Wallace's Political Party Case Study

The authors lay out their John Q. Public model in the Second Chapter. The first pragmatic chapters stipulate evidence using response time-based measures that people constantly engage in stimulated cognition about political figures, issues, and groups (Chapter 3). In Chapter 4, Lodge and Taber argue that these processes influence implicit in and out group identifications. Furthermore, they demonstrate that subliminal negative or positive emotional stimuli can influence a political candidate’s evaluation and conscious reflection on the real political issues (Chapter 5). Lodge and Taber argue that their findings conquer with their proposed “affective contagion” model that is instrumental to the attitude formation and updating process. The authors then provide evidence that individuals’ priorities determine how they select and process information. The conventional studies presented in the Sixth Chapter employ unequivocal measures and thought listing tasks. The chapter finds steady patterns of motivated reasoning among people and sophisticates with strong initial attitudes. The patterns include confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, and selective exposure; these are further motivated in the Seventh Chapter of the book. Lodge and Taber’s Final Chapter offer an ambitious attempt to formalize and test a computational model based on their JQP model. In their conclusion, the

Many critics classify the 1960’s as the decade of urban uprising and political shifts in the United States. Controversy surrounded these changes whether they were good or bad for the nation and leaving many Americans questioning the power of urban and political movements. In the excerpt “Triumph of the Left: Sixties Revolution and The Revolution in Manners” Kenneth Cmiel from the University of Iowa shows how the era of the sixties altered and affected the morals of many Americans when they encountered discrimination, hatred, and inequality. Along with that, Dan T. Carter carefully analyzes the political outcomes of the Presidential campaign of the 1960’s and it’s victory in the excerpt “Triumph of the Right: George Wallace, Richard Nixon, and the Critique of Federal Activism.” While many still argue that both of the tumultuous decade’s social movements harmed the way the United Sates functions today, it also evidently shows to be victorious due to its liberal changes that alters the ways Americans live and perform then and now. Both Cmiel and Carter support their positions with evidence that demonstrates that both urban uprising and political shifts successfully depart the nation from falling into conservative circumstances. Not only do both triumphs succeed, but they also open up doors for economic and political opportunities in the United States.

Watson’s focus on political parties, chapter 6, is an important part of this book. Not only does it support his argument, but it also gives the reader

There were many political disputes that happened in the United States. Many people were fighting over which party they should go to or which one was better. They had the Republicans and the Federalists who wanted to sway the vote to their side. They opposed each other and disputed against each other. This caused many conflicts in the United States.

Drew Weston explains how the way the brain works affects we think about, receive and use political information. For example, Weston explains how people react differently when viewing their own party’s candidates as opposed to those from the other party. When people see their party’s candidate, the part of their brain that is activated is the part that has been shown to be active when people see things related to themselves. When viewing images of the opposing party’s candidate, parts of the brain involved in negative reactions are activated. This information can be used to create campaigns that activate particular emotional responses in voters. Weston also describes how Republicans and Democrats tend to appeal to different parts of the brain.

The election of the 1800 was considered to be one of the dirtiest elections. There were four people running for presidency in the 1800 election. There were two main political parties running against each other, the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. In the Federalist parties, there was John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were the nominated candidates in the Democratic Republican party. Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the High Federalists. Both Hamilton and Adams did not like each other. This led to the Federalists party to divide into two groups, the ones who supported Hamilton and the ones who supported Adams.

The article by Huddy, Mason and Aaroe centers around partisanship, and specifically which approach, of expressive and instrumental, affects campaign involvement more. It looks at four studies comparing these models and how different stimuli affected different people in regard to their emotional and physical support of their party.

Whereas a strongly conservatives averaged neutral on Ingroup / loyalty statements, while agreeing with fairness / Reciprocity, Harm / Care and Purity / Sanctity and strongly agreeing with Authority / Respect(Graham, Haidt and Nosek 2009).

In the heat of the presidential race, liberal and conservative stereotypes have been pinned on anyone who dares to openly lean left or right. While I realize that political stereotypes are less malicious than other stereotypes, they are still corrosive. What’s more, they fuel the virulence of this epidemic. It is all too easy to say, “She is a liberal, so she must support XYZ.” Realistically, no person should ever affiliate wholly with one party: in fact, those who do are most likely sorely under-informed or brainwashed by the ideas of others. One of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, realized the inevitability of multiple factions, saying, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” If we all waited to find a faction that fit our every belief, nobody would affiliate with the left or the right. So when someone describes himself as a democrat or a republican, let’s not assume that he adheres to every belief of his party — for doing so is just another way to accrue missed opportunities for open

Today, the majority of self-identified Democrats or Republicans adhere to an ideological stance that their party proclaims -- they are the straight-ticket voters. At the same time, growing numbers of voters proclaim themselves “independent,” which implies that you vote based on educated judgments about the candidates. This new group of voters has created the “negative partisanship” phenomenon and caused “voters [to] form strong loyalties based more on loathing for the opposing party than on the old kind of tribal loyalty” (Chait).

This research investigates how the process of party identification is influenced when a candidate chooses to identify with his or her party and how. It will also discuss the theories of party identification and how they explain it among political candidates. Currently, party identification is still the most compelling explanation that informs voters’ choice. It is agreed that the electorate vote is based on their party identification. While this remains a controversial topic, it

Those who identify as either a Democrat or Republican view the other party through a negative lens. For example, Badger and Choksi concluded that individuals who affiliated with one of the two parties perceive that the “opposing party isn’t just misguided,

Throughout United States history, it has been subjected to many different political parties from different time periods. From Federalists to Democrats, many of these parties were of different background, and had many different reasons for developing, and goals that they wanted to accomplish. Federalists wanted a strong central government, Anti-federalists did not. Republicans were for the freedom of slaves in southern states, while Democrats were pro-slavery. Every one of these parties helped shape and change the United States in several different ways. They were all different when compared to each other, some more than most. Even though they

In Table 1 of Abramowitz essay there is an evident difference between people who favored certain issues pushed by each candidate. In 2012 the two candidates running for president were very different. Barack Obama was the Liberal Democratic Candidate, while Mitt Romney was the Conservative Republican Candidate. Their views on several issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, health-care law, and etc, differed significantly. The US electorate was forced to choose between these two candidates that had significantly different views on society, either religious, cultural, or idealogical. This table shows a notable difference in the people who voted for each candidate

Thus, it is difficult to find a position in which Donald Trump would hold on consistently, which implies that voters only voted for Donald Trump based on his party affiliation and the voter’s party identification since voters often have trouble detailing specific policies of the party in which they identified as a member of. Consequently, party identification, in the sense of self-identification, as opposed to party identification based on ideological stances, has major influence on the voting choice of a particular voter.