Divisions in the Big Tent: Group Sentiments and Candidate Preferences within the Democratic Party

Abstract

Work in political psychology has found that the two major political parties are sorted based on individual’s group attachments. This sorting has resulted in the Democratic Party’s electorate and elites being made up of members from various racial, religious, and social groups. Given this heterogeneity, how do social group identities impact voter preferences in the Democratic primary? Based on social identity theory, I hypothesize that an individual’s feelings toward racial or gender groups should be associated with their candidate preference in the primary election, but only when a candidate’s group identities are known. Using the 2018 American National Elections Studies (ANES) pilot and a nationally diverse survey of 2020 Democratic primary voters, I find that the strength of sentiments toward racial or gender identities is associated with candidate preference and this association is conditioned by the ability to link the candidates to racial or gender groups. This paper shows that the effects of group identity extend beyond simply sorting individuals into one of the two major parties and have the potential to create group-based divisions within the “big tent” of the Democratic Party.

Keywords

Social identity voting behavior social groups group identity Democratic Party

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. I.

(1989). Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. The Journal of Politics, 51(4), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131544

Abramowitz

(2018). The great alignment: Race, party transformation, and the rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press.

Achen

C. H.

Bartels

L. M.

(2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/olemiss/detail.action?docID=4398651 (accessed 21 October 2019).

Ansolabehere

Rodden

Snyder

J. M.

(2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080210

Banducci

S. A.

Karp

J. A.

Thrasher

Rallings

(2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00672.x

Barreto

M. A.

Segura

G. M.

Woods

N. D.

(2004). The mobilizing effect of majority–minority districts on Latino turnout. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001005

Bawn

Cohen

Karol

Masket

Noel

Zaller

(2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592712001624

Brader

Tucker

J. A.

Therriault

(2014). Cross pressure scores: An individual-level measure of cumulative partisan pressures arising from social group memberships. Political Behavior, 36(1), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9222-8

Brewer

M. B.

Pierce

K. P.

(2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710

10.

Campbell

Converse

P. E.

Miller

W. E.

Stokes

D. E.

(1960). The American voter. John Wiley.

11.

Cohen

Karol

Noel

Zaller

(2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.

12.

Cohen

Karol

Noel

Zaller

(2016). Party versus faction in the reformed presidential nominating system. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096516001682

13.

Converse

P. E.

(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent, 18(1–3), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650

14.

Dawson

(1994). Behind the mule. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691025438/behind-the-mule (accessed 5 October 2021).

15.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of Democracy. Harper.

16.

Enders

A. M.

(2019). A matter of principle? On the relationship between racial resentment and ideology. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09561-w (accessed March 16 2020).

17.

Enders

A. M.

Scott

J. S.

(2019). The increasing racialization of American electoral politics, 1988-2016. American Politics Research, 47(2), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18755654

18.

Fiorina

M. P.

(1978). Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: A micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110623

19.

Fowler

(2020). Partisan intoxication or policy voting? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 141–179. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018027a

20.

Gay

(2001). The effect of Black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401003021

21.

Giles

M. W.

Evans

A. S.

(1985). External threat, perceived threat, and group identity. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press, 66(1), 50–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42861853

22.

Gramlich

(2020). What the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and religion. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/ (accessed 19 October 2021).

23.

Granberg

Brent

(1980). Perceptions of issue positions of presidential candidates: Candidates are often perceived by their supporters as holding positions on the issues that are closer to the supporters’ views than they really are. American Scientist, 68(6), 617–625. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27850130

24.

Green

D. P.

Bradley

Schickler

(2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.

25.

Hassell

H. J. G.

(2018). The party’s primary: Control of congressional nominations. Cambridge University Press.

26.

Henderson-King

D. H.

Stewart

A. J.

(1994). Women or feminists? Assessing women’s group consciousness. Sex Roles, 31(9), 505. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01544276

27.

Hickey

R. S. W.

(2019). There are just 6 weeks until the first primary. Here’s where the democratic contenders stand based on gender, race, age, and geography. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-candidates-poll-age-gender-race-region-politics-2019 (accessed 19 October 2021).

28.

Hillygus

D. S.

Shields

T. G.

(2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton University Press.

29.

Huddy

Carey

T. E.

(2009). Group politics redux: Race and gender in the 2008 democratic presidential primaries. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x09000063

30.

Huddy

Mason

Aarøe

(2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000604

31.

Jardina

(2019). White identity politics. CambridgeUniversity Press.

32.

Kam

C. D.

Zechmeister

E. J.

(2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12034

33.

Kane

J. V.

Mason

Wronski

(2021). Who’s at the party? Group sentiments, knowledge, and partisan identity. The Journal of Politics. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715072 (accessed 17 August 2021).

34.

Key

V. O.

Cummings

M. C.

(1966). The responsible electorate; rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

35.

King

D. C.

Matland

R. E.

(2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31(6), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x03255286

36.

Koger

Masket

Noel

(2010). Cooperative party factions in American politics. American Politics Research, 38(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x09353509

37.

Lau

R. R.

Redlawsk

D. P.

(2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334

38.

Lipset

S. M.

(1960). Political man: The social bases of politics (1st ed.). Doubleday.

39.

Masket

S. E.

(2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. University of Michigan Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/olemiss/detail.action?docID=3414515 (accessed 15 September 2019).

40.

Masket

(2020). Learning from loss: The Democrats, 2016–2020. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/learning-from-loss/84FBCDB9534B3F80C26C2CAE672951CE (accessed 17 August 2021).

41.

Mason

(2015). I disrespectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089

42.

Mason

(2016). A cross-cutting calm. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001

43.

Mason

(2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. The University of Chicago Press.

44.

Mason

Wronski

(2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group Attachments strengthen partisanship: One tribe to bind them all. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12485

45.

Matson

Fine

T. S.

(2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000600600103

46.

Miller

A. H.

Gurin

Malanchuk

(1981). “Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110816

47.

Miller

A. H.

Wlezien

Hildreth

(1991). A reference group theory of partisan coalitions. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1134–1149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131871

48.

Mirhosseini

M. R.

(2015). Primaries with strategic voters: Trading off electability and ideology. Social Choice and Welfare, 44(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-014-0845-4

49.

Nadeau

Lewis-Beck

M. S.

(2001). National economic voting in U.S. Presidential elections. The Journal of Politics, 63(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00063

50.

Noel

(2016). “Ideological factions in the republican and democratic parties” Ed. Larry M. Bartels. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662433

51.

Olivola

C. Y.

Todorov

(2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of nonverbal behavior, 34(2), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1

52.

Orr

L. V.

Huber

G. A.

(2019). The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States. American Journal of Political Science: Ajps, 64(3), 569. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12498

53.

Petrow

G. A.

Transue

J. E.

Vercellotti

(2018). Do white in-group processes matter, too? White racial identity and support for Black political candidates. Political Behavior, 40(1), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9422-8

54.

Pew Research Center . (2018). Trends in party Affiliation among Demographic groups. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ (accessed 31 August 2021).

55.

Powell

G. B.

(1976). Political cleavage structure, cross-pressure processes, and partisanship: An empirical test of the theory. American Journal of Political Science, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110506

56.

Rickershauser

Aldrich

J. H.

(2007). It’s the electability, stupid’ − or maybe not? Electability, substance, and strategic voting in presidential primaries. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003

57.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_01

58.

Schildkraut

(2015). White attitudes about descriptive representation in the US: The roles of identity, discrimination, and linked fate. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1089296

59.

Shephard

Johns

(2008). Candidate image and electoral preference in britain. British Politics, 3(3), 324–349. https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2008.8

60.

Simas

E. N.

(2017). The effects of electability on US primary voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2016.1270287

61.

Stokes‐Brown

Dolan

(2010). Race, gender, and symbolic representation: African American female candidates as mobilizing agents. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 20(4), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2010.511806

62.

Tajfel

(1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x

63.

Tesler

(2013). The return of old-fashioned racism to White Americans’ partisan preferences in the early Obama era. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000904

64.

Turner

J. C.

Brown

R. J.

Tajfel

(1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420090207

65.

Webster

S. W.

Pierce

A. W.

(2019). Older, younger, or more similar? The use of age as a voting heuristic. Social Science Quarterly, 100(3), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12604

66.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.

67.

Zaller

Feldman

(1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111583

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB