State political polarization has been a recurring theme in the U.S. since the mid-20th century, and it’s likely to continue for some time to come.
The 2016 election was a particularly egregious example of how the polarization problem has become even more acute.
Political analysts estimate that about 80% of U.N. votes were cast by Republicans, and the president’s reelection in 2020 may have played a role in that.
While some analysts have suggested that the Trump administration’s agenda might have played into the rise of right-wing populism, the evidence suggests that the political climate was not necessarily ripe for a populist uprising.
As one political scientist put it, “I don’t think we need a lot of explanations for what the president did or didn’t do.”
The data we have suggests that, even as the U:N.
was struggling to recover from the impact of the pandemic, the U., in particular, was on the right track.
The data we do have suggests this was particularly true of states that experienced severe, but not unprecedented, pandemic-related declines in public support.
The results suggest that while states were more likely to have voted Republican, they were also more likely than other states to have experienced extreme polarization.
The state with the highest polarization scores is Mississippi, where the share of the vote cast by Trump supporters is more than double the share for Democrats.
While the results suggest states with more extreme partisan polarization may not have fared well in the 2016 election, it doesn’t mean that these states didn’t face some challenges during the pandemics, and we should not discount the possibility that political polarization is a function of social-distancing forces.
But we should also recognize that the data does not support a simple explanation for the political polarization problem.
The analysis we present here shows that the most important factor driving political polarization, the relationship between partisan identification and state political polarization over the past two decades, is not political partisanship per se.
Rather, it is the relative strength of political parties in states that voted Republican in 2016 and 2016-17.
We find that political parties that had relatively stronger ties to the state’s political landscape during the 2000s were significantly less likely to be more polarized during the 2016 pandemic.
Political parties that were more tied to the states’ political landscape in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s also experienced higher polarization, but this relationship was not statistically significant.
In fact, there is strong evidence that these two factors were linked in the 2000 elections, and that they may have influenced the outcome of those elections.
Political partisanship has not disappeared over time.
Rather than a purely causal effect, the rise and fall in political polarization in states during the last century has been strongly driven by state political geography and political polarization-related social factors.
It is important to note that while we don’t know exactly how much of the polarization that we observe is the result of partisan identification, there are plenty of possible explanations.
If political partisans were less motivated to vote, for instance, or if they were less likely than others to feel a strong connection to their state, they might be more likely not to vote.
Political polarization is not simply a product of partisanship.
Political polarization is also strongly influenced by economic and social factors, including social distancing, voting patterns, and economic growth.
When we look at the relationship among these factors, we see that states with stronger links to the political landscape were more polarized over the course of the 2000 presidential election, but that the relationship did not remain significant over the longer term.
This suggests that it may be time to start looking at political polarization as a function, rather than a function in terms of partisans, rather then a function for one specific factor.
We can’t know for sure whether or not the political environment that was favorable to Republicans during the mid-’90s would have produced similar results in the 2020 presidential election.
It’s also not clear whether or how the rise in political polarization over the last decade would have been different if we focused on political partisans.
We can say, however, that it is unlikely that the 2016 presidential election would have occurred in Mississippi had Republicans held onto their congressional majority.
The more relevant question is whether or when we can expect to see political polarization return to its levels seen in the late ’20s and early ’30s.
Sources Recode article