Party Animals of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Political Cartoon Representations of the Republican and Democratic Parties

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 600-610
Author(s):  
Joan L. Conners

This analysis of political cartoon coverage of the 2016 presidential primaries found considerable attention given to the political parties themselves, as well as issues, and controversies the parties were facing. In political cartoons, the Republican and Democratic parties were usually reflected in animal representations of the elephant and donkey. A qualitative textual analysis of cartoon images from U.S. newspapers found a number of themes emerged in 2016 with regard to the party animals: Both parties were portrayed expressing reluctance or hesitancy in their party’s nominee, the Republican Party in particular was represented as helpless to stop the political success that Donald Trump saw in the primaries, and the Democratic Party was portrayed as divided between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. These themes found in political cartoon images suggest how the two dominant political parties operate in electoral politics today.

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (02) ◽  
pp. 351-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Dyck ◽  
Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz ◽  
Michael Coates

ABSTRACTDonald Trump dominated the 2016 Republican primary despite the fact that he was not, in any meaningful sense, a Republican. Bernie Sanders came just shy of winning the Democratic nomination despite the fact that he switched his party affiliation from Independent to Democrat only three months before the election. Why did two candidates with no formal ties to the political parties fare so well? One possibility is that primary voters are more ideologically extreme and that ideology drives support for these candidates. However, another possibility is that concerns about government process drives support for insurgent candidates. We test the proposition that distrust was the primary motivator of primary voting for these two insurgent candidates using two datasets: a poll of New Hampshire voters fielded a week before their primary and a national poll taken in June 2016. Results confirm the hypothesis that distrust drove intraparty vote choice in the 2016 presidential primaries.


1971 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 716-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nexon

By means of the Survey Research Center's national public opinion polls of the electorate during the 1956, 1960, and 1964 elections, the opinions of volunteer activists in the Republican and Democratic Parties were compared to those of rank and file members. On issues that divided rank and file Republicans from rank and file Democrats, Republican activists were found to be far more conservative than ordinary Republicans. Democratic activists, however, had about the same distribution of opinion as rank and file members of their party. Moreover, Republicans were proportionately far more active than Democrats. It was inferred from these findings that the two parties were different kinds of organizations. The Republican Party, it was argued, was a high participation party with an amateur base composed of right wing ideologues, while the Democratic Party was a low participation party with a professionalized base not dependent on ideological incentives to activism.


Author(s):  
Sergii Tolstov ◽  
Alona Godliuk

Over the past decade the political processes in the U.S. and a number of European states have shown ambiguous changes which reflected ideological transformations and regroupings of political elites. Developments within the U.S. political system have witnessed a deep split along ideological lines which was characterized by the revival of various right-wing and conservative currents within the Republican party and the increasing influence of left-liberal groups inside the Democratic party. Taking into account the latest trends, the purpose of this article lays in the structural political analysis of political contradictions and regrouping processes within the U.S. political elites in the 2010s that prevailed during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The authors emphasise that the crisis of traditional elites has not lead to the destruction of the bipartisan system, which remains the most important political institutional mechanism and ensures election of the executive branch, representative bodies and self-government at all levels. At the same time the recent trends within the political system demonstrated the destruction of such a specific phenomenon as a relative bipartisan consensus, which for a long time ensured the stability of power and the balance of interests among different groups of influence despite the regular change of the Republican and Democratic administrations. As an intermediate result reflecting the transformation of the American traditional political establishment the authors note both the overall polarization of the attitudes of the Republican and Democratic parties, and the strengthening of ‘internal’ pluralism inside the Republicans and the Democrats as a result of growing divergence and exacerbation of contradictions between supporters of various ideological groupings and platforms. This was approved by an obvious increase of influence of center-left groups among the Democrats and the right-wingers among the Republicans. These differences caused a tough political confrontation between different groups of elites in such important areas as social policy, taxes and health care. Similar fundamental discrepancies manifest the vision of international affairs especially on foreign trade and principles of interaction with the traditional allies. The exacerbation of political collisions ultimately led to an imbalance in the American political system and the loss of ability to achieve compromises between the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats. The authors conclude that the atomization of political elites is a projection of social stratification and polarization within the American society. These processes are not directly related to the personality of Donald Trump. Given the severity and critical aggravation of political contradictions, the US Presidential and Congressional elections on November 3, 2020 will not resolve the ongoing inter-elite conflict.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1031-1047
Author(s):  
Neil A. O’Brian

What explains the alignment of antiabortion positions within the Republican party? I explore this development among voters, activists, and elites before 1980. By 1970, antiabortion attitudes among ordinary voters correlated with conservative views on a range of noneconomic issues including civil rights, Vietnam, feminism and, by 1972, with Republican presidential vote choice. These attitudes predated the parties taking divergent abortion positions. I argue that because racial conservatives and military hawks entered the Republican coalition before abortion became politically activated, issue overlap among ordinary voters incentivized Republicans to oppose abortion rights once the issue gained salience. Likewise, because proabortion voters generally supported civil rights, once the GOP adopted a Southern strategy, this predisposed pro-choice groups to align with the Democratic party. A core argument is that preexisting public opinion enabled activist leaders to embed the anti (pro) abortion movement in a web of conservative (liberal) causes. A key finding is that the white evangelical laity’s support for conservative abortion policies preceded the political mobilization of evangelical leaders into the pro-life movement. I contend the pro-life movement’s alignment with conservatism and the Republican party was less contingent on elite bargaining, and more rooted in the mass public, than existing scholarship suggests.


Author(s):  
Matthew J. Lacombe

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the most powerful interest groups in America, and has consistently managed to defeat or weaken proposed gun regulations — even despite widespread public support for stricter laws and the prevalence of mass shootings and gun-related deaths. This book provides an unprecedented look at how this controversial organization built its political power and deploys it on behalf of its pro-gun agenda. Taking readers from the 1930s to the age of Donald Trump, the book traces how the NRA's immense influence on national politics arises from its ability to shape the political outlooks and actions of its followers. The book draws on nearly a century of archival records and surveys to show how the organization has fashioned a distinct worldview around gun ownership and has used it to mobilize its supporters. It reveals how the NRA's cultivation of a large, unified, and active base has enabled it to build a resilient alliance with the Republican Party, and examines why the NRA and its members formed an important constituency that helped fuel Trump's unlikely political rise. The book sheds vital new light on how the NRA has grown powerful by mobilizing average Americans, and how it uses its GOP alliance to advance its objectives and shape the national agenda.


Author(s):  
Sheri Berman

The decline of the centre-left over the past years is one of the most alarming trends in Western politics. During the latter part of the 20th century such parties either ran the government or led the loyal Opposition in virtually every Western democracy. Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), once the most powerful party of the left in continental Europe, currently polls in high 20s or 30s. The French Socialist Party was eviscerated in the 2017 elections, as was the Dutch Labour Party. Even the vaunted Scandinavian social democratic parties are struggling, reduced to vote shares in the 30 per cent range. The British Labour Party and the US Democrats have been protected from challengers by their country’s first-past-the-post electoral systems, but the former has recently taken a sharp turn to the hard-left under Jeremy Corbyn, while the latter, although still competitive at the national level, is a minority party at the state and local levels, where a hard-right Republican Party dominates the scene....


Author(s):  
Angela Alonso

The Second Reign (1840–1889), the monarchic times under the rule of D. Pedro II, had two political parties. The Conservative Party was the cornerstone of the regime, defending political and social institutions, including slavery. The Liberal Party, the weaker player, adopted a reformist agenda, placing slavery in debate in 1864. Although the Liberal Party had the majority in the House, the Conservative Party achieved the government, in 1868, and dropped the slavery discussion apart from the parliamentary agenda. The Liberals protested in the public space against the coup d’état, and one of its factions joined political outsiders, which gave birth to a Republic Party in 1870. In 1871, the Conservative Party also split, when its moderate faction passed a Free Womb bill. In the 1880s, the Liberal and Conservative Parties attacked each other and fought their inner battles, mostly around the abolition of slavery. Meanwhile, the Republican Party grew, gathering the new generation of modernizing social groups without voices in the political institutions. This politically marginalized young men joined the public debate in the 1870s organizing a reformist movement. They fought the core of Empire tradition (a set of legitimizing ideas and political institutions) by appropriating two main foreign intellectual schemes. One was the French “scientific politics,” which helped them to built a diagnosis of Brazil as a “backward country in the March of Civilization,” a sentence repeated in many books and articles. The other was the Portuguese thesis of colonial decadence that helped the reformist movement to announce a coming crisis of the Brazilian colonial legacy—slavery, monarchy, latifundia. Reformism contested the status quo institutions, values, and practices, while conceiving a civilized future for the nation as based on secularization, free labor, and inclusive political institutions. However, it avoided theories of revolution. It was a modernizing, albeit not a democrat, movement. Reformism was an umbrella movement, under which two other movements, the Abolitionist and the Republican ones, lived mostly together. The unity split just after the shared issue of the abolition of slavery became law in 1888, following two decades of public mobilization. Then, most of the reformists joined the Republican Party. In 1888 and 1889, street mobilization was intense and the political system failed to respond. Monarchy neither solved the political representation claims, nor attended to the claims for modernization. Unsatisfied with abolition format, most of the abolitionists (the law excluded rights for former slaves) and pro-slavery politicians (there was no compensation) joined the Republican Party. Even politicians loyal to the monarchy divided around the dynastic succession. Hence, the civil–military coup that put an end to the Empire on November 15, 1889, did not come as a surprise. The Republican Party and most of the reformist movement members joined the army, and many of the Empire politician leaders endorsed the Republic without resistance. A new political–intellectual alignment then emerged. While the republicans preserved the frame “Empire = decadence/Republic = progress,” monarchists inverted it, presenting the Empire as an era of civilization and the Republic as the rule of barbarians. Monarchists lost the political battle; nevertheless, they won the symbolic war, their narrative dominated the historiography for decades, and it is still the most common view shared among Brazilians.


2009 ◽  
pp. 151-173
Author(s):  
Giulia Galeotti

- The satire that in the years 1945 and 1946 commented the enfranchising of the Italian women replicated most of the themes emerged since the reunification of the country, in the year 1861: their lack of interest in politics, their political naiveté and therefore their asserted easy manipulability. The study of articles, short stories, riddles and cartoons of the time seems to confirm that the Italian society was not ready for women's entry into politics, beyond political and cultural differences. The author underlines however the surprising absence of a theme which had played a big role in the debate of the pre-Fascist years: the old concern that women's new political rights would have broken up the traditional balance inside family life. The author suggests that the main target of the time (in a kind of political maturation) were not women voters as such, but other subjects, along the same line followed by Aristophanes: when he presented Athens governed by women, his target were not female malice and luxury, but instead men's incapacity to govern a city in decline. The same happened at beginning of the foundation of the Italian Republic: the political satire invested the two main political parties that strongly supported the universal suffrage and were expected to gain most from it, the Christian Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Key words: political satire, women enfranchising, Bonomi Act January 1945, Italian elections 2 June 1946, the crises of politics, women and politics.


Res Publica ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-50
Author(s):  
Marc Swyngedouw ◽  
Jaak Billiet

Taking into account the limits of such data, this study analyses the shifts in voting behaviour from the national elections in 1985 to those in 1987 in Flanders, using log-linear modelling. The use of data from poll surveys for estimating shifts between subsequent elections poses some methodological problems.The second part presents the results of the analysis. About 13,51 % of -the 1985-voters switched. Although there are significant shifts between all the political parties, the Christian Democratic Party (CVP) loses on all fronts. A log-linear analysis of party-reference by sex, age and occupational status shows the strength and weakness of each party in different societal categories. In conclusion, an interpretation of the shifts is proposed. The following factors can account for the major shifts : the desintegration of the catholic pillar, the emergence of a dual society, the affinity between neo-liberalism and yuppie-culture and the conflict between the language communities.


Author(s):  
Julian E. Zelizer

This chapter examines how legislators associated with the conservative movement thrived in a congressional process that liberals had helped to create. It first considers how Congress was reformed in the 1970s, focusing on its transition from the committee era to the contemporary era and how the reform coalition of 1958–1974 helped end the committee era. It then compares the contemporary Congress to the committee-era Congress and how the new legislative process contributed to the fortunes of the conservative movement. It also discusses the decentralization and centralization fostered by congressional reforms, the creation of the Conservative Opportunity Society in 1983 by young mavericks in the Republican Party, congressional conservatives' disappointment with the presidency of George H. W. Bush, and the Republican congressional reforms of 1995. The chapter argues that the state endured despite the political success of American conservatism in Congress.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document