Perceptions of Polarization in North Carolina

By Whitney Ross Manzo and David McLennan

Recently, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) gained attention for a statement in which she argued for a national divorce between red and blue states. She argued that from “the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.” Although Greene was widely criticized for her remarks, even by members of the Republican Party, her comments reflected the belief that America’s political polarization is based on wildly divergent policy positions. Her comments also suggest that polarization has increased to the point that the country may be at a breaking point. 

Although there is evidence that policy differences exist, particularly on cultural war issues, and may contribute to political polarization, there is also a body of research that suggests that political polarization is based on social identity differences. As opposed to differences in ideology, affective polarization is the idea that we identify with people more similar in identity to us (political affiliation, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and feel dislike and even disgust for those who are different from us. 

Using data from the Meredith Poll from 2017-2023, we set out to examine whether we find evidence of polarization among North Carolinians. Do North Carolinians perceive there to be high levels of polarization? And, are North Carolinians polarized, either by issue or by identity?

What Precinct Polarization Might Tell Us About NC's Politics Before Redistricting Kicks Off

By Michael Bitzer

As the U.S. Census Bureau gets ready to release the data for redistricting activities in the states, a sense of what the "ground" in North Carolina politics looks like going into the "most political activity in American politics" would shine some light on the future maps and their designs.

North Carolina redistricting efforts are centered around a core set of principles, often referred to as the Stephenson criteria. Written by then Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake of the NC Supreme Court (a summary of the full criteria can be found in his majority opinion, starting on page 42), one of the key components is the "whole county" provision of the state constitution, which holds that for both state senate and house districts, "No county shall be divided in the formation..." of districts (Sections 3 & 5, sub-section 3 of Article II).

Therefore, when legislators begin their work, they will start with counties that can sustain legislative districts within themselves, and then work towards "clustering" other counties to develop districts as well (a good explanation of this principle is found here). 

But beyond the counties, one can dive even deeper into political geography through precincts (or voting tabulation districts ("VTDs")), which are the foundational geographic areas for election administration and where voters (who vote on Election Day) go to a central site to cast their ballots. 

It Isn't "The State of the Union," But Rather "The State of the Divide"

by Michael Bitzer

Based on last night's performance of the State of the Union, I have to think that there is a real possibility we have seen the last televised State of the Union (SOTU) before a joint session of Congress when the House of Representatives is controlled by the party opposite the White House.

In other words: another norm broken.

First, some historical & constitutional perspectives about States of the Union.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 states “He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...”

This is the constitutional foundation of the SOTU. Notice there's nothing said about how the "Information on the State of the Union" shall be given. And it's "from time to time"--nothing constitutionally specific there either. 

In Our Polarized Era, Are We More "Warm" or "Cold" Towards Our Presidential Candidates?

In preparing for a special topics class next year on "Polarization in American Politics," I'm working through a set of books this summer, beginning with James E. Campbell's "Polarized: Making Sense of American Politics." It is a well-written and easy read, both in-depth and broad in its questions and Campbell's answers about polarization in our politics, and fits nicely in my thinking about the course. I'll likely assigned it after the students read Morris Fiorina's "Culture War? The Myth of Polarized America" and Alan Abramowitz's "The Polarized Public: Why American Government is So Dysfunctional," which serve as the "polarized opposites" in the controversy over political polarization in America.

There are many testable and intriguing questions to further explore polarization from Campbell's book, but one that struck me was on page 210, where Campbell notes that in 2004's American National Election Studies survey, only 62 percent of voters who were "relatively cool" to their party's candidates turned out to vote, while those who were "hotly enthusiastic" about their party's candidates had a turnout rate of 86 percent. Campbell measured "cool" and "hot" via a "feeling thermometer" that ANES has asked in its various surveys of the American electorate. In asking respondents to the ANES studies, the interviewer would describe the thermometer, which goes from 0 for "cold" to 100 for "hot," in the following way:

"If you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward a person, then you should place (that person) in the middle of the thermometer, at the 50 degree mark. If you have a warm feeling toward (the person) or feel favorable toward (the person), you would give ... a score somewhere between 50 degrees and 100 degrees. On the other hand, if you don't feel very favorable toward a person--that is, if you don't care for (them) too much--then you would place (that person) somewhere between 0 degrees and 50 degrees." 

In his study, Campbell uses the ranges of below 59 as "cool" towards the individual and above 80 as being "hotly enthusiastic." But he only cites the 2004 ANES study for his evidence in regards to turnout. As I was reading this section, I thought about whether we would see any trends over time and, if so, what differences there were in the "coolness" or "hotness" by voters and partisan identifiers towards presidential candidates, using Campbell's coding for the feeling thermometers.

My View on Polarization in American Politics

On Wednesday, April 11, I will be a panelist at Charlotte Preparatory School's Parent Partnership Event on "Parenting in the Age of Political Divisiveness." In doing some work to gather my thoughts for this much needed conversation, I decided to review two key perspectives about this notion of polarization: whether it exists in a comprehensive level in our nation's politics, or whether it only exists at the elite level, and not in the broader political environment.

Generational Partisanship (or Why Millennials May Not Save Us from Partisan Loyalty and Polarization)

As many may have realized by now (by reading some of my previous posts), I've become very interested in the generational dynamics underway in American politics, and particularly in North Carolina (through voter registration figures and analyses). But voter registration only tells part of the story--a companion aspect to our political environment is voting "behavior," especially about voters' party self-identification and supporting presidential candidates, when it can be a driving force of our partisanship and polarization.

In trying to better understand the partisanship and potential polarization coming from party identification in our nation, along with the generational dynamics that are happening (especially with the rising Millennial generation), I ran a series of analyses using survey data from the American National Elections Studies (ANES) to investigate the following questions:

• Are Americans really moving into political independence with the "rise of the independent" or are we seeing another phenomenon, especially when it comes to voting behavior of these independents?
• What have been the trends in recent presidential elections when it comes to partisan self-identification and presidential vote choices among the four generations in the American electorate?

Some thoughts going into Election Evening

Here are some random thoughts on the US and NC elections prior to the polls closing at 7:30 (in the Old North State).

1. NC's US Senate Race could be a nail-bitter throughout the night.

The term 'constantly consistent' could be used to describe how the contest between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis has been since the early summer.  The polls leading up to today have shown a race within the bounds of margins of error:

Based on the mid-term election fundamentals in North Carolina, this should be (by all accounts) a lean-GOP seat this year, but I think the level of polarization and competitiveness that North Carolina experiences in presidential years has bled over into mid-term years (more on both the lean-GOP and competitiveness in a moment).

The result is that most predictions are for a pure toss-up among those analysts (Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg) who use a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures, while the 'modeling' folks (538, Washington Post, HuffPost) are more likely to show a lean-Hagan tilt to the race.

It is still up in the air as to whether the U.S. Senate will need the N.C. race to determine whether the GOP claims control of the upper chamber of Congress or not. My thinking right now: there are many pathways (and a few obstacles) that the GOP can have to claim the 6 additional seats to capture majority control of the Senate. Both North Carolina and New Hampshire are probably more "canary in the coalmine" indicates of how the GOP may fare: if NC and NH remain in Democratic hands, then the Republicans will need some combination of red-states, such as Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana (most likely to go to run-off) and then one competitive purple state, say Iowa or Colorado, to make their numbers work--combined with holding both Georgia and Kansas, two states they probably hadn't bet on contesting.

2. Do we continue to see a polarized electorate?

Based on research from the 2012's general election by the American National Election Study, the traditional electorate looks something like this in a presidential year:

Granted, this isn't a presidential election year, so mid-term electorates generally become more Republican, more white, and older in comparison.

But when it comes to the polarization effect, the classification that one identifies with has a strong connection to one's voting behavior.

Between strong partisans to leaning-independents, the likelihood is that they will vote for their party 85 to 99 percent of the time.  Only "pure independents"--usually less than 15 percent of the national electorate--are the swing voters.

And here in North Carolina, we see a similar, albeit more "center-right" when it comes to independent voters, in voting behavior:

So we have an idea of how these voters will behavior when they show up--that's the next big question, though.

3. Who Shows Up?

In North Carolina, the lean-GOP factor in mid-terms are quite noticeable. Granted, the rise of North Carolina's unaffiliated voters has been quite dramatic over the past few election cycles:

But the question remains: do unaffiliated voters show up at the same rate as partisan registered voters?

With the marked boxes of the past two mid-term elections (2006 and 2010), registered unaffiliated voters don't show at the same level of partisan registered voters.

What this tells us is that the electorate, in past mid-terms in North Carolina, should lean to the right, in comparison to the pool of eligible, registered voters overall.

So, what might we see this year in terms of an electorate? Well, since we already have some votes cast (1.1M+ in early ballots), we see something that may appear "out of the ordinary" when it comes to mid-terms in the Old North State:

Registered Democrats are 48 percent of the early in person ballots that came in with 7 reduced days, while registered Republicans were 32 percent and registered unaffiliated voters were 20 percent.  This is much more in line with a presidential year percentage basis of early in person ballots than a mid-term electorate, which is typically 45 D/37 R/18 U.

Among those 2014 voters who cast in person early ballots and how they voted in 2010:

The notable thing is that one third of registered unaffiliated voters and one quarter of registered Democrats did not participate in 2010, either by not being registered, not living in the state, or simply not voting.

4. But even if these folks do show up to cast ballots, will they have anything in North Carolina beyond a competitive U.S. Senate race?

Not likely.

Nationally, the percentage of competitive U.S. House of Representative races has declined substantially, to basically a hand-full of races that aren't in one camp or the other.

In North Carolina, we mirror that trend with 13 non-competitive congressional districts, and with only one flipping tonight due to the current incumbent (Democrat Mike McIntyre in the 7th) not running for re-election.

This is due partly to redistricting and gerrymandering, and due partly to voters becoming locked into voting for their party candidates both at the top and going down the ballot.

This impacts even the North Carolina General Assembly, with the connection between how a legislative district voted for Obama and how the district voted for the Democratic legislative candidate.

So, in the end, the predictions I would make are the following:

• Republicans retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
• Republicans gain majority control of the U.S. Senate, but the pathway there is unclear. I suspect Alaska, Arkansas, and Colorado flip to make the 51 needed, and there may be some other states that flip as well--most likely Iowa, Louisiana (in a December run-off). If Kansas goes independent, then the GOP needs Georgia, either tonight or in January, to build on the numbers.
• North Carolina's Senate race may come down to a 2-3 percent margin of victory; right now, it seems like it could stay Democratic, but no bets as it is a coin-toss.
• Republicans continue to have majority control of both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly: biggest question is, can Democrats break the 3/5 supermajority to crack the veto-override numbers in one or the other? If Democrats can, slight favor to doing so in the House rather than the Senate.
• With GOP control of Congress, expect more partisan gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. And it won't be just in Congress as well--one of the key questions out of the National American Election Studies from 2012 was a question, "is there anything you like about the Democratic or Republican parties?" Sorting by partisanship and identification, you get this:

Partisans love their party, don't like the opposition, and even independent leaners are mirror images of each other.  Pure independents--well, a 'pox on both parties' is best to describe them.

Oh, and one other prediction: we won't get through Wednesday before someone asks "so what about 2016's presidential election?"