The COVID-19 coronavirus has upended American’s lives and heightened our anxieties. That’s likely to have a lot of political consequences. How do Americans respond to imminent threats and how does our anxiety change how we seek information, who we trust, and what policies we support? Bethany Albertson and Shana Gadarian find that Americans seek information, trust the experts, and seek protective policies in response to public health threats like infectious disease. But our biases increase and our instincts are often to blame outsiders. We explore research on anxiety in response to threats on a special conversational edition of the Science of Politics.

How did concerns about Hillary Clinton dominate voters' concerns in 2016, despite the scandal- & gaffe-prone campaign of Donald Trump? Did media coverage and social sharing doom Clinton? And can we expect a similar pattern in 2020? Jonathan Ladd finds that citizens heard a succession of negative things about Trump, but remembered the one big scandal about Clinton: her emails. Hal Roberts finds that conservative media produced and shared harmful stories about Clinton, while Democrats mostly followed mainstream and less partisan news sources. They both see important implications for the 2020 campaign ahead.

Michael Bloomberg is setting records for television advertising spending in the 2020 presidential primaries and we expect more records in the general election. The last two cycles have seen Democrats out-advertise Republicans, but how many votes did it earn them? Erika Franklin Fowler and Michael Franz find that the 2018 cycle was still dominated by television advertising focused on health care, a big change from 2016's personal attacks on Donald Trump. The go-to experts from the Wesleyan Media Project show we're now seeing more advertising, more negativity, and more outside groups. They expect more of the same in 2020.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore under CC by SA 2.0. https://flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/48603879096/

Americans have lost faith in our political and community institutions. Our leaders are increasingly performing for the crowd, rather than improving the institutions they inhabit. Eitan Hersch finds that Americans say they are spending time on politics, when they are just watching from the sidelines and commenting online. Yuval Levin finds that even those with power in Congress, universities, and media outlets are using our institutions as interchangeable platforms for publicity seeking, when they should be acting on their responsibilities. Both say it is time to stop pretending we are powerless and work to rebuild our institutions through painstaking local action.

Photo Credit: Shealah Craighead [Public domain]

Americans dislike the two major parties, which are fighting more and compromising less. But Does that open the way for the rise of third parties and the huge institutional changes necessary to bring it about? Lee Drutman finds that a new multi-party system is the only way out of our cycle of polarization and democratic decay. He sees opportunities on the horizon, favoring the adoption of ranked choice voting in larger, multi-member House districts. But Jack Santucci finds that the two parties have to face real third-party threats before they’re willing to reform away their advantages, focusing on the local reforms that have been tried in American history.

The emerging consensus is that Donald Trump won the 2016 election by divisively appealing to voters’ views on race and immigration. But Justin Grimmer and Will Marble find that Trump gained votes over Romney among low-education white voters, largely independents and moderates, who had centrist views on race and immigration. In contrast, John Sides and Lynn Vavreck find that the 2016 campaign activated voters’ attitudes on race, immigration, and identity, making them more important in driving voter decisions. A large all-star panel reviews the central debate over the 2016 election and its implications for the 2020 campaign ahead.

2020 marks the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment guaranteeing women's suffrage. Christina Wolbrecht of Notre Dame and Kevin Corder of Western Michigan take the opportunity to review women's vote turnout and choice over time, tracking gender differences and similarities. They find that women increasingly vote at higher rates than men and vote more for Democrats. They show that scholars and commentators have changed their views of women voters over time, often using stereotypes and using men's voting as the baseline. We talk about the history and what's ahead for gender and voting in this election year.

Photo Credit: Public Domain.

Black turnout was down in 2016, costing Hillary Clinton pivotal votes and raising questions about whether post-Obama Democrats can mobilize Black voters. We know President Trump is angering and mobilizing a lot of White Democrats but that may not translate the same way for Black voters. Davin Phoenix finds that Black Americans express less anger than White Americans and anger does not stimulate them as much to participate in politics. Christopher Towler finds that African-Americans who strongly disliked Trump did turn out at Obama-level rates; but not everyone feels that strongly. Both say Black turnout is hardly destined to rebound in 2020, especially if Democrats don't change their strategy.

Photo: Phil Roeder under CC BY 2.0.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/43105749360

Republican and Democratic politicians offer very different agendas and proposals, but do they translate into real differences in outcomes? John Holbein finds that party control of government does not have any near-term impact across dozens of social and economic outcomes. But Jacob Grumbach finds that recent party control is associated with big changes in policy in some issue areas, sometimes producing real differences in directly-related outcomes like health insurance rates. Parties influence policy and some related outcomes, but perhaps not enough to declare one party better at improving well being.

Photo Credit: Julio Obscura under CC By 2.0 Generic.

Although the 2020 presidential candidates are investing huge shares of their time and resources in Iowa and New Hampshire, new research suggests early-state momentum may not matter much in our nationalized presidential race. John Sides finds that Donald Trump dominated media coverage well before election results in 2016, crowding out his opponents. Marc Trussler finds that state election victories didn’t seem to cause bigger-than-normal shifts in polls in 2016, with any campaign day just as likely to see an influential media event. Momentum may be dying with the growth of pre-primary media coverage and an earlier cementing of candidate coalitions.

Photo credit: Excel23 under CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeteButtigieg2020SBI.jpg