michael Heaney finds that protests respond to the party of the president and can help the party out of power organize and voice its concerns. They both say we should not underestimate the power of street protests, even for conventional political outcomes.

Joe Biden is about to select his vice-presidential running mate, having pledged to choose a woman. Will the pick change his chance of victory or the future of the Democratic Party? New research suggests running mates may not have the direct influence that most expect—but they do send strong signals about presidential candidates and their parties. Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko find that vice presidential nominees do not have home state or regional effects and do not seem to help attract affiliated social groups like women. But popular running mates can rub off on nominees’ popularity and change how the voters see them ideologically. William Adler and Julia Azari find that running mates are a party decision; parties try to balance their ideological coalitions, with a variety of inputs from public and elite co-partisans. Biden's pick will help define the candidate and his party. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore under CC by SA 2.0. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/8571338180

President Trump has consolidated Republican support in Congress and the wider party network, despite a lot of initial concerns. Whatever became of the Never Trump movement that arose in the 2016 campaign? And who, if anyone, is still resisting Trump within the Republican Party? Steven Teles and Robert Saldin find that public intellectuals and foreign policy elites were more willing to take on Trump than lawyers and economists, but all of the movement mattered for the campaign and the administration. Karyn Amira and Jordan Ragusa find that, in Congress, conservatives and establishment Republicans are more likely to vote with Trump, while women and the electorally vulnerable are less likely to do so, but his high support caps long-term polarization. They all see it as difficult for Republicans to move on from Trump. Studies: "Never Trump"; “Adversaries of Allies?” Interviews: Steven Teles, Johns Hopkins; Robert Saldin, University of Montana; Karyn Amira and Jordan Ragusa, College of Charleston Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore under CC by SA 2.0. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/39815511914

Donald Trump is trying to link the COVID-19 pandemic to fear of immigration. There is precedent for linking infectious disease to that issue and winning elections as a result. When an Ebola outbreak came to U.S. public attention just before the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans were able to use it to their political advantage. Claire Adida finds that Republican politicians successfully raised fear of immigration by politicizing Ebola. Filipe Campante finds that local Ebola outbreaks gave Republicans an electoral advantage by changing immigration attitudes. They both see big differences this time, even though Republicans are trying to repeat the success.

Many African-Americans see themselves as conservatives and hold conservative policy positions. But Black voters overwhelmingly identify as Democrats and vote for Democratic candidates. Why can't Republicans increase their Black voter support despite rising conservatism? Ismail White and Chryl Laird find that African-Americans live in segregated social networks that enforce a norm of Democratic voting. Black voters are more supportive of Republicans when they do not feel social pressure. Tasha Philpot finds that Black conservatism is meaningful and influential in policy views, but that Black partisanship is based more on shared group identity. Black voters have varied ideologies, but agree on the concerns most important to vote choice. They agree that Black partisanship challenges our ideas about ideological polarization. Photo Credit: Public Domain, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/2012-photos

The COVID-19 coronavirus has upended American’s lives and heightened our anxieties. That’s likely to have a lot of political consequences. How do Americans respond to imminent threats and how does our anxiety change how we seek information, who we trust, and what policies we support? Bethany Albertson and Shana Gadarian find that Americans seek information, trust the experts, and seek protective policies in response to public health threats like infectious disease. But our biases increase and our instincts are often to blame outsiders. We explore research on anxiety in response to threats on a special conversational edition of the Science of Politics.

How did concerns about Hillary Clinton dominate voters' concerns in 2016, despite the scandal- & gaffe-prone campaign of Donald Trump? Did media coverage and social sharing doom Clinton? And can we expect a similar pattern in 2020? Jonathan Ladd finds that citizens heard a succession of negative things about Trump, but remembered the one big scandal about Clinton: her emails. Hal Roberts finds that conservative media produced and shared harmful stories about Clinton, while Democrats mostly followed mainstream and less partisan news sources. They both see important implications for the 2020 campaign ahead.

Michael Bloomberg is setting records for television advertising spending in the 2020 presidential primaries and we expect more records in the general election. The last two cycles have seen Democrats out-advertise Republicans, but how many votes did it earn them? Erika Franklin Fowler and Michael Franz find that the 2018 cycle was still dominated by television advertising focused on health care, a big change from 2016's personal attacks on Donald Trump. The go-to experts from the Wesleyan Media Project show we're now seeing more advertising, more negativity, and more outside groups. They expect more of the same in 2020. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore under CC by SA 2.0. https://flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/48603879096/

Americans have lost faith in our political and community institutions. Our leaders are increasingly performing for the crowd, rather than improving the institutions they inhabit. Eitan Hersch finds that Americans say they are spending time on politics, when they are just watching from the sidelines and commenting online. Yuval Levin finds that even those with power in Congress, universities, and media outlets are using our institutions as interchangeable platforms for publicity seeking, when they should be acting on their responsibilities. Both say it is time to stop pretending we are powerless and work to rebuild our institutions through painstaking local action. Photo Credit: Shealah Craighead [Public domain]

Americans dislike the two major parties, which are fighting more and compromising less. But Does that open the way for the rise of third parties and the huge institutional changes necessary to bring it about? Lee Drutman finds that a new multi-party system is the only way out of our cycle of polarization and democratic decay. He sees opportunities on the horizon, favoring the adoption of ranked choice voting in larger, multi-member House districts. But Jack Santucci finds that the two parties have to face real third-party threats before they’re willing to reform away their advantages, focusing on the local reforms that have been tried in American history.