The Science of Politics

Trump shrunk Democrats’ advantage with Latino voters this year. Why do Latino voters usually support Democratic candidates by large margins and why did they swing toward Trump in 2020? Gabriel Sanchez finds that Latino voters were highly engaged this year but less focused on immigration, meaning traditional divisions on the economy were more salient. Latinos strongly supported Democrats in the last two elections, so Republicans had room to gain. Giovanni Castro finds that Latino national origin groups that emigrated from countries governed by right-wing leaders often identify with Democrats, whereas those fleeing countries governed by the left are more likely to be Republicans. That might explain why associating Democrats with socialism mattered this year. They both see a lot of diversity in the Latino electorate.

2021 will feature closely divided Congress and a new president. Will Congress compromise to get anything done? Frances Lee finds that majority parties in Congress still achieve about half their agenda—no more or less than usual. When they fail, it’s just as likely due to intra-party conflict than to the opposition party. And when they succeed, it’s almost always from backing down on the most controversial elements or pursuing uncontroversial compromises. Jennifer Wolak finds that voters still like compromise and reward politicians who compromise, both in principle and in practice. By clarifying our differences, the campaign actually alerts voters that we don’t all agree and need to compromise. A lot of policymaking voters like is still happening, but it gets less media attention because it’s not a partisan war. Photo by Julio Obscura under CC by 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

What can the 2020 election teach us about polling and politics? On the afternoon after Election Day, Matt Grossmann hosts the first-ever live edition of the Science of Politics podcast with G. Elliott Morris, data journalist at The Economist to discuss where exactly the models went wrong (and what they got right). Together, they review early results, compare them to the polls and models, and start thinking about how the results should revise our theories and models of American voting and elections. Photo credit: Screenshot from the

Interest groups on both sides were ready for battle when President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barret to the Supreme Court. As Republicans vote to confirm her, how will voters respond? Jonathan Kastellec finds that interest groups have polarized the debate: starting earlier in nomination battles, with groups now fighting over nominee ideology rather than qualifications. Alex Badas finds that Supreme Court nominations have become a voting issue, but that Republican voters still prioritize them more.

As Election Day approaches, Trump intimidation efforts are increasing and Americans in both parties are worried that the other side could use unfair tactics to sway the election. Why does the public fail to serve as a check on anti-democratic practices? Matt Graham finds that only a small fraction of voters prioritize democratic principles over partisan and ideological interests. And by increasing ideological differences, polarization has hurt democracy’s valuation. Larry Bartels finds that large numbers of Republicans countenance anti-democratic moves. And it’s not based on their support for Trump, but their broader ethnic antagonism. They both say we should worry about American democratic backsliding among elites because public support for democracy won't save us. Photo Credit: Donald Trump / Public domain

Racial Protest, Violence, and Backlash by Niskanen Center

National politics gets all the attention, but many important decisions--from police reform to housing development to tackling inequality--are made by local governments. Which voices are heard in local decision-making? Jesse Rhodes finds that local elected officials are ideologically much closer to White residents in their communities than Black or Latino residents and more conservative than the people they represent. Sarah Anzia finds that organized groups like police unions and local chambers of commerce influence local policy across the board. They both say that local policy choices follow the loudest voices of the repeat participators.

The Republican Party runs populist culturally conservative campaigns, but its policymaking mainly benefits the already well-off. In a time of rising economic inequality, how do they get away with that? Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson find that Republicans have to ramp up the outrage stoking due to their lack of broad policy appeals. The Republican Party’s economic positioning is internationally extreme and threatens to undermine US democracy. In this conversational edition, we assess plutocratic populism and its consequences.

Today, Black Americans are the strongest Democratic constituency and White Southerners are the strongest Republican group—but it used to be the other way around. The usual story places 1960s civil rights policymaking at the center of the switch, but an important prior history in the North and the South made it possible. Keneshia Grant finds that the Great Migration north changed the Democratic Party because Black voters became pivotal in Democratic cities like New York, Chicago, and Detroit, leading politicians to respond, including new Black elected officials. Boris Heersink finds that Southern Republican state parties became battles between racially mixed and lily-white factions, mostly for control of patronage due to national convention influence. The lily-white takeovers enabled early Republican gains in the South.These trends predated national civil rights policymaking and help explain how we reached today’s divided regional and racial politics.

Billions of dollars in donations will flow to candidates this year. Citizens suspect all that money buys the donors' influence. But just how different are donors’ views in each party from those of citizens? Neil Malhotra finds that Republican donors are more conservative than Republican citizens on economic issues but Democratic donors are more liberal on social issues. Both parties’ donors are more pro-globalization than their voters. So which do the candidates follow: the donors or the voters? Jordan Kujala finds that donors make candidates more inconsistent with their electorates and increase polarization in both parties. Photo: Michael Vadon / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)