The Disenfranchised Majority in American Politics

By: Adlai Elison

Gerald M. Pomper in his entry to the Journal of Theoretical Politics, quotes Edmund Burke in the article “Concepts of Political Parties”. Burke defines a political party as, “Party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed” (Pomper) This is a good definition as it is a general or broad meaning of political parties because it doesn’t refer to any one party or group.

Every government in the world has political parties that promote the views and ideals that the particular party believes would serve the country in the best manner. What differs between these parties in different countries however is the number of parties (and views) represented in the government. Most countries have multiple parties that promote a various number of national interests. The British Parliament for example, has eleven different parties represented, the Israeli Knesset has seventeen different parties, and the German Bundestag has seven different parties that represent the views of its citizens.

The United States, however, sits in a minority when it comes to the number of political parties (two). This is due many times to the fact that as soon as a new ideology, topic of interest, or issue comes out, one of the two parties tend to absorb the issue in order to build its base of supporters. Nevertheless, in recent years, this has begun to create a slight feeling of disenfranchisement among many citizens. This is clearly evident in the Pew research (below) and the changes in both the Democrat and Republican parties as they have become more polarized and have left the “establishment” behind.

Thus, the argument of whether or not the United States would benefit from a multi-party system remains to be seen yet becomes more and more of a reality as we as a country become more polarized.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) who is a self-described Democratic Socialist was cited by Politico saying, “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are” (Forgey). Some might think this is simply a trivial statement by the freshman representative. However, when you look at the field of Democratic nominees for this year’s election. This has been a massive point of conflict as more capitalistic minded candidates such as Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg have been criticized for being old-fashioned (old guard), rich, lazy, and simply old. In contrast Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been seen as the progressive wing of the Democrat party. The latter two being self-proclaimed Democratic Socialists as opposed to Biden and Bloomberg’s support for a more capitalistic approach. Many democrats may feel that they are being misrepresented as they have to choose between candidates this year for president.

Democrats should not feel alone in their plight, however. Many Republicans may feel the same way. Before the 2018 midterm elections, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan continually introduced debt-eliminating legislation in order to pay off the nation’s crippling debt. Donald Trump was not only unsupportive of such legislation but has proven to be more of the biggest spenders as President in our nation’s history. This is alarming to many Republicans as Paul Ryan was seen as more of an establishment Republican and Trump was seen as a newcomer.

The parties of the United States have changed so much in their ideologies that officials are beginning to agree unknowingly with officials across the aisle without even knowing it. According to their websites President Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders have more in common with foreign policy and tariffs than Senator Sanders and Senator Biden have currently. Sander was asked by the New York Times if he would use tariffs if he was president and he said he would, just as Donald Trump has (Ehrlich). Biden ironically said that said he would not use tariffs as an economic tool against other countries and would promote free trade (Joe). This is ironic as traditionally free trade has been a piece of the Republican platform.

            In conclusion, the division and unknowing agreement on certain topics by political officials only show that the American system of what a political party is as described by Edmund Burke is failing in the United States. Professor Preece, in our class mentioned that although the founding of a new political party in the United States is unlikely, the “rebranding” of political parties may be a future possibility as these parties become more divisive and ever-changing.

Cited Sources

DeSilver, Drew. “The Polarized Congress of Today Has Its Roots in the 1970s.” Pew Research    Center, Pew Research Center, 12 June 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-    tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-            worse-ever-since/.

Ehrlich, Jamie. “Bernie Sanders: 'Of Course' I Would Use Tariffs as President.” CNN, Cable       News Network, 25 Aug. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/bernie-sanders-   tariffs- trade-war-sotu-cnntv/index.html.

Forgey, Quint. “AOC: 'In Any Other Country, Joe Biden and I Would Not Be in the Same            Party'.” POLITICO, 6 Jan. 2020, www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-      ocasio- cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642.

“Joe Biden on Free Trade.” Joe Biden on Free Trade, On The Issues,          www.ontheissues.org/International/Joe_Biden_Free_Trade.htm.

Pomper, Gerald M. “Concepts of Political Parties.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 4,            no. 2, 1992, pp. 143–159., doi:10.1177/0951692892004002002.

Feeling the Bern of Cross-Cutting

In 2016 Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign was supported by the “Bernie Bro”. This group of enthusiastic young and predominantly white male supporters created some problems for Bernie’s platform, which relies heavily on the ideas of equality for all, resolving racial disparities, and alleviating the wealth gap within the United States. Bernie needed to gain the support of women, minorities, and people of color. Because of his association with the “Bernie Bro”, this goal quickly became more difficult and was a significant factor in Sanders losing the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton. Sanders was well aware of this, going so far as to say, “we were criticized for being too white; that was a correct criticism.”

Since his defeat in 2016 Sanders has worked to correct this mistake.  He has seen his efforts come to fruition, with a 2019 Politico study showing that Sanders is now more popular among people of color than he is with white people. This same study also showed that women like Sanders at the same rate that men do. This attempt at becoming more relatable to the masses is clearly working.  

This change of campaign-style illustrates a principle that is explained in Mason and Wronski’s work “One Tribe to Bind Them All”, called cross-cutting cleavages. This idea is based on the fact that people have several different identities. They can identify based on their ethnicity, race, religion, economic level, age, gender, sex, etc. These different identities are called cleavages. Mason and Wronski explain the importance of these cleavages by citing Nicholas R. Miller, who states “All societies are divided to some degree. But some societies, especially larger and more complex ones, are divided by a pluralism of cleavages that are often related to one another in a cross-cutting rather than reinforcing pattern....Two random individuals, therefore, most likely belong to different preferences clusters and, if so, have conflicting preferences with respect to one or more issues but almost certainly agree on many issues as well.” This means that within political parties, and by extension political campaigns, several different cleavages exist and attempt to find the things that unify and divide them. Mason and Wronski go on to explain “However, once these cleavages begin to align along a single dimension, partisan conflict is expected to increase substantially.” The alternative to this is cross-cutting. Cross-cutting takes two or more clear cleavages and uses them to separate each other. Instead of a clear divide between cleavages (example, rich and poor), crosscutting divides them more, making issues more complex, but also unifying people (example: rich white, rich black, poor white, poor black). By cross-cutting these cleavages, it makes it easier for people to identify with more people than before, and to work in unity behind a common cause. This idea is illustrated in Figure 1 Below.

Figure 1

This is relevant when discussing the change from the 2016 Sanders campaign to his current campaign. In 2016, Bernie identified primarily with one cleavage, namely young, white, males. This resulted in a campaign that not everyone could relate to and distanced his platform from potential supporters, despite its merits. He has since changed his approach and the results are staggering. Sanders is ahead in the polls to win the Democratic Primary. A big part of this is his effort to gain support from groups other than the “Bernie Bro”. His new campaign strategy “talked about each constituency and what he would do with each demographic” according to Matt Grossman, a Political Science Professor at Michigan State University. Sanders has even gone so far as to say he “absolutely” has an agenda for black people. As a result, he now has a much more diverse support base, largely due to the crosscut that he has established by reaching out to these other groups. The majority of Sanders voters are still young people, but it now also includes people of color, minority groups, and women. A 2018 Harvard/Harris Poll found that Sanders also polled favorably with Latino and black voters, at 58% and 66% respectively. By uniting these different cleavages, he now has the potential to win the Democratic primary, and potentially the 2020 Presidential election.

Virginia Legislature as Agents of Activists

During the last couple of months, the state of Virginia has been caught in political upheaval over the possibility of new gun bills being passed in the state legislators. In November Democrats took over both houses of the Virginia Legislature. The party claimed this was largely to do with voter support for more gun control after recent mass shootings. However, if that is the case then Governor Ralph Northam has some explaining to do as his recent gun proposals were shelfed this last Monday for lack of votes.

The gun control bill pass in the House legislature, 51 to 48. But in the Senate four of the Democrats joined the Republicans in voting down the supposed assault-weapons ban, which would have prohibited many semiautomatic firearms, while also banning any magazines that hold more than 12 rounds. Additionally, if it had passed then any Virginians possessing such magazines would either have to surrender or destroy these purchased magazines or face up to a year in prison.

What makes this such a significant event is the fact that as these bills were being proposed in the Virginian government, they were met with large backlash from Virginians themselves. Thousands showed up to the capital in protest of the proposed bills. And “ninety-one of Virginia’s 95 counties have also declared themselves to be ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries,” stating that these counties would not enforce any state gun laws that violated the US Constitution (Wall Street Journal).

The events that transpired in Virginia is very close to the principles seen in Seth Masket’s research into outsiders’ influence on American politicians in particular legislators of the government.  He argues in his research that in order to understand the behavior and actions of those in the legislative branches of government, it is critical to follow the actions of key players outside of the chambers of the legislature. These outside keys players are often activists, party bosses, and interest groups, who use their influence to control party nominations that ensure officeholders behave according to their ideology. Masket explains how crucial these outsides to the legislature process are by using California’s experience with cross-filing as an example. Under the institutional rules of cross-filling, outsiders were prevented from having influence on party nominations. Under these rules, partisanship collapsed in the state’s legislature, which was a demonstration that legislatures preferred to work on non-partisan basis or even fake partisan basis than combatting each other along ideological lines. Partisanship in the legislatures quickly returned once outsiders were able to influence the nominations of politicians. Essentially, the results of Masket’s research showed that candidates and legislators are ultimately the agents of activists, interest groups and other influences who coordinate at the community level to control the nominations in political parties.

It is easy to see how this plays out in the recent political events in Virginia. Democrats for one reason or another, they claim because of recent mass shootings in the US, led to a surge in Democratic votes last November, which allowed them to take control of the legislature. This outcome is reasonable to believe as historically Democrats have been pushed for gun control policies than their Republican counterparts, which often but not always lean towards more conservative gun control policies. Many believed that the proposed gun control bills were all but sure to pass in both houses of the Virginia legislature as Democratic voters in Virginia and largely across the US desire more gun control. However, because the grassroots political movements across the state of Virginia. It is clear to see that Masket’s research has merits. Many second amendment supporters in the state, or as Masket calls them in his paper activists or interest groups, rose up to influence the politicians in both parties. If these activists in support of the second amendment never chose to influence the politicians in the Virginia legislature there would have been strong reason to believe that these gun bills largely would have passed by non-partisan means. However, after thousands of Virginians showed up at the capital and 91 out of 95 counties in Virginia passed second amendment sanctuaries. There is reason to believe that at least some of the democratic politicians would be in fear of losing their seats in the next election. Therefore, from this event we have further evidence to support Masket’s claim that legislators serve more as representatives of the interest groups of the communities that nominate them than they are to the parties themselves.

Sources:
Virginia’s Gun-Control Defeat
https://www.wsj.com/articles/virginias-gun-control-defeat-11582072099

It Takes an Outsider: Extralegislative
Organization and Partisanship in the California
Assembly, 1849–2006
- Seth E. Masket

The Ambitious Politician: Mitt Romney and John McCain

Politicians make their decisions based on the goals that they have for their career and life, and they use political parties to further their ambition. The politicians only use parties when they "are useful vehicles for solving problems that cannot be solved as effectively, if at all, through other means." Two of the most well known congressional decisions of the Trump presidency are the decision not to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the decision of the Senate not to remove the president from office. The central Senate figures in those two decisions were Senator McCain and Senator Romney, respectively, because of their decisions to vote against their party. The decisions of those two senators support the ambitious politician theory proposed by Aldrich because they both used parties to accomplish their goals and stopped using parties when they were no longer to their advantage.

John McCain was a partisan warrior throughout his career, and more specifically, a republican warrior. He ran for president twice and usually voted with the Republican party. During the 115th congress(2017-2018), McCain voted with other conservative Republicans such as Mitch McConnell ninety-two percent of the time and voted with Donald Trump eighty-three percent of the time. The primary disagreement between McCain and the Republican Party came when the republican congressmen were trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act(ACA). The ACA was an Obama era health care policy, and its repeal was one of the top priorities of Donald Trump when he got into office. John McCain was one of the deciding votes on the repeal and decided to vote against the republican party and keep the ACA.

John McCain's decision to vote against his party and defy one of his party's leaders might seem like it goes against any theory that argues for influential parties, but Aldrich bases his theory on the ambitious politician. The politician that uses the party only when it advances his or her goals. John McCain used the party to get elected as a senator, and also to run for president twice. McCain used the party until he no longer needed it; two weeks before his decision on the ACA, McCain was diagnosed with a terminal illness. This news of his imminent death changed McCain's goals from reelection to other things, such as ideology. McCain did not believe that the repeal would be the best decision for Americans. He did not support the ACA, but he had seen the struggle of lawmakers to improve on the ACA during the previous months and doubted that improvement would come after the repeal. McCain no longer had the burden of reelection and therefore no longer needed his party, so he could now focus more on his ideologies.

Similarly, Mitt Romney used political parties to achieve his goals until he could more easily achieve his ambitions without parties. A few weeks ago, Senator Romney had one of the defining moments of his career as a politician; the impeachment proceedings of Donald Trump. The House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump, and he was being tried in the Senate to see if he should be removed from office. The only Republican senator who voted against his or her party during the verdict was Senator Romney. Romney's decision left many people wondering why he voted for the removal of the president, especially when his vote did not matter. The reasons for his decision have similarities to McCain's but also differences.

Mitt Romney used parties throughout his political career to be elected and reelected, and stopped using them when he did not need them anymore. He ran as a pro-choice liberal to become the governor of Massachusetts and then ran as a pro-life conservative during his presidential campaign. These two examples show how Senator Romney has used parties to gain political traction. During his decision to convict Donald Trump on abuse of power, he had more to gain without his party than with it; he had the opportunity to gain historical and political prestige. Mitt Romney had the experience of seeing the popularity that John McCain gained with his decision on the ACA. Ten percent of Republicans viewed McCain less favorably, but 20 percent of Democrats viewed him more favorably, and his overall popularity amongst Americans increased by five percent. Mitt Romney's popularity has not been surveyed since the decision because it was only a few weeks ago. However, based on the media's response and historical precedence, Mitt Romney has become more popular in the country as a whole, and the majority of voters, not Republicans, agree with his decision. Romney also had historical prestige on the line and no longer has to worry about "history's rebuke or the censure of [his] own conscious." He now goes into the history book as a nonpartisan warrior, because he was the first senator to ever vote against his or her party's president in an impeachment trial.

Aldrich's ambitious politician theory acknowledges that both of these men may have made these decisions for the betterment of the nation, but their ambitions were also satisfied. They both made controversial decisions against their party when they were at the end of their careers and had very little to lose and a lot to gain.

A 21st Century Plague: the American Lack of Awareness

As soon as I began reading the Bawn et. al article, I felt a keen similarity between the polarization and lack of voter education discussed in her evidence and the plights the United States faces today. 

The political climate of today is highly divisive, and the research in her article well articulates the social science perpetuating these issues. The most common issue to be understood from both a sampling of today’s political climate and “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics” is that of extremism due to unawareness. 

Both the authors (as well as post politically-savvy US citizens) defend the political science theory that parties exist to get candidates elected. They are not to be confused with interest groups, lobbyists, activists, or any kind of agenda-pushing group, but especially not the ideologically-sound and -bound policy advocators they often make themselves out to be. The notions of the accountability parties provide to their constituents, or a cohesive ideological rhetoric, or the steadfastness to certain morals are all part of a ruse to illicit voter support. American political parties, since their establishment, have grown as long coalitions and also proponents of specific voter preferences, certainly. Doing so was and is necessary in order to render the support needed for elections, the essence of hopeful party office-holders. Voter needs and support is therefore “catered to” — or at least appears to be. But the evidence in Bawn et al’s article serves to illustrate a great point: that voters who subscribe to this assumption are critically misinformed. The true fundamentals of parties lie elsewhere, and this lack of awareness is identified across the political board: low voter turnout, disinterest in political function, general confusion of political function and party stance, absence of moderates in nomination pools. The ensuing extremism of American politics, which has spiked considerably in the last few decades, can be directly linked to the deficiency in American awareness. 

The examples found in Bawn’s article reify the accuracy and relevancy of their findings. In the case of the shepherds, coffee growers, saloon keepers, and clergymen, we can see how party name, coalitions between groups, and what they call “useful fiction” contribute to their electability, which is their ultimate goal. There is historical evidence to support this illustration, especially Van Buren’s influence on the formal formation of the Democratic Party in the 1820’s and FDR’s close association with organized labor leadership during his campaigns and terms in the 1930’s. Furthermore, their inquiry into California state legislators also confirms that office-seekers cater first and foremost to those influencers that can ensure their election, be they interest groups or legislative authorities. In sum, and contrary to public opinion, there is an inverse in candidates’ commitment to causes and subsequent support from that group. This fact completely under-rides what I would argue is the general understanding of parties to the average American voter, who consume the ideology-toting language of campaigns and politicos. 

It is difficult for them to identify both the means and ends of politicians, especially considering there is minimal coverage or readily-available media to help voters understand the true nature of parties. Their electoral blindspots are widened even more, in fact, by how media in the United States currently operates. As supported by Bawn et al,  news cycles are often misconstruing consumers, as they are overrun with stories featuring the hateful interactions of politicians, even if mixed in with decent coverage. However most citizens are wary of fully trusting news outlets to begin with: because of fear of partisan leanings and consequential inaccuracy, people are frequently slow to accept the reporting they hear. The constancy of the president’s insistance of the presence and horrors of fake news (all the while making plenty of his own inaccurate or falsified claims) doesn’t evoke any rise in public trust of the media. The extremism is a directly fostered detriment of the lack of education and awareness to parties and candidates’ true methods and practices. 

In the 2016 presidential campaign, the American people faced a choice unlike any other previous elections, what many qualified as a situation in which they were left to decide on the lesser of two evils  With hateful allegations, absurd social media presence, and deep partisanship, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fought tooth and nail to tear each other down. Polls show that voters were left either confused or frustrated and therefore apathetic on voting day, or strongly supportive of a certain candidate and reflecting the divisive nature of their nominees. If Americans could understand the political and social science (evidenced in Bawn and others’ studies) of parties, nominees, and the strategies they utilize, there would be an inevitable increase in true electoral accountability. 

An important fact to identify with these studies is that methods employed by office-seekers and agenda-pushers are not always done with unethical intentions. There was no party seeking to gain power in order to create an oligarchy or otherwise rule and unfairly influence their fellow citizens in Bawn’s example and likely in many (though not all) cases in American history. Rather, it is paramount that we recognize that this method, according to Bawn’s ample evidence, is used by all parties, groups, or individuals motivated to win office. But voters’ electorate blindspot is perhaps most detrimental when it prevents them from recognizing the true nature of parties: the ultimate goal of self-preservation. 

Impact of Romney's Historic Vote to Convict Trump

 One of the most historic moments in United States history occurred this month on February 5^th 2020. That is when the impeachment trial of Donald Trump occurred in the Senate. What made this impeachment trial historic was when a Republican voted to convict a member of his own party, the first time this has ever occurred in history. Mitt Romney, of Utah, voted to convict Trump on Article 1 of Impeachment. Most people might assume this would be the equivalent of political suicide considering how polarized the country and parties have become. But, as it turns, that has not been the case amongst Romney’s constituents. Romney said, “As a senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise 'impartial justice.' I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential,” Do the voters belief Mitt’s reasoning for his actions? That data seems to show so.

 According to polling, nearly 50% of Utahns Approved of Romney’s vote. Voters who identified themselves as Christian (including Mormon) disapproved his vote 49%-43%, while non-Christians approved 75%-18%. A Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll released Tuesday found that 49% of Utah voters had a positive response to Romney's vote (21% proud, 13% pleased and 14% encouraged). Forty percent had negative reactions (22% disappointed, 11% embarrassed and 8% angry). Romney does not have much to be concerned about when it comes to re-election. He won’t be up again until 2024, and the political landscape will be completely different. He most definitely won over some love from independent/democratic Utah voters, and seems to be half and half with Utah Republicans.

Romney set himself apart from the rest of the Republicans and Democrats by following his conscience instead of party lines. It appears hat Utah voters whether they agreed with him or not, valued that more than voting with party lines. Romney’s heart felt testimony was a courageous move on the Senate floor of a man speaking with conviction and morals. In an interview, Romney stated that this was the toughest decision he has ever made in his public life. When he saw the evidence, he knew how he was going to vote and knew the backlash that the President and Republicans would have towards him and his family, and that the President would never forgive him for it. From his speech, Romney stated “The Constitution is at the foundation of our republic's success and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other's good faith. The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice.” 

Senator Romney’s case seems genuine and honest. He has a strong conviction to his heart and wants to do the right thing. His reasoning was that the President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. Romney could not deny the charges. He plead for witnesses in hoping he could find evidence that would change his mind, but to no avail. Overall, Romney’s showing of complete non-partisan conviction won the appreciation of those who disagreed with his decision but believed in him. May this be an example for Senators and Congressmen going forward.

Sources: 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/senate-expected-to-acquit-president-trump-impeachment-trial

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-remarks/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/romney-vilified-d-c-vote-convict-trump-finds-respect-support-n1133106

https://www.ksl.com/article/46720124/utah-gop-lawmakers-honor-trump-in-wake-of-romneys-vote-to-convict-in-impeachment

So What?: Emotions and Identity Attachments Solidify in the Name of Policy Discourse

With the narrowing down that is taking place in the Democratic debates leading up to this year’s much anticipated presidential election, candidates are starting to cement their followings and personal histories and qualifications are becoming increasingly relevant. Aside from intraparty cleavages becoming more apparent and aggressively scrutinized, the political dialogue between the Republican party and the Democrat party has already proved to be an impassioned conversation, to say the least. The context that has been surrounding the Democratic debates over the past few months has been especially impactful. The impeachment hearings not only directly involved a candidate in the debates, but it seemed to involve the current administration as an informal participant.

In an article from the American Political Science Review, “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity”, the strong emotional reactions voters have to campaign events are examined. The authors discuss the fact that Democrats and Republicans have historically voted at much higher rates than Independents, though Independents specifically exist to identify with a customized set of policies. This suggests that party affiliation is a major driving force behind poll participation and that actual policies are somewhat irrelevant when push comes to shove.

The authors also found that campaign involvement is driven by social identity and can be somewhat easily emotionally manipulated by candidates. These findings are important when looking at the dialogue from the recent Democratic debates from a wider perspective and understanding how public reactions are being shaped in the months leading up to the actual vote. The research that was gathered by Huddy, Mason, and Aaroe is indicative of the idea that social factors and identities largely determine the partisanship that we claim and to what extent we feel connected to this title. The underlying implications of what these priorities mean in a democratic system help give context as to why politics is immediately associated with conflict and disagreement- according to the authors’ findings, campaign results are fueled by anger and division. It is interesting to note how strongly students identify with a certain party, especially in relation to blog subscribers whose attitudes were collected based on their partisanship to begin with. To me this shows that the process of identification (not limited to political preference) begins at a young age for whatever reason.

With this research in mind, the exchanges from this week’s Democratic debate hold deeper meanings that go beyond the policies which were discussed. Elizabeth Warren used a significant part of her platform to address Mike Bloomberg’s past comments and treatments towards women.

WARREN: "I'd like to talk about who we're running against, a billionaire who calls women 'fat broads' and 'horse-faced lesbians.'

"And, no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg."

WARREN: "We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against."

Warren’s comments represent a specific interest group of feminists within the Democrat party, assuming that they do not want to see another white, rich, male as president. Her performance at the debate was widely considered a success and a significant factor that led to this victory was her ability to cater to important factions by associating certain identities with candidate Bloomberg.

KLOBUCHAR: "I actually welcomed Mayor Bloomberg to the stage. I thought that he shouldn't be hiding behind his TV ads."

KLOBUCHAR: "I think we need something different than Donald Trump. I don't think you look at Donald Trump and say we need someone richer in the White House."

Again, we see how candidates attempt to attribute a certain image with their political rivals which will eventually determine public emotional reaction when it comes time to hit the polls. The trends of the polls already change somewhat drastically following each debate, and from the comments above and others not included, we can be pretty sure that it isn’t largely due to a unique political stance or the differentiating support of some policy. The emotions- anger, defensiveness, resentment – are not only a growing part of our current climate but the most important motives for decision making, at least in elections and campaigns. It will be interesting to see how the attacks evolve as the list of candidates continues to be refined and as our current President continues to respond to the dialogue from his social media platforms. These are the conversations and feelings that will accompany constituents into the voting booths when the time comes.

Huddy, Leonie, et al. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review, vol. 109, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–17., doi:10.1017/s0003055414000604.

Mack, David. “Things Got Ugly At The Democratic Debate In Vegas. Here Are The Most Savage Takedowns.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 21 Feb. 2020, www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/democratic-debate-nevada-attack-takedowns.

LaLoggia, John. “6 Facts about U.S. Political Independents.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 15 May 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/.

Rogers, Katie. “President Declares the Winner of the Democratic Debate: Donald Trump.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/trump-las-vegas-bloomberg.html.

account, Donald J. TrumpVerified. “Donald J. Trump (@RealDonaldTrump).” Twitter, Twitter, 18 Feb. 2020, twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor.