IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v667y2016i1p92-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Azari
  • Marc J. Hetherington

Abstract

The politics and party system of the late Civil War era are strikingly similar to what we have in the present day. Elections were consistently close; race, culture, immigration, and populism were salient issues; and states almost always voted for the same party in election after election. The states that supported Democrats then, however, mostly support Republicans now, and vice versa. In 1896, though, a new party system began to emerge. In this article, we evaluate bygone elections alongside contemporary ones to assess whether 2016 might be the beginning of something new in American electoral politics. Are national politics likely to follow the familiar pattern of the last four presidential races, or are Americans going to be presented altogether different choices? Our analysis suggests that race and populism are guideposts for potential change in 2016: if the concerns of race continue to define political conflict, the electoral map should change little, but if economic populism eclipses race as it did in 1896, a new political era may be ushered in in America.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Azari & Marc J. Hetherington, 2016. "Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 92-109, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:667:y:2016:i:1:p:92-109
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716216662604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716216662604
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716216662604?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:apsrev:v:61:y:1967:i:03:p:892-892_28 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Miller, Gary & Schofield, Norman, 2003. "Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 245-260, May.
    3. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    4. Layman, Geoffrey C. & Carsey, Thomas M. & Green, John C. & Herrera, Richard & Cooperman, Rosalyn, 2010. "Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 324-346, May.
    5. Michael Tesler, 2012. "The Spillover of Racialization into Health Care: How President Obama Polarized Public Opinion by Racial Attitudes and Race," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 690-704, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    2. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zápal, Jan, 2017. "Dynamic Elections and Ideological Polarization," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 505-534, October.
    3. Hans Gersbach & Philippe Muller & Oriol Tejada, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Electoral Competition with Costly Policy Changes," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 17/270, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    4. Malat, Jennifer & Mayorga-Gallo, Sarah & Williams, David R., 2018. "The effects of whiteness on the health of whites in the USA," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 148-156.
    5. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    6. Melissa Deckman & Laurel Elder & Steven Greene & Mary‐Kate Lizotte, 2023. "Abortion, religion, and racial resentment: Unpacking the underpinnings of contemporary abortion attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 140-152, March.
    7. John G Powell & Meifen Qian & Jing Shi & Qiaoqiao Zhu, 2015. "Should stock market return forecasts be conditioned on politics?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 40(4), pages 672-700, November.
    8. Fleck, Robert K., 2013. "Why did the electorate swing between parties during the Great Depression?," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 599-619.
    9. Eric D Knowles & Brian S Lowery & Elizabeth P Shulman & Rebecca L Schaumberg, 2013. "Race, Ideology, and the Tea Party: A Longitudinal Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, June.
    10. Gersbach, Hans & Tejada, Oriol, 2018. "A Reform Dilemma in polarized democracies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 148-158.
    11. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    12. Kyung Suk Lee & Kirby Goidel & Clifford Young, 2023. "The system is broken: Can we have some more?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 39-53, January.
    13. Sebastian Galiani & Norman Schofield & Gustavo Torrens, 2014. "Factor Endowments, Democracy, and Trade Policy Divergence," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 119-156, February.
    14. Alexandra Filindra & E. J. Fagan, 2022. "Black, immigrant, or woman? The implicit influence of Kamala Harris’ vice presidential nomination on support for Biden in 2020," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 892-906, July.
    15. Sean Gailmard, 2020. "Game theory and the study of American political development," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 335-357, December.
    16. Valentino Larcinese, 2009. "Information Acquisition, Ideology and Turnout: Theory and Evidence From Britain," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 237-276, April.
    17. repec:gig:joupla:v:2:y:2010:i:3:p:3-38 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Michael Ensley, 2012. "Incumbent positioning, ideological heterogeneity and mobilization in U.S. House elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 43-61, April.
    19. Geoffrey Layman & Frances Lee & Christina Wolbrecht, 2023. "Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 164-183, July.
    20. Razvan Vlaicu, 2018. "Inequality, participation, and polarization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(4), pages 597-624, April.
    21. Hans Noel, 2016. "Ideological Factions in the Republican and Democratic Parties," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 166-188, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:667:y:2016:i:1:p:92-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.