Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

[sun rise]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today:

There is one overwhelming fact that structures American politics, and it is this: People who vote for Republicans vote for Republicans, and people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats. It might sound tautological, but it isn’t. A few decades ago, people who voted for Republicans often voted for Democrats, and vice versa. Split-ticket voting was common, and even hardcore, self-described partisans were often persuadable.

Not anymore. There are a few findings that rocked my understanding of politics, and one of them came from political scientist Corwin Smidt. Looking at decades of election data, he found that self-described independent voters today are more loyal to a single party than voters who described themselves as “strong partisans” were in the 1970s. This bears repeating: The people who say they’re free from either party today are more partisan in their voting habits than the people who said they were strong loyalists of a single party in the ’70s.

Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

 

[tytlyf]

I vote democratic because they put forth middle class policies. It's pretty much as simple as that. The republican party is corporate owned. Until that changes I won't be voting republican.

I couldn't live with myself voting for a party denying climate change. (corporate policy bought)

 

[Nous]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today:

There is one overwhelming fact that structures American politics, and it is this: People who vote for Republicans vote for Republicans, and people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats. It might sound tautological, but it isn’t. A few decades ago, people who voted for Republicans often voted for Democrats, and vice versa. Split-ticket voting was common, and even hardcore, self-described partisans were often persuadable.

Not anymore. There are a few findings that rocked my understanding of politics, and one of them came from political scientist Corwin Smidt. Looking at decades of election data, he found that self-described independent voters today are more loyal to a single party than voters who described themselves as “strong partisans” were in the 1970s. This bears repeating: The people who say they’re free from either party today are more partisan in their voting habits than the people who said they were strong loyalists of a single party in the ’70s.

Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

It's a problem. Unwavering partisan allegiance turns politics into religion. There is no group of people in the US more discriminatory, fearful, hateful and closed-minded toward another group than the staunch members of one party are toward the other party.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been going on for years now that the so-called "independents" show a clear voting trend. I didn't realize they may be more loyal that the self-described loyalists though.

 

[bobhikes]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today:

There is one overwhelming fact that structures American politics, and it is this: People who vote for Republicans vote for Republicans, and people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats. It might sound tautological, but it isn’t. A few decades ago, people who voted for Republicans often voted for Democrats, and vice versa. Split-ticket voting was common, and even hardcore, self-described partisans were often persuadable.

Not anymore. There are a few findings that rocked my understanding of politics, and one of them came from political scientist Corwin Smidt. Looking at decades of election data, he found that self-described independent voters today are more loyal to a single party than voters who described themselves as “strong partisans” were in the 1970s. This bears repeating: The people who say they’re free from either party today are more partisan in their voting habits than the people who said they were strong loyalists of a single party in the ’70s.

Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

I don't disagree with the two main tribes but I do disagree with the independent information. I would like to see that data. I myself an independent voted for Ronald Regan, Barrack Obama from the main parties. I Voted For Ross Perot and Gary Anderson as independents that I can remember. The other independents I voted for I can't remember but it wasn't a specific party.

This year I gave money and handed out fliers for the libertarian party. Because of this the libertarians keep sending me new letters. They believed they could have a large gathering in my state. I guess more than a few people gave them money from my state. It failed they didn't get enough people interested to come and have a gathering. This seems to me that the people that supported Gary Anderson will not be voting Libertarian this year. Right now I'm leaning democrat.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've been going on for years now that the so-called "independents" show a clear voting trend. I didn't realize they may be more loyal that the self-described loyalists though.

Well, no. More loyal than self-described loyalists were in the 70s. I would hazard a guess that the whole voting population is dividing more firmly along party lines than ever before.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's a problem. Unwavering partisan allegiance turns politics into religion. There is no group of people in the US more discriminatory, fearful, hateful and closed-minded toward another group than the staunch members of one party are toward the other party.

Such "unwavering partisan allegiance" is indicative of something else, as well -- something that I see in common with religion -- an unwillingness to think for -- and speak for -- one's own self.

How much evil has this old world seen simply because there were people afraid to stand up to their neighbours and say, "wait a second, this is wrong!?"

 

[Nous]

Such "unwavering partisan allegiance" is indicative of something else, as well -- something that I see in common with religion -- an unwillingness to think for -- and speak for -- one's own self.

How much evil has this old world seen simply because there were people afraid to stand up to their neighbours and say, "wait a second, this is wrong!?"

I couldn't agree with you more. It's an insidious allegiance. Nothing good will come from it in the USA.

 

[Nous]

I don't disagree with the two main tribes but I do disagree with the independent information. I would like to see that data. I myself an independent voted for Ronald Regan, Barrack Obama from the main parties. I Voted For Ross Perot and Gary Anderson as independents that I can remember. The other independents I voted for I can't remember but it wasn't a specific party.

This year I gave money and handed out fliers for the libertarian party. Because of this the libertarians keep sending me new letters. They believed they could have a large gathering in my state. I guess more than a few people gave them money from my state. It failed they didn't get enough people interested to come and have a gathering. This seems to me that the people that supported Gary Anderson will not be voting Libertarian this year. Right now I'm leaning democrat.

Gary Anderson? Who?

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose folks attach themselves to whichever party they feel less threatened by. Politicians seem to understand this perhaps intuitively so magnify, embellish the treat posed by the opposing party to their base supporters.

Seemed to be what the 2016 election was about. Who posed the greater threat to the america way of life.

Hillary used the threat of discrimination towards minorities and Trump used the threat of discrimination towards whites.

Maybe Hillary's problem was that she was rich and white, and old perhaps. She really didn't get the support from minorities she needed.

 

[Nous]

Maybe Hillary's problem was that she was rich and white, and old perhaps.

Geez, I'm glad that someone rich, white and old didn't get in the White House.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today?

I do want to point out, however, that in one sense, the last election did not actually look so much like the previous one -- and it is in the lurch toward populism, which we're seeing elsewhere around the world, and which will inevitably do enormous harm to so much of the advancement of human rights and civil liberties that have been achieved over the past 4 or 5 decades.

To be honest, I don't know how to slow that populism in its tracks, much less stop it. For that reason, I think I'm probably grateful to be as old as I am. I would hate to have to fight all those old battles one more time, that all of your children are going to have fight -- or suffer badly if they don't.

 

[Nakosis]

Geez, I'm glad that someone rich, white and old didn't get in the White House.

She might have if she ran on an anti-immigration platform.

Being female just wasn't enough of a minority identity for her.

Hard to represent a tribe if you're not a member. The Democrats needed another Obama, or Hispanic even.

Identity politics isn't everything, but is was so close, I'd bet if the Democrats had put up a non-white candidate they'd have won.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, the polarization is actually very asymmetrical.

The Republican party has steadily become more and more aligned with authoritarian mindsets and questionable morals for as far as I can remember it (going back to 1980 at least). I suppose they attract plutocrats to some degree as well.

People who acknowledge that moral bankrupcy end up having little choice but to vote Dem. Although it, too, has fallen quite a bit, not the least because it has emulated the Reps to some degree in order to attempt to swing voters.

 

[bobhikes]

Gary Anderson? Who?

Yeah that's right.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well, no. More loyal than self-described loyalists were in the 70s. I would hazard a guess that the whole voting population is dividing more firmly along party lines than ever before.

"I would hazard a guess that the whole voting population is dividing more firmly along party lines than ever before."

Polarization has been growing since the mid 70s, but I won't go that far, there have been a few times in American history with deep polarization/party loyalty in the government and in the people. So much so that people engaged in social and work activities based on political party, and there is even a civil war in our history. Yes, there is more polarization today than what we have had in decades, but I have my doubts that is more than "ever before".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today:

There is one overwhelming fact that structures American politics, and it is this: People who vote for Republicans vote for Republicans, and people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats. It might sound tautological, but it isn’t. A few decades ago, people who voted for Republicans often voted for Democrats, and vice versa. Split-ticket voting was common, and even hardcore, self-described partisans were often persuadable.

Not anymore. There are a few findings that rocked my understanding of politics, and one of them came from political scientist Corwin Smidt. Looking at decades of election data, he found that self-described independent voters today are more loyal to a single party than voters who described themselves as “strong partisans” were in the 1970s. This bears repeating: The people who say they’re free from either party today are more partisan in their voting habits than the people who said they were strong loyalists of a single party in the ’70s.

Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

I'd agree with the findings, though I still think people are far more nuanced and varied in their personal politics, than those of the political dichotomy they are forced to vote for- a two party system obviously tends to polarize people...

On the other hand, Trump identified as a Democrat not so long ago and has a pretty moderate stance ideologically compared with the last election

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"I would hazard a guess that the whole voting population is dividing more firmly along party lines than ever before."

Polarization has been growing since the mid 70s, but I won't go that far, there have been a few times in American history with deep polarization/party loyalty in the government and in the people. So much so that people engaged in social and work activities based on political party, and there is even a civil war in our history. Yes, there is more polarization today than what we have had in decades, but I have my doubts that is more than "ever before".

Hey, so I seem to have fallen into a habit I've seen other posters do, where history suddenly becomes '1960's forward' (or 70's in this case), and everything before it is ignored.
You are 100% correct, and I stand (humbly) corrected.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd agree with the findings, though I still think people are far more nuanced and varied in their personal politics, than those of the political dichotomy they are forced to vote for- a two party system obviously tends to polarize people...

That's an interesting point, worth considering. Hard to measure or quantify, in a clear way.

 

[Stevicus]

Short answer - there are two tribes in America - Republican and Democratic. And tribes stick together no matter what. It's not of course totally true for everyone but it does explain how big the tribal influence really is today:

There is one overwhelming fact that structures American politics, and it is this: People who vote for Republicans vote for Republicans, and people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats. It might sound tautological, but it isn’t. A few decades ago, people who voted for Republicans often voted for Democrats, and vice versa. Split-ticket voting was common, and even hardcore, self-described partisans were often persuadable.

Not anymore. There are a few findings that rocked my understanding of politics, and one of them came from political scientist Corwin Smidt. Looking at decades of election data, he found that self-described independent voters today are more loyal to a single party than voters who described themselves as “strong partisans” were in the 1970s. This bears repeating: The people who say they’re free from either party today are more partisan in their voting habits than the people who said they were strong loyalists of a single party in the ’70s.

Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

Part of the problem is that people don't usually vote "for" a candidate or a party. They're mostly voting "against" the other candidate/party. It's the lesser of two evils.

Because of this, people who might be inclined to vote for an independent or third-party candidate might feel they're "wasting their vote" (which is a strange philosophical position to take).

Or there might be active pressure to keep people away from voting third party. I remember back in 2004, Democrats were chiding Nader supporters by saying that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. It's this kind of intra-party pressure and propaganda which keeps everyone in line and compels the kind of "party loyalty" which the author of this article is observing.