And we kind of stay there for some time. Why did it wane . Look at drug patterns. They remain there about 15 or 16 years and a run in 20year cycles. The crack cocaine cycle is no more. There are still people who use crack cocaine. It is nowhere near where it used to be. In the absence of that driving the violence, and then we are down in the 200 range and we got stuck there for a long time. Even when i took over in 2007, in 2006. 69 one hundred 81 in 2007. We are persistent with yang violence. And violence was born accelerated during the crack cocaine. Even when the crack cocaine one away, the gangs didnt. Coming down from the 186 down to where we are now, about a 54 drop in murders. It has been constant focus on end guns, the high offenders and bring the community into work with us. That is been key in dropping at that last 54 . That was a portion of a presentation of q a. You can see the entire program today at 7 00 eastern here on cspan. Some news to share with you today. Just. S. Population rose 0. 7 from last year. The Census Bureau estimates a population of more than 316 Million People for the u. S. It was the lowest rate in more than 70 years, which could affect the future u. S. Economy. California and texas continue to be the most populous state. This week as he visits the region, john kerry is expected to unveil a peace plan for the middle east. Will meet with Benjamin Netanyahu and mock mood abbas toock mood address several issues in the conflict. Peace talks resumed in july with both sides already making concessions. Last month the university of akron hosted its seventh state of the parties conference. They focused on National Party polarizations and the changing american electorate. It is two hours. My job really is to keep time. We have four papers to be presented, which means we will give about the team minutes to each. We hope you will see a weaving together of the topics. We hope you will have great interest in the things they present and what have great questions. We have three authors on this paper. I will let you take it from there. Good morning. We are delighted to be here. Such a great meeting and such a great panel and we thank janet to help us get back and home. Audience, icspan plan to have a 24hour filibuster and talk until the meeting is over. Everyone has interesting things to say with excellent papers. Projectr is part of a that we have been working on dealing with how the way American Public opinion is react to the way the elite structure of the preferences and as we begin thinking about the state of the Political Parties and the futures, we begin looking at some contemporary takes on parties from the new york times. Wrote there will be a serious Third Party Candidate with a Serious Movement big enough to affect the outcome of the election. He followed up and noted a former u. S. Comptroller general might be that kind of candidate to ignite the radical center. So the lack of president walker aside, the day after the election, we now entered and obama realignment and it might not last beyond the next president ial election. What strikes us about the way these folks are thinking about american Political Parties is the expectation is for major dramatic change. People who are looking for that kind of change are going to be waiting a while. Make threetry to empirical points. The first point is that self aretifying moderates actually in a lot of way polarized from each other. The second is that the parties are constrained in their abilities to make major advances toward voters. Match the they do not preferences, it makes it difficult for the major parties to outflank each other and try to grab these voters. Just focusing on your course of voters is not a strategy that is likely to make ever either party a viable majority. We begin with evidence from others that congressional elites are divided along a righte dimension, a left dimension. Not so divided but divided along two principal dimensions. One dealing with questions of moral right and wrong. T dimension leftrigh to them. What are the consequences in the political system when you elites are divided along one dimension and the public is divided along two . We make the argument that there are some folks who have orthodox issue preferences. They are either liberal or conservative on economic and social issues. They behave as though they are divided like members of congress. These are the folks that are polarized partisans. They make your vote choice early. They consume partisan media. They do not split their tickets when they vote. A larger group has they might be liberal on one set of issues and conservative on another said of issues. It might the libertarian. Folks who are conservative socially might be considered populist. Those in the middle might be considered moderates. Q folks are folks that were dissipate less, or more unstable , do not partisanship consume partisan media and split their tickets at a higher rate when they vote. This is the 2012 American National election study. Every dot is a person. The further to the left you go, the more liberal you are economically. Socialxis is the dimension. Conservatives are quite obviously polarized from each other. These are the people who are becoming divided in the american electorate and are more likely to participate. A nontrivial size of voters are libertarian in their view. There is a fair amount of people with expressed preferences in the middle. They are all likely to call themselves moderate when asked to place themselves on a standard ideological scale. If you are conservative economically, you are a moderate. If you are just the opposite, you are a moderate. That makes it difficult for a thirdparty candidate to corral both of these groups of voters. We argue it will be difficult for a thirdparty to appeal to these voters who are different from each other. To give a sense of how this might try to operate, we went ran to 1992 when ross perot as a fairly successful thirdparty candidate. He came in second in utah and maine in the election. Groups, where did his support come from . Analysis thatan we talk about more in the paper. Ill figure provides the predicted top ability that a member of the groups voted for ross perot. Around 26 servatives for perot. Liberals at 20 . 35 . Tarians, over perot ran as a prochoice kind of candidate. Not surprisingly the libertarian voters were the most likely to support perot. He was giving these voters exactly what they wanted and yet the likelihood a libertarian would cast a vote for perot was only 35 . The likelihood of a vote wasnt so high. Is something we should not worry about too much. This leaves parties with a couple of different options. How do we sustained a durable majority over the long haul . You can imagine they might say tomight to try to appeal folks that have some set of issues where they see things our way. Papery on a formula on a to try to estimate how much support candidates get from particular kinds of groups at how much they turn out. Those are the key elements of the formula. Same formula to our ideological groups. This shows the percentage of contribution to the vote totals 1970 two until 2012. Conservatives provide the lion share of support. They have really jumped up in the amount of support they provide for their voters. Re else can conservatives all republicans go to increase aeir share to try to become durable majority . The short answer is libertarians. They have been a larger part of the coalition. They turn out at a higher rate than populist and moderates. There have they have been more likely to support the Republican Party. That is the place where republicans ought to consider votes. That is not surprising. The Economic Issues correlate most highly with peoples self purported ideologies and their vote choice. Perhaps not so surprising. If conservatives have a hard time going after these goes upians, the line and down and it is not a very large group. Party might think lets just try to grow our course of voters. Conservative,ore then maybe we can win an election. Among analysis, turnout conservatives is close to 80 . 86 of the conservative vote in 2012 when to romney went to romney. They are not likely to increase their margins very much. Moving along to democrats. Liberals make up the largest share of democratic vote choice from 1972 until 2012. Back on the republican side, the scale is up to 60 here and 50 here. Liberals make up a smaller portion of the democrats overall coalition then conservatives make up for the republican coalition, which is something democrats need to keep in mind. Group. S are high turnout 95 voted for barack obama. Democrats are not going to appeal to that last five percent of liberals. Libertarians are more likely to identify or vote with the Republican Party. Moderates seem to be the best option for democrats to make their case in the future as they try to appeal to different kinds of voters. Have beenve for or likely to favor democrats. I can find in my notes moderates have given a majority of their votes to democrats. And 60 . the democrats have done a more job of solidifying moderate support. It is neither of these strategies that get either party above 50 . And given the way these numbers fluctuate, the parties ought not to be confident they can try to flank. On blicans tried to appeal that is a very difficult argument to do when you get 80 support from conservatives. If youre abandoning some of the policy positions of your core group, you risk alienating some of those votes. Voters andafter the do so in a systematic way . If they do not, they cannot rely on their own core supporters. Partiesthe state of the are highly polarized at the you the level and that leaves ofties adrift in a small sea uncertainty for the future. That is a good point to stop. Alan. I am waiting for the there we go. I want to thank john and the institute again and the staff for organizing this meeting and for inviting us here. Thank you for coming. I will talk to say about a phenomenon i found interesting in recent american electoral politics and that is polarization in the american electorate. Will start off with the facts my junior colleagues are always talking about the stylized facts. I will talk about something i think that is happening in american politics. I guess that would fall under facts. D i do not think i need to work hard to convince you that that is the case. Just in case youre not so sure about that, a few things we have seen that show this trend is happening at the elite level. Growing ideological divide between the parties and we have seen evidence of that. Ecline of comity the kind of language that is whenon the floor and also our political leaders talk in just about any for him these days. And the growing frequency of confrontations over the budget and president ial appointments that have been going on with the Government Shutdown and debt ceiling crisis that we had last month. Lots of evidence of that. What about the public . There is some evidence of growing intensity of partisan preferences and partisan conflict among some segments of the public, the kind of people who shop for tea party demonstrations, comparing barack obama to osama bin laden. Actually did not start with obama. We saw this when bush was in the white house as well. The comparisons with hitler, not just obama but bush was compared with hitler. I percent that victor on the right to some of my democratic friends and their responses that is true. [laughter] how representative or typical of these folks . People are turning out and demonstrating. Has there been an increase in partisan polarization in the American People . Divideplains the party in the American Public . We have seen a couple of different answers in the literature of local science. The republic is not more divided. Partisan dollarization has not really increased significantly. Approach interesting that has been offered by some been an is there has increase of affect of polarization. Peoples feelings about the party have become more divided. That does not mean the party is more divided the way you leads elites are. I am going to tell you what my findings are going to be. If you do not want to be surprise, close your eyes and cover your ears. Everybody warned. There has been substantial increase in affect her polarization in the american electorate. Almost all that is due to negative opinions by partisans of the opposing party. This rise can be explained by an increase in policy and ideological polarization. They are very closely connected with each other. Here is a puzzle. Visually. Hand, look at Party Identification and tracking over time, measuring , gostrength of party i. D. Back to the 1970s and it is pretty stable. It is not becoming stronger in the american electorate. Party loyaltyand, has increased. Party identification is not getting stronger. We are seeing more loyalty in voting. We are seeing a big increase in Party Loyalty in voting. 1972 was an amazing year. Over 40 of democrats voted for nixon. Data are quite striking. 2012, i am using only the facetoface interviews. I excluded the internetbased portion. If you use that, it is even higher. There are some differences between the components. Very high level of Party Loyalty in 2012. We also see a big decline in ticket splitting. We have the lowest rates of ticket splitting in the histor. , very low ticket splitting there. A lot of strict ticket voting going on. How can we solve this puzzle . One answer may be from looking at this other measure. Affect of polarization. Over thek at that, last 30 years there has been a pretty big increase in the divide between the parties and the difference between the rating of the parties on the scale. That is almost entirely due to more negative ratings of the opposing party. Look at partisans and you find the average rating of their own party has been pretty stable, around 70 degrees on the scale. We give the other party and more and more negative rating. That is why the divide is opening up. This does make a big difference in the distribution on the scale. This is what the distribution look like in 1978. You can see there were a lot of people in the middle in 1978 who rated the parties equally and not very many who strongly preferred one party or another. Minus five or plus five means you rated one party higher than the other on the scale. This is what 2012 looks like. There has been a pretty big change, a lot fewer voters now in the middle. And more who strongly prefer one party to another. Thater thing we find is the divide as you go up the , and this case im measuring a bite campaign involvement, about half of the electorate, you see the more involved people are more divided with their evaluations to the party. People who care about politics and do the most really like one party a lot better than the other party or really dislike one party than the other party. Affects matters. This is a feeling thermometer difference. This is for 2012. It has a stronger effect than Party Identification, even though both have a strong effect and that is true for every single election but it has gotten stronger over time. Why is this happening . As one of my students wanted to know. I will argue that this growing polarization is largely a result of growing ideological polarization. Parties in the electorate are moving apart. We measure ideological difference from the parties lie with placement of the parties on the liberal conservative scale. What you find is that the average distance between voters , voters aren party much further away from the opposing party, further and further away from the opposing party. You can see how that affects the percentage of voters who have a strong profession preference. It has been going up over time and the percentage who have no preference or a week preference has been going down over time. There is a strong relationship between ideological self placement this is not just saying projection. It is very strongly related to where you place yourself on the ideological scale. 86 , whichion is is about as close as you can get. The distance has increased as is the feeling thermometer difference. The trend seems to be moving together. We are seeing the feeling thermometer difference scale is correlated with ideology and with policy preferences. Social issues and Economic Issues are increasing the. Orrelation over time they are more correlated over time than they were [indiscernible] relationshipe between the distance and the feeling thermometer difference in 2012. The correlation is. 8. How you feel about the parties is very much a function of your relative distance from the party. When we do a multiple regression analysis and a whole bunch of predictors, the strongest predictor is relative ideological difference from the parties. It kind of overwhelms everything else. There are some other predictors but that is the strongest predictor. If you break the electorate of 2012 down, if you do not refer either party, this is what youre feeling thermometer scale looks like. You are in the middle, for the most part. If you have a preference for three plus, this is what you look like. 15 of voters who place themselves in coolly distance from the parties on the ideological scale and this is how they came out on the party affect scale and they are in the middle. They look like the voters in 1978. Almost half of the electorate who rated one party three units closer than the other in ideology and i would call that polarization. Conclusions are that parties have been moving apart. Democrats moving to the left. Republicans moving to the right. Is the growing divide that explains the polarization and there are consequences the voters are less likely to cross party lines. We are getting a declining ticket splitting because of this growing divide between the parties. The opposing party and the candidates are becoming increasingly unacceptable candidates. We fail overall about the same but we dislike the other party. One implication is that attacking the opposing party may be the most effective way of energizing ones supporters and turning out the vote. We had one of the most negative campaigns in history in 2012 if you look at the content of the political advertising. It was much more negative overall than 2008 or earlier elections. Shiftk this reflects this that we have seen toward increasing negative perceptions of the other party within the american electorate. Can expect to see more of the same in the future. Those who live in ohio, expect to see more attack ads in 2012. Great. Thank you, alan. Joel . Thanks, linda. I want to thank john and janet for the wonderful staff for making this conference possible again. It is a conference i look forward to and wish it were held oftener. I was driving home from work and i tuned into the. Home companion and i heard Garrison Keillor give his advice on how to survive in new york. You have to walk fast, dressed in black, and do not look people in the eyes. I need to talk fast. I need to move through my slides rapidly. I can make the usual apologies for our results. I was fortunate to do this paper with edward. We have been working together over the years and we were of kent by kase fisy fisher state university. What is responsible for these trends . How is the American Voter changed . Ideological and more inclined to identify with the parties based on their racial, ethnic, and religious identities. The American Voter is more issue oriented. I think these are all important changes in the American Voter. I want to highlight these changes, the evidence to support these claims. Here is a look at the changing racial and ethnic makeup of the United States in 1960. A most 89 of america was white. Declined tohad about 64 with an increase in the proportion of africanamericans, asianamericans, and latino americans. To track this fragmentation of the electorate, we computed an plots the changes over time for respondents in the American National election studies. Also what we did is we stratified this index by response to who lived in very racially diverse counties versus those who lived in homogeneous counties as opposed to those who fell somewhere in between. This gives a breakdown of Party Notification by race and ethnicity. In 1956, both parties were mostly dependent upon white americans for their support. The Democratic Party essentially has been the Majority Party in terms of the proportion of people who identify themselves as democrats. The republicans had been the line or the party. Is the distribution has changed for the democrats. Black. Re 21. 9 are latino. To explore this further, we took the at the city question. The good people in michigan started looking at at the city in 1972. Since there arent many changes here in terms of how different ethnic groups line up with the parties, we have combined the data from the 1972 survey to the 2008 surveys. This is a work in progress and we have to update all the to 2012. Or 2010 those americans whose forebears traced her ancestry to the British Isles of northern europe. American a respondents who say what other ethnic group they identify with. In senses surveys. White ethics traced their ancestrys two Central Eastern and southern europe. Greater middle east is a term by the w bush administration. These are basically muslim countries in north africa and the middle east. The other categories are self explanatory. What is noteworthy is that the only group that can be counted on by republicans by a small rally our mainline voters. Voters. Asian american all the other groups are trending heavily toward the Democratic Party, including the new immigrant groups. Effect of the different social identities on the president ial vote. What is striking, a sharp increase in the impact of racial identities on the president ial vote. Religious identity seems to be waning influence. , this isass identities increasing. Maybe because of the coalescence between the ratio of identities and Family Income. Here we take a look at the effect of racial context on voting in president ial elections. We find that respondents who are in racially diverse counties are much more likely to vote republican than whites who live in relatively homogeneous counties. The same thing happens with Party Identification. Whites who live in racially diverse counties a more likely to identify with the Republican Party than people who live in relatively homogeneous counties. Acial context we feel is affects the racial identities. This graph is here because of a dispute which you my good friend alan and russell about whether independence have been growing or not. If you measure independence by do youeral question consider yourself to be a republican or democrat or Something Else, the proportion has been increasing from about 2008. About 40 in if you look at pure independents, we see that there has been growing independence up until about the 1980s. But then after that it has been declining because of lyrical polarization and partisan sorting. This looks to be the effect of ideology and issues on the president ial vote. The effective ideology has been increasing over time. What you see is economic dissatisfaction is a factor that always hurts the party in power and helps the party out of power. Mobilization. This is a fairly interesting table. More americans are being contacted by parties and the president ial candidates and their organizations. This is having an impact on turnout. There is an increased proportion of people who are contacted who turn out to vote. How does the party system changed . That there our paper is more electoral volatility than before. We see the emergence of the red and blue state dichotomy with the creation of safe states for the Democratic Party. We also see lower public approval for both parties in government. This is a plot of vote volatility by party and year. You can see an increase in volatility in the president ial vote with the Lyndon Johnson landslide and the Ronald Reagan landslide. After that, you see declining volatility which we attribute to increasing Political Polarization and partisan sorting. The shellurself at game both and what do you say . What is happening . Distribution vote over the election years from 1960 until the present, that there has been a greater dispersion of electoral vote. Partysncides with the counting on certain states to deliver electoral votes for winning the presidency. Thisu take the measure of dispersion and correlate it with time, you come up with a correlation of about. 44, a moderately strong correlation. When you look at the effects of polarization, they are not good in terms of public approval, executive and legislative performance. Dealing time a president ial seems to get over 50 is during the honeymoon. Even president obama, his Approval Rating has fallen to 45 with a 51 disApproval Rating. Congressional Approval Rating has fallen to an alltime low. I have tracked the question about the country heading in the right versus wrong direction. Americans feel we are heading in the wrong direction. Other changes in the party system, i do not have time to go through these changes. These are discussed elsewhere and will be brought up another house that had been scheduled for this conference. I would like to get what is behind these changes. The increase in direct by marys that are dominated by conservative ideologues. Feel is thei changes can be attributed to our growing diversity and income inequality and perhaps to the politics of ethnic nepotism and competition. Let me take a look at the impact of racial fragmentation on political sorting. We have plotted the data, taking the census data and using the measure of polish and partisan sorting between republicans and democrats. A very strong correlation of about. 8. You find much the same thing with inequality and partisan sorting. A very strong correlation of about. 8. When you look at the effects of fragmentation on Political Polarization, slightly smaller relation but still a strong one. The same thing holds true when you look at the effects of income and inequality on Political Polarization. The other factor, what else is possibly responsible . Political science is a relatively there is a dearth of good series. In and rational actor theory are not theories in of themselves. What might explain this . A sociologist has argued that there is competition. A political scientist from finland studied politics in india argues it is because of ethnic nepotism. A human traitm is that we all tend to favor members of our own ethnic group. This leads to social inequality, cultural conflict, and partisan sorting. This shows that sorting has been going on since the founding period. This shows my plot of americans regional changing subcultures and each can be linked to a major seller or immigrant. Final conclusions and implications, the jury is still out. We anticipate continued levels of immigration which make the u. S. More diverse, more polarized, and more sordid. Thank you. Thank you, jill. Next up is david from the university of missouri st. Louis. Thank you very much, linda. And thank you to john and janet and the university of akron to invite us here. Let me acknowledge my copartisans here, who worked on this with me even though im the one doing the talking here. Ok. Panel tend tothis emphasize the dark side of polarization. I will start with something more positive. This shows data from the American National election studies. People who sayof they care about who wins the president ial election. Who sayentage of people they see important differences between the major parties and the percentage of people who correctly respond that the Republican Party is the more conservative clinical party the more conservative political party. The highat or near point in the 2012 cycle. There is some evidence the elite polarization has helped to produce a more engaged elected. Electorate. That is the bright side. We examine a lot of the same data as in alans paper of the major parties. This reprice is a figure from presentation. The main movement has been a decline in the ratings for the opposite party. In this gapested between the rating from ones own party minus the rating for the opposite party and there is a variation across individuals and this. This gap has grown over time. Those are the things we want to try to explain. Our general argument is there are many sources of this, one having to do with strength of Party Identity and another having to do with the core values. Also individual predispositions and the rise of partisan media. I will go through each of those in turn. I will start by offering joel mentioned the partisanship over the past few decades and we offer a somewhat different answer to alans puzzle about why it is held steady over the last few decades and Party Loyalty among voters has transpired. We think part of the explanation is it has remained steady. Parts of identity have been activated more intensely in recent years than the past. There are a series of studies are show when people merely informed on a particular issue at the level of politicians divide along party lines, they engaged in a series of biases. This is called motivated reasoning. We interpret events and seek out information in ways to make our own Party Look Good and make the other party look bad. When people are exposed to elite level polarization, they tend to cues. Ore on party they tend to be more certain about their opinions and they tend to dislike the opposite party more. The elite always issue has increased the silence of Party Identification. Gapchart here shows that and the thermometer ratings are leading the way. Strong partisans and weak partisans and independent leaders has gone from about 20 points or 20 degrees to about 25 or 30 points in the latest cycle. At core values as another source of the affect of polarization. This dovetails well with the ideological polarization that alan was talking about. The nextt three three tables are data from 2012. What we did in each of these cases for each of these attitudes, we control the strength of partisanship and ideology and we look at what happens when you move from low values to relatively high values on each of these attitudes. How does that affect upper down on average . One core value is egalitarian is nism, the belief that people should be treated fairly matter who they are. For democrats, those who are that is about 16 degrees more than democrats, who are low. For republicans, is a liberal value. A cross pressures them because it does not correspond to their partisanship and it tends to lessen the rosacea and. Morald government, traditionalism dealing with how big it will government should pay in providing a safety net and dealing with orthodox versus progressive views on moral standards and family values. Those factors tend to polarize republicans and reduce among democrats. Eachmportant thing is that of these core values have become more closely associated with Party Identification and ideology over the last few decades and is attributed to the growing dislike for the opposite party. We also look at a couple of groupbased attitudes dealing with race and the role of women and racial resentment has been a common measure in the survey that measures the belief that lack of work ethic accounts for the inequalities between black and white americans. That is another attitude that is become more closely associated with partisanship and ideology. It becomes more polarized in terms of the feeling thermometer measure. Less so for democrats. We also examined modern sexism which measures the degree to which people think discrimination against women is still occurring and needs to be rectified. That is on the high end of the scale. People more resistant to the changing of the gender roles in society. Higher values polarize democrats. Lesser affect among republicans. We also examined a couple of predispositions, maybe traits or worldviews. There are measures in the survey as well. The to evaluate is a psychological measure that indicates how judgmental one is our ones propensity to write something as a good thing or a bad thing. Sort of like cnn is invited to do. We also examine authoritarianism the authoritarian worldview is whether you value freedom or creativity. It is measured by childrearing parties, such as whether it is more important for children to be independent or protect their elders. To be obedient or selfreliant. Mark hetherington has written a book about authoritarian polarization and partners ship partisanship. We think that is not quite the whole story. The key part of this worldview is that people high in authoritarianism value order and conformity. They tend to see the world in black and white terms. They are more likely to make distinctions between their in group and the outgroup or opposite party opposed to their views. We think people high in authoritarianism, democrats or republicans, are more likely to denigrate the opposite articles to we find some evidence of that among both democrats and republicans. These are predecisions. I do not think there is much evidence they have changed over time. This does not account for the growing polarization, whereas i think core values lineup more with party and ideology over time. The final factor we looked at is Media Exposure, particularly the rise of artisan media over the last 10, 15 years. The survey includes a bunch of new items and asks people whether they regularly consume a whole host of tv programs, radio, talk radio, newspapers, websites. I think there were 19 we identified as conservative sources, 19 we identified as liberal. We also have a general news exposure item based on questions about, hot how frequently do you follow the news on television or radio . These have a lesser effect. Is conservative Media Exposure among republicans. It has a polarizing effect somewhat on par with some of the previous items we have looked out. Exposure to partisan media, at least according to the survey measures, is very low. The typical republican voter is not a regular consumer of any of the 19 consume which are dutch conservative media sources. 19 included conservative media sources. The same with democrats. The rise of partisan media may not be as much of a contributor to the polarization we have looked at. We considered some of the consequences for this growing polarization in current politics. We looked at some data from the 2010 evaluation, the government and Society Study in 2010. We looked at attitudes toward the tea parties. Looking at support for the tea party, we found the strongest predictor of Tea Party Support is basically how much you dislike democrats, controlling for other things other studies have looked at. One way to understand the tea party is, t partiers tend to be folks who dislike democrats the most. The opposite party has grown substantially over the past couple of decades. That means there is more of a market for the tea party today than there was maybe 20 years ago. There may be a market for a tea partylike movement or organization on the democratic side as well. Obviously, the negativity is maybe unnecessary, but not sufficient for that type of movement to take root. We also looked at the question, and open ended question, and asked what the tea party stands for. Democrats and Tea Party Supporters tend to offer more substantive answers, focused on economic themes. Democrats and nonsupporters tended to mention their general image along with adjectives and descriptive nouns to did not have any policy concept but were largely negative. The survey in october of 2010 also had some questions about, how do you feel about the direction of the country and how things are moving in the country . How afraid, how worried, how outraged . Did that create a motion about the country . If on the biggest predictor of that item is how much people dislike the democrats. In october of 20 time, you still had president obama in the white house and democratic majorities in the house and senate will stop when a party finds itself in the opposition across the board at the national government, there is this well feargativity, anger, and that can be mobilized. Quick, asze real allen already mentioned, there is this growing demonization of the opposite party taking place. We think there are many routes, many sources for this development, and the reasons people are increasingly likely to hold negative feelings about the opposite party. This growth in negativity means there is this growing reserve of fear, anger, and distrust among the public that the ted cruzes around theaysons world can mine for political profit. I was talking about the paper about partisan warriors in congress. I think at the mass level, the people these partisan warriors may be responding to are the folks who dislike the opposite party the most. There are political opportunities here. Politicians is if are taking their signals from that segment of the public, which says, we do not like the opposite party. We do not want to to compromise with them at all. That contributes to the crisis ,ver the Government Shutdown and these type of government crises are likely to occur in the near future as long as these high rates of negativity toward the opposite party persist. Thank you very much. Mic . D i take the handheld i am going to launch the one of my own. I do not want to hog the microphone. You have this conference every four years, right after the election. I am going to guess that new jersey and virginia get a lot of analysis every four years. I hope this is not too far off topic. As a political reporter, i am very interested in your take on what happened two days ago. In new jersey, you had governor christie shattering the gop gender gap in a solid blue state. He had 57 of the women vote, a third of democrats, a majority unioninos, and a third of voters. I wonder if his victory shows republicans a way out of the trend toward partisan polarization. Or is his model tied to him personally and not widely duplicatable, nationally or in other states . Would anyone like to try their hand at that one . That, and imp into will make a bold prediction right now, which is that Chris Christie will not be the republican nominee in 2016. I would not say it is impossible, but i think it would take an unusual set of circumstances, where you have a very divided and weak field of candidates to his right that was splitting the vote, although we have seen that play out in republican primaries. In 2016 and to be fair, kristi is not christie is not another giuliani. I see him as somewhat like Rudy Giuliani in terms of his appeal, and he was the frontrunner for the republican president ial nomination in 2007. Given where the Republican Party is now, or having to run the gauntlet of the republican of all,s in 2016, first he is going to have to reposition himself, just as john mccain and mitt romney did. Secondly, i do not think he is going to be able to do it sufficiently or successfully enough. It is hard to predict what is going to happen. I would say Chris Christie has more drive than giuliani did. Giuliani ram, but did not really give it his all. He was sort of boxed in. He chose to skip iowa, which sort of made sense. What he also skipped new hampshire, which did not. Mccain could not run a much worse campaign then giuliani did. On the other hand, the Republican Party, if anything the base is even more conservative now. The tea party was not there yet, and now it is. And the base has gotten more conservative. Going to have a lot of trouble duplicating that success. Does anybody else want to chime in . I will try. I think there are two problems with giuliani excuse me with is christies candidate. Ideologically, i do not think he will be acceptable to the conservatives in the Republican Party who dominate the primary. The second problem he faces is that he does not seem to epitomize, symbolically, what americans are looking for, like barack obama or michelle obama. Both look physically fit. I would say that is one thing he should work on. On it. S working anybody else . To be a slight doubles ,dvocate, i devils advocate the way he is different than giuliani is, he is prolife. He matches if i said to you am antiunion, prolife tom economic conservative is running for president and he won a blue state, you would say, that is Chris Christie. His issue preferences are largely there to appeal to blue voters. It is kind of the public being kind to the president when the president comes after a hurricane that he is getting trouble from people on the far right. I am not sure that stuff is durably negative toward him. In terms of his fitness, there is research that suggests people are more positive about larger people than bitter people, so i am not sure whether he should be eating more and dieting less. David, did you want to comment . The i would say that christie not to take too much from his reelection. He democrats sent this out the democratic donors, operatives. He has not had serious partisan fire directed at him yet. When he becomes a serious nominee, we will see. One followup, and then open it up to the audience. Could chanel he lost cucinelli lost. Did that signal to the Republican Party that you cannot put up a tea partyoriented campaign . Not to the Tea Party People. Reading their comments the last couple of days, they are almost all along the lines of, we were sold out by the establishment. They thought he could have one, given the close margin. Given theave won, close margin. There is no learning from that . I do not think so. I think the republicans have to learn how to woo and recruit the libertarians. The libertarian candidate was the deciding difference. There was only about a 5000 vote margin. Actually, i do not think that is true. You look at the preelection polls and the exit polls it was a protest vote, largely. Those votes would have split almost evenly. I do not think, in this case, that that was so much an ideological vote so much as it was young people and independents who did not like either candidate, which was a large group. You had a large potential pool of people to appeal to. Now, i would like to a hand is already up. I would like you to give us your name and your affiliation before your question. Thanks. I am bill colony carnally. Bill connoly. Thank you for an excellent panel. His first question is directed toward david and alan, because you both alluded to the issue. You talked about the growing intensity in the effective polarization, and the negative image of the opposite party. What extent to and i welcome the entire panel addressing the issue this is a function of the changing media environment, the greater fragmentation of the media and the capacity for us to cocoon or culdesac in our own comfort zone with particular media outlets. David, you began to touch on that. I am interested in the panel addressing that in a greater light. I think you raised a good point. I do not think our measures quite get at you are talking socialwhich is more networks and maybe who people discuss politics which i know some other folks here studied. Analyzing. Is worth i do not think we have the evidence to answer your question very well. Ok. Over here . Right here. Mve michael b from achkelbee from byu. You looked at negative movements toward the parties. I wonder if you see the same negative feelings toward the candidates. If so, why would you pick her keys rather than candidates as the major marker . For david, the one slide where you look at negative feelings over time, it looked like the negativity was more pronounced for republicans toward the Republican Party then toward the Democratic Party, in terms of change. I want to make sure i did not misread that slide. If so, why have negative feelings grown much greater toward the republicans . That it showsis the same trend, if you look at the candidate affect measures over time. They are a little more variable. Because this is the state of the parties now. [laughter] it is not the state of the candidates conference. More seriously, the parties are the longerterm they continue from election to election. That is us looking for longterm trends. You do get more fluctuation when you look at candidate affect. Some of that is candidate specific. Although of course it is strongly correlated with partisan affect. And the overall trend is definitely in the same direction. We looked at the president ial to monitor ratings and found similar the same trends alan mentioned. Askedare questions that how angry does a democratic , and thoseake you e turned it up over time trended up over time, with 2012 being the record anger and fear cycle. We found the same pattern of ratings for both democrats rating the Republican Party and republicans rating the democratic arty. On average, maybe, democratic ratings of the Republican Party are a point or so lower on average than republican ratings of the democrats, the differences are pretty small. But differences are pretty small. Up front. Thank you very much. This one is for joel. Could you identify yourself . I am a graduate student with a masters in Political Science at the university of akron. You talked about this is about polarization, after all. And you showed your information on the asian population, they seemed to trend 4243 the republicans to the democrats. That was amazing to me. And your study of that, what drove the asian population to be republicans 42 , and what drove the 43 to the democrats . How is that so different when it seems like they live in areas that are quite homogenous . Excellent question. I have a colleague that is asianamerican. He lives in an upperclass suburb on the eastside. If you look at census statistics, you find that Asian Americans are the most educated racial group in america, and they have the highest levels of education. They also have the highest levels of income. About 15,000 or more above the income for white families. I think that is a major factor. Where you stand depends upon where you sit. I think asianamericans sit very comfortably, because they work hard and they are successful. As i recall, when you presented it, you had combined data over a long time in that table. And i think i could be misleading, in the sense that i think if you look at more recent data we know what happened in the 2012 election, according to the exit polls, and i think this is true in 2008 as well. The asian vote went heavily democratic. And some of those other groups have shifted over time. The americans there has been research recently. People looked at a group of people who say i am just american. They are increasingly republican and in places like appalachia in large concentrations. That is a group that i think is trending in the opposite direction with this growing ethnic and racial heterogeneity. I think that is a very valid point. Doing the first quick and dirty cut, we did not have significant differences, and i could not present this in just one slide. I did not have time. I think that is something we need to explore, to look at changes over time. We did not see significant ones initially, but as alan points out, everything is in flux. Over here. I am from the university of texas, and i have a comment and question for the ignored paper up until now in the comments section. I thought it was ingenious of , theo show that one chart dimensional chart. I thought that really compellingly presents who is participating in the partisan debate and who is not. I wonder if you can speak a little bit to my question now, a bit of the cause and effect of that. We know they are voting less, but are they voting less because the parties are not speaking to them in a consistent way that they can engage the debate . Could you talk about the cause that affects participation in the process . They are responding to the choices that they are given. I think you particularly see this among the group we labeled as populist. Are seeingink they candidates that represent them consistently. Of all the groups we have looked at, they seem to be the ones that participate the least, not only with respect to voting, but other campaign activities. I think they look at the choices they are presented with and do not get excited about it, and are less likely to turn out as a result. For terrines are a little bit different. They tend to turn out. The populists and moderates stay away. I think they are being turned off by the choices. Democrat grassroots activist. You all study the past. I am interested in your gut feelings about the future. To happen to going break this up . Say thehe demographics democrats are going to win more votes unless Something Else happens. I am not directing this to any to anyone who wants to comment on that. Within the context of our paper, one we looked at these different dimensions, we had some evidence looking at hispanics, even the attention they have received lately. What we find is, they look like the rest of the American Public with respect to these dimensions. It is not like the democrats can say, we are going to grab the hispanics. The hispanics have diversity with respect to many different issues. Are our core issues like immigration that matter to that group probably more than a lot of other issues. But it is not something the democratic 10 Democratic Party can do to grab the diversity within those groups. I have to partially disagree with that. Hispanics, they are predominantly lower income as a group. There is certainly diversity among them. But in terms of their attitudes toward the role of government questions, government activism, health care, things like that, they are predominantly liberal. They are more diverse on social issues, but they do not vote primarily on social issues. There is no question they tend to be on the Progressive Side on the Economic Issues, and that is the way they are voting. Especially with the Republican Party moving further to the right the problem the Republican Party has is not a single, how can we appeal to hispanic voters . Immigration is only one of their problems. And the party has been moving in exactly the opposite direction, if it really wants to appeal to these nonwhite voters. Not just the africanamericans, hispanics who are definitely on the liberal side. Hispanics not as much as africanamericans, but still, they are definitely on that Progressive Side on those Economic Issues. We ended up not including the hispanic data in this paper, but i have it in the slideshow. If it is possible to get it back up. Alans intuition is right. Or at least compares two hours very similarly. The hispanic voters have been oversampled in 2012 to the left economically, and slightly conservative socially. As mike said, they are quite heterogeneous, but there is a little bit of a density in this popular area. As we look at the 2008 and 2012 study, and ask how many hispanics, or which percentage, the liberals were the Largest Group in 2008, at the moderates were in 2012. The liberal policy preferences dropped, i think, 11 . But most of that went to moderates, and not to conservatives or libertarians. I think it is a complicated perhaps picture that slightly advantages the democrats on our dimensions. Immigration probably advantages them a bit more. Ask one other comment. Comment. One other i agree with the other panelists. I do not think hispanic voters are on the horizon for the republicans, name it for the reasons stated. The was a book written by thomas and larry edsall, chain reaction. They argue basically that democratic groups are democratic because they depend more upon dornan and government services, and therefore tend to be liberals who want more government. The republicans basically are those who are less dependent upon government, and therefore see government as a vehicle of taking away their hardearned money. Mitt romney made the unfortunate comparison of the 53 versus 47 . But i think there are many republicans who see themselves as cash cows for the democrats. I do not see them going along. Inthat is definitely true terms of the way they think of themselves, that the interesting thing is that income itself is not a very good predictor of the vote. It is not that you have these affluent republicans who are concerned that the low income democrats are going to take from them. , theyou control for race relationship between Family Income and president ial vote in 2012 is about 0. 05. Among whites, it is almost nonexistent. Higher a slightly democratic vote at the very, very high and. 250,000 andgo to higher in the data. They are a little republican, but not much. Religiosity, frequent church income. Ce, outweighs low income religious whites vote heavily republican. High income secular whites vote much more democratic. I am dan oshea of colby college. This is also about the future. If polarization is being driven by attitudes towards the other party, a growing disdain for the , do you think that will eventually have an impact on housing patterns . That is to say, i would like you to weigh in on the sorting argument. I do not want to live with them. I know this is a bit offtopic. But the impact this could have, disdain for the other side, and sorting. Says bishop his findings suggest that is already happening. To some extent, at least. People are sorting geographically for a variety of reasons. Some of that probably has to do with values and lifestyle thates, and other things are correlated with party and ideology. But some of it may be exclusively political. I do not want to live in an area that is predominantly republican if i am a democrat. And vice versa if i am a republican. I think some of that is happening, certainly. Would be take not quite as negative a view as alan. I think there is some evidence of this geographic sorting, but i think people are choosing where to live based on other lifestyle choices that happened to coincide with partisanship, not partisanship being the main driving force. I think it is also easier this gets to bills question, social media and what not. People may have high disdain for the other party, but they can certainly keep it to themselves, or keep it to their own network of friends or fellow partisans if they so choose. Again, it is an excellent question. I see partisan sorting as an know, of the you kinds of sorting that bishop talks about in his book. And i think it has to do with the translation of cultural identifications into political identifications. Cultural scholars suggest three causal links. One is how we feel toward different groups in american society, whether we feel positively or negatively toward them. I did an article some years ago, showing how positive and make us of and negative reference groups influence the president ial elections. Another factor is religious belief systems. And finally, from an evolutionary or sociological or anthropological standpoint, there is a struggle for cultural dominance in america between those groups who are contending for the dominance of their preferred values and ways of life. I would quickly echo davids point about being hesitant about a correlation meaning causation in terms of this relationship will stop i think it is an interesting theoretical question. Is it like how people think about congress . They hate democrats, but the democrat may bore neighbor is ok . I think there is a difference between how people see parties and see their neighbors. That is wrapped up in where your kids go to school, where your job is, whether you like old or new homes. There is something to that. At the same time, it is probably more of a factor in terms of shuffle. That is having a bigger impact on how people interact, and who they talk to about politics, especially. If you have friends, neighbors, and coworkers who support the other party, you may still be friends, and you are kind of stuck with being neighbors and coworkers unless you move or change your job, you do not talk about politics with them anymore. I think people increasingly talk about politics and use social media to interact with other people who share especially people who care about politics. The more you care about politics, the more that is true. Franklin is sitting over there, and the surveys he did in wisconsin before the recall included the question, did you stop talking with somebody because of their views on the recall . I want to say 20 a third folks about to politics in that highly contentious episode where i work. Are wanted to Say Something for the bishop book. Ron rappaport, william and mary. Bishop had a really adjusting point on this. The oecd countries, americans were the most likely to talk about politics. There were the least likely to talk about politics with people with whom they disagreed. That follows up with what you guys were saying. Bishop, eight years ago, or whenever he wrote the book. Wrong, as usual, jump ahead of me while still sitting down. I am paul beck, from ohio state university. The comment is, we have done National Studies National Surveys in this country and 20 other countries around the world, asking about discussion networks. Americans are the ones most likely to talk only to people they agree with, and that has increased over time. Americans are more polarized than people in any of these other societies, along the lines the panel has, i think very nicely, commented on. I question to my cquestion to whitesour result that who live in the most diverse counties are the most likely to vote republican or be republican. I can see that in cities in the south quite well, and some of the most diverse counties in the country are these black belt from the rural south and maybe the suburban south. Does it hold in the north as well . I think of places you think of new york city. A very diverse series of counties. And yet whites were overwhelmingly voting democratic there, and probably did for president as well. Does it extend beyond the south . Is it the south driving that . Maybe a broader point to make is, one of the things i think we are seeing here is a southernization of the Republican Party. I think i have read that half the republicans in congress represent southern districts. So we are seeing that as a powerful driver. It extends to the rest of the country, but is the driver of the south. Actor the question of most diverse counties. That is an outstanding question. We have explored it fairly extensively. Initially, we were concerned that this might be a southern phenomenon. That is why we them then ti ered the racial context variable. Initially, we had it less than 60 , and 90 and over. Whether you tier it by percentage white or this index of racial and ethnic fragmentation, you have this middle segment, this 50 , whose racial and ethnic identities are activated by racial context as well. It is not just in the south. There is sort of a continuum from the Southern States to the central midwestern states like ohio, going to upper midwestern states like minnesota, where i come from, where my cousin vote race ismocratic, and not an issue in states like minnesota, vermont, and maine. It is somewhat of an issue in ohio, central midwestern states, and the further south you go, the more it becomes an issue, both in the southwest and in the southeast. Thank you. Suffolk university. The question primarily for David Campbell kimball. I think you were saying the two dimensional alignment that michael and michael talked about was declining over time, and attributing it to party queuing and opinion formation, which you can see in other areas. Republicans like to talk about how democrats are defending obama for things they attacked bush for, like spying. Is that what you are saying . I would like to ask ensley and wagner to react. Are we getting back to people lining up by what their party tells them . Thanks for the question. We did not try to map out the politicssional view of like michael and michael did. We examined issues separately. Lookedaditionalism, we at, as more on the social dimension. The gala terry and his and is more on the economic dimension, egalitarianism is more on the economic dimension, compared to their work. We found the increasing dislike of the opposite party. I cannot really say. Asbasically treated ideology one dimension when we tried to control for it in our study. We did not do as fair a job, trying to look at the one dimensional nature of policy preferences in that way. I think mike can look at this if he agrees. He can certainly add to it if he disagrees as well. We way we look at it examine party attitudes and feelings are monitors and other work we have done. It is the people who look like they are divided along one dimension who are having the greatest expansion in likes and dislikes of the party. Just like the conservatives and liberals in the electorate. Electedo behave like lawmakers, who are divided along the same dimension. Folks along the diagonal are the ones who are not dividing. They are the smaller bars in the middle of the figures, in our view. That would be our answer to that. I do not find, at least when i look at the data, that the issues are becoming more strongly correlated. It does not bear out. Samedo not ask the questions every year, so you have to make some assumptions. But overall, i do not see a trend they are becoming more strongly correlated. What we find is david, for example, started with a graphic. There is growth in the data about who controls the residency. We find that concentrated among liberals and conservatives. Same thing with partisan identification. All three heterodox groups are in the middle overall in average. The liberals and conservatives have polarized, whether it is affect, identification, voting behavior. Those groups, which make up 45 to 50 of the electorate are really driving the change, and the others are sort of caught in the middle. Evidence that they are more correlated, if you look at, for example, opinions on abortion. Look at the correlation between that and ideological identification, or that and Economic Issues that have been asked. It is definitely becoming more correlated. The correlations are modest compared with the correlations of nonEconomic Issues, that there is an increase, increasingly correlated with partisanship. Artisan ship is correlated with economic and cultural issues. The people in the diagonal boxes the other thing about them is, they are less involved in politics altogether. The more consistent you are in your opinions overall, within domains and across domains, the more involved you are. The more interested you are. And the more you vote. Part of what is going on we do not know. Are they less involved and interested because they do not like what the parties are offering . Or are they less interested and involved because they do not care about politics, and they are not picking up in the qs . And they are not aware of what these parties stand for and that these issues go together now . I think the people involved in politics are more aware that if you are liberal on this, you are supposed to be liberal on that as well. They have more consistent opinions. There is a strong relationship between Political Engagement and consistency of opinions across issues. I have one response to that. In terms of participation, the populists are less active than others, that that is not true of the libertarians. It is interesting to point out that ross perot, who did very well for a thirdparty candidate, drew from that group. Clinton drew well from the libertarians. If you look at the support the democrats have gotten over time, they are getting significant support compared to moderates populists to libertarians from libertarians. I find that fairly significant. Let me add one thing. In thinking about this more, the three core values we looked at have become more correlated over time, with partisanship and ideology. It is the same point. We measure it different ways than michael and michael do. Right dimension is offering more purchase in expanding explaining Public Opinion now than it used to do. Correlatedecome more with partisanship. It is a question of whether the core values become more correlated. That is what i do not necessarily see happening. Right here. Thank you. , a states bill bing emeritus and contingent worker. Is about ohio, since we are talking about going forward. And the libertarians, which might be or came arcane, but you brought the word of a couple of times. And you brought the tea party up. An idea seems to be percolating you probably know that did an end run around his Republican Legislature to impose the medicaid expansion, which is of course obamacare, which is maybe the most disliked policy by the Tea Party People. And they have said i do not know who they are. I do not know who the tea party is. When i meet a tea party person in ohio at republican dinners, there is only one person. There is not anybody behind them. I do not see an organization or party structure. , thei am interested in is libertarians are going to nominate, i guess, a legitimate a qualified candidate. He is a former Government Republican house member in the ohio house of representatives. It is not just some novice. He has got some kind of political skills. So, he is going to run, apparently. Republicans passed a law just today, yesterday, nikki it very hard for third parties to get on the ballot. The kaic reelection icick kasick reelection bill. People who have conservative views on economics and liberal views on social issues. You are describing a philosophical group. They are preferences. People have those views. Alaney migrate to a was very dismissive of the as arians in virginia i am not sure that the tea party and libertarian are but the tea party in ohio the problem i have is i dont know. Straighten them out. The tea party in ohio, trying to figure out who they are, who their leaders are. The most vocal ones who get their names in a newspaper, they say they are not acting governor kasich. They are going to back the libertarian candidate, the cathay are not going to go through, or do not want to go through to actually create a tea party party. I have a hard time with students explaining the tea party is not a party. It was an event. , named an Interest Group after. I am curious, and i think we are going to be curious, in the gubernatorial election. Because i think this is going to be a critical part of this election, this libertarian. And maybe he is running as a spoiler. I am going to finish. I do not know if i have a question you can help me answer. But they asked a guy you electing aed democrat. The libertarian said, so what . He could be seen as a spoiler. I guess i am wondering whether the libertarian this goes more to all of you. A libertarian actually draw a vote . It is a label. It has a philosophical meaning. People who had voted republican no longer see the Republicans Holding the values, and are going to move to the other party, despite the idea that we are going to get down to the last week and do not want to waste our vote. Is there Something Different going on with the libertarians and the tea party, and virginia . I am wondering whether you could enlighten us ohio people as to what we are going to be in for in this election. Of course, all the news people love it, the political people, and the democrats love it, because they think this is certainly a way for john kasich to fall. My impression is they are going to protect him and he does not have to worry about it. Word, maybe barely. The tea party is a more diffuse group then i think the news media give them credit for. We think a lot of times about their most prominent failures, like Sharron Angle in nevada, or like in delaware. They had some pretty high profile failures. But they also had quite a bit of success running to the right in primaries and winning general elections. To the extent that they libertarian label is appealing to people, for some people, but not nearly enough to win an election. For truebelieving candidates and voters, what do they care if they democrat or republican wins . It is not what they want. That small segment, i think, do not mind so much that they are spoiling the election for the group closer to their economic groups economic views. For the tea party, i did not get to show the table because i droned on too long, but we looked at the five ideological groups and their approval for the tea party, and none of them crested the midpoint, even conservatives. There are enough tea Party Lawmakers that i think they can play an Important Role in how government occurs in the country. That does not help on ohio, but that is all i have got. Iie still have time . I think one reason john kasich opted for a federal medicaid subsidy is that one third of our state budget goes to medicaid expenses. The other aspect of your question is equally good. What is a libertarian . My son is a libertarian. Someone who wants Less Government on every issue domain. What . He is not that. Four issues civil rights issues, sociocultural issues. Libertarians are different from tea partiers. They want Less Government on all domains. They do not want government to intervene. But there are not many people like that. The data, support for the tea party is correlated with conservatism across all issue domains. Are more supporters conservative on Economic Issues. That is the strongest. But they are also more conservative on social issues. Policyot look at foreign issues, but i would suspect that as well. But generally, conservatives want government to intervene on sociocultural dimensions to establish normality. Libertarians are not concerned about that. They are concerned about liberty. Government intrusion means a loss of liberty. The social dimension is one that is interested right now. This is another area where i think republicans are going to face a growing challenge. The electorate is clearly trending in a liberal direction on social issues. Some social issues, gay marriage being the obvious one, but also the legalization of marijuana. There is a dramatic change on that as well. It is going to be interesting to watch the vote in the senate today on the nondiscrimination bill, and see what happens to that in the house as well. I think it will pass the senate. It will get a fair number of republican votes in the senate. But i do not think it is going anywhere in the house. I was not kidding, in terms of a lot of the younger people who talk about being libertarians. It is not a liberal issue. It may not be the tea party. Young people in general tend to be more liberal, though. On economic as well as i was just making the point that that is an attractive part of their agenda. A little bit of time left. In the back . I am a local citizen. I have read that congress is actually more ideologically polarized than the electorate is. Have you seen that borne out in the data at all . If so, why do you think that is . Is it a selfselecting, the open primaries, or gerrymandering, which i have not heard us talk about yet today . Congress is definitely more polarized than the public is. Nobody is disputing that, i dont think. The debate in the Political Science literature is whether the public has become more polarized as congress has become more polarized as well. I think it clearly has. They are more polarized. You look at the way they are selected, and what it takes to be a member of congress. Look at the makeup of the districts, and even states now. There has been a big increase in the number of one party dominated districts, and even one party of dominated states. When you get elected from one of those states or districts, you are not worried about competition in the general election. You are worrying about the primary electorate. The primary electorates are definitely much more polarized. Say s just going to ron rappaport, william and mary. Just a little teaser for our paper this afternoon. We look at people who are subscribers to freedom works, which is the largest Tea Party Membership group at least. They went very heavily for romney. The more active they were for the tea party endorsed candidates in the primaries, the more they went for romney. I think the dislike of the other party drives this a lot. And the dislike obama. Of obama. I do not see this move away to a third party. A few people might say it, but i do not see that. Aboutthere was this talk when the senator from ohio portman . Portman on gay marriage. The Tea Party People were going to, in a sense, go against him. Look at the Tea Party Leaders in congress. Who have been the most prominent leaders of the tea party in congress, people like Michele Bachmann and jim demint, who is now at the heritage foundation, ted cruz . They are all social conservatives. They are all prolife and anti gay rights. I do not see any evidence that they are libertarians. Even rand paul, who kind of floats with libertarianism on social issues, hes very conservative. He is not a libertarian. He is pseudolibertarian. One more. Anybody . I was hoping i would get a chance i am from the university of akron. This question is for alan. Basically, you were talking libertariansthe are the available voters. In thes a 15 group data. 15 that were basically targetable, that could move up or down. That was in your slide. I do not think there is a 15 libertarian cohort out there. That might be the first paper. I do not think it was my paper. I will try to talk to you about it later. I am curious about the role of money. We have had unprecedented money flowing into politics outside money, money to candidates. Talking about the future, does this make it impossible to move away from this intense polarization . I mean, it just magnifies everything. Look at the right. Predominantly antiobama. The money is being spent predominantly on negative ads, on attack ads. Breakdown of positive versus negative advertising. In 2012, it was pretty for themingly negative candidatesponsored ads as well as the outside groups. At the outside groups were really negative. That is just about all they do, is put on attack ads. Being subjected to this intense negative barrage i guess they canceled each other out. There were candidates who were easy to attack. It was just a mudslinging contest. Sliced liffe had had twice as much money as cuccinelli. That cap is saying, if republican donors had come through for us, we could have swung more mud and maybe won the race. This goes back to the question earlier about polarization. It is not just outside money from these groups. It is also the candidates, and how they have to raise a lot of money in small contributions. I have to go to individual voters or citizens who are willing to give 1000 at a time. It is liberals and conservatives who want to give. That reinforces the pattern. Ok. We are right at noon. Can i add one thing to that . I think on the big outside money, independent expenditure you have to look at the needs and wants of donors. That is not something i know about. The countervailing force is raising money. There is some evidence that fear or anger and threats are more successful at motivating individuals to give money. So it is no surprise that politicians like Michele Bachmann have been very successful fundraisers in congress, for that reason. But at a certain point, its sort of is throwing good money after bad, right . Ultimately, and the president ial election, they cancel each other out. When you are both spending millions of dollars. Iowa is a swing state. Both parties are spending tens of millions of dollars and saturating the airwaves. They are canceling each other out, it is not doing anything. Ok. Great for television stations. Before we think the panel for that discussion, i have a couple announcements to make. Break we will take a for a few minutes. Those of you who are signed up for lunch will have lunch next door. Right in the room through the wall,