Both the Republican and Democratic parties are internally divided. Each contains a party regular wing, which is interested in winning office and in the compromises necessary to govern. And each contains an ideological wing, which is interested in close adherence to the core coalition of the party. But the nature of the cleavage is very different within the parties. Among Democrats, the cleavage is mild, with most members belonging to the party regular camp, to the chagrin of ideologues, who are for the most part Bernie Sanders supporters. The cleavage among Republicans, though, is so deep that the party could not find a way to bridge it in the so-called invisible primary for 2016, creating an opening for Donald Trump, who is from neither camp.
AbramowitzAlan. 2010. The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzAlanSaundersKyle. 2005. Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum3 (2). doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1076.
3.
AhlerDouglas J.BroockmanDavid E.2016. Does elite polarization imply poor representation?A new perspective on the “disconnect” between politicians and voters. Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
4.
AldrichJohn. 1995. Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BawnKathleen. 1999. Constructing “us”: Ideology, coalition politics, and false consciousness. American Journal of Political Science43 (2): 303–34.
7.
BawnKathleenBrownKnoxOcampoAngelaPattersonShawnRayJohnZallerJohn. 2015. Social choice and coordination problems in open house primaries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
8.
BawnKathleenNoelHans. 2007. Long coalitions under electoral uncertainty: The electoral origins of political parties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.
9.
BawnKathleenRosenbluthFrancis. 2006. Short versus long coalitions: Electoral accountability and the size of the public sector. American Journal of Political Science50 (2): 251–65.
10.
BawnKathleenCohenMartyKarolDavidMasketSethNoelHansZallerJohn R.2012. A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics10 (3): 571–97.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
ConversePhilip. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. ApterDavid, 206–61. New York, NY: Free Press.
14.
EllisChristopherStimsonJames A.2012. Ideology in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FeinsteinBrianSchicklerEric. 2008. Platforms and partners: The civil rights realignment reconsidered. Studies in American Political Development22:1–31.
16.
FeinsteinBrianSchicklerEricPearsonKathryn. 2010. Congressional parties and civil rights politics from 1933 to 1972. Journal of Politics72 (3): 672–89.
17.
FiorinaMorris P.2005. Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
18.
HopkinsDan. 2016. Clinton voters like Obama more than Sanders supporters do. FiveThirtyEight. Available from http://fivethirtyeight.com.
19.
JacobsonGary. 2006. Disconnected or joined at the hip (Comment on Morris P. Fiorina and Matthew S. Levandusky’s “Disconnected: The Political Class vs. the People”). In Red and blue nation?vol. 1, eds. NivolaPietro S.BradyDavid W., 85–95. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institutions.
20.
KarolDavid. 2009. Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.Forthcoming. Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
LaymanGeoffrey C.CarseyThomas M.GreenJohn C.HerreraRichardCoopermanRosalyn. 2010. Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review104 (2): 324–46.
23.
LevenduskyMatt. 2009. The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and how conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MannThomas E.OrnsteinNorman J.2012. It’s even worse than it looks. New York, NY: Basic Books.
25.
MasketSeth. 2009. No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
26.
NoelHans. 2012. The coalition merchants: The ideological roots of the civil rights realignment. Journal of Politics74 (1): 156–73.
27.
NoelHans. 2013. Political ideologies and political parties in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
NoelHans. 2014. Separating ideology from party in roll call data. Working Paper, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
29.
PolsbyNelson W.WildavskyAaron B.1968. Presidential elections: Strategies of American electoral politics. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
30.
PooleKeithRosenthalHowardHareChristopher. 2015. House: Vote on clean DHS funding bill. Voteview Blog. Available from https://voteviewblog.wordpress.com.
31.
SchicklerEric. 2016. Racial realignment: The transformation of American liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
SchwartzThomas. 1989. Why parties? Research memorandum. Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
33.
YglesiasMatthew. 2016a. How Bernie Sanders convinced me about free college. Vox. Available from http://www.vox.com.
34.
YglesiasMatthew. 2016b. There’s a big problem with Bernie Sanders’s free college plan. Vox. Available from http://www.vox.com.
