Closely and deeply divided: Purple counties in the 2016 presidential election

Kinsella, Chad; McTague, Colleen; Raleigh, Kevin N.

doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102386

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surely it is fallacious to assume that swing voting blocs reside in a county because it has been closely divided between major candidates in previous elections. It is at least equally plausible to presume that such locations are divided by two equally sized and intense partisan groups, as shown by recent research (Kinsella, McTague, and Raleigh 2021).…”

Section: Bellwethers and Swing Votersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reconsidering Bellwether Locations in U.S. Presidential Elections

Gimpel¹,

Reeves²,

Trende³

2022

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the notion of a “bellwether” location in the electoral political context. Bellwethers are thought to have predictive power because they supposedly signal how the entire electorate will move on election day. We consider how the number of bellwether counties—defined in several ways—has fluctuated since the 1930s. We also explore the extent to which bellwethers successfully predict future elections. With the proliferation of geographic polarization, few counties can successively and successfully pick the winner of presidential elections. Other bellwether measures fare slightly better or worse, but as Tufte and Sun (1975) found nearly half a century ago, bellwethers today continue to be poor predictors of future performance.

show abstract

Section: Bellwethers and Swing Votersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reconsidering Bellwether Locations in U.S. Presidential Elections

Gimpel¹,

Reeves²,

Trende³

2022

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite partisans sharing interests in common [94], they are physically isolated from each other in many ways: they frequent different restaurants, work in different careers [95], and are less likely to marry each other [126]. The extent to which geographical sorting (political opponents living in politically homogeneous communities) is occurring is a point of contention amongst political scientists [68][69][70]72,[127][128][129][130], but more than half of Republicans and Democrats have "just a few" or "no" close friends who are members of the opposing party, and the absence of cross-party friendships is correlated with hatred for the outgroup [29]. Contact 14 theory [109] suggests that providing individuals with opportunities to interact with members of opposing groups may remedy negative animus.…”

Section: Fostering Positive Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising partisan animosity is linked to less support for democracy and more support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to improve partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework for the three levels of interventions-Thoughts (correcting misconceptions, highlighting commonalities), Relationships (building dialogue skills, fostering positive contact), and Institutions (changing public discourse, transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects, as well as real-world interventions led by practitioners in nonprofit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.

show abstract

Section: Fostering Positive Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to Reduce Partisan Animosity

Hartman¹,

Blakey²,

Womick³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising partisan animosity is linked to less support for democracy and more support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to improve partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework for the three levels of interventions—Thoughts (correcting misconceptions, highlighting commonalities), Relationships (building dialogue skills, fostering positive contact), and Institutions (changing public discourse, transforming political structures)—and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects, as well as real-world interventions led by practitioners in nonprofit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.

show abstract

Closely and deeply divided: Purple counties in the 2016 presidential election

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

Reconsidering Bellwether Locations in U.S. Presidential Elections

Reconsidering Bellwether Locations in U.S. Presidential Elections

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

Interventions to Reduce Partisan Animosity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About