It's everything in politics. All politics is identity politics
Group loyalties and social identities
In addition to retrospective voting, Achen and Bartels tentatively propose that group loyalties and social identities play a big role for politics. Whereas the retrospection theory appears to be relatively well-studied, this new theory is much less worked out, yet (pp. 230f.).
It seems clear that vast parts of psychology and social psychology in particular – Achen and Bartels refer to ingroups and outgroups, Asch’s conformity experiments, cognitive dissonance, rationalization, etc. – should be a significant explanatory factor in political science. Indeed, Achen and Bartels start chapter 8 by stating that the relevance of social psychology for politics has been recognized by past generations of researchers (pp. 213-222), it only became unpopular when some theories that it was associated with failed (pp. 222-225).
Achen and Bartels discuss a few ways in which social groups, identities and loyalties influence voting behavior:
-While voters’ retrospection focuses on the months leading up to the election, these short-term retrospections translate into the formation of long-term partisan loyalties. So, in a way, partisan loyalties are, in part, the cumulation of these short-term retrospections (p. 197-199).
-Many people are loyal to one party (p. 233).
People adopt the political views of the groups they belong to or identify with (p. 219f., 222f., 246-, p. 314).
-People often adopt the party loyalties of their parents (p. 233f.).
People adopt the views of their party (or project their views onto the party) (ch. 10). Party identification also influences one’s beliefs about factual matters. For example, when an opposing party is in office people judge the economy as worse (pp. 276-284).
-People reject the political views of groups that they dislike (pp. 284-294).
-People choose candidates based on what they perceive to be best for their group (p. 229).
-Catholic voters (even one’s who rarely go to church) tend to prefer catholic candidates, even if the candidate emphasizes the separation of church and state (pp. 238-246).
-If, say, Catholics discriminate against Jews, then Jews are much less likely to vote for a Catholic candidate or a party dominated by Catholics (p. 237f.).
-Better-informed voters are often influenced more strongly by identity issues, presumably because they are more aware of them (pp. 284-294). For example, they are sometimes less likely than worse-informed voters to get the facts right (p. 283).
“When political candidates court the support of groups, they are judged in part on whether they can ‘speak our language.’ Small-business owners, union members, evangelical Christians, international corporations – each of these has a set of ongoing concerns and challenges, and a vocabulary for discussing them. Knowing those concerns, using that vocabulary, and making commitments to take them seriously is likely to be crucial for a politician to win their support (Fenno 1978).“
https://casparoesterheld.com/2017/06/18/summary-of-achen-and-bartels-democracy-for-realists/How common are people who vote based on the following factors?
1.) Race - common
2.) Ethnic background - common
3.) Gender - common
4.) Religion - common
5.) Sexuality - common
6.) Socioeconomic status (lower, middle, or upper class) - common
As a follow-up, how common are people who vote based on these less-discussed factors that influence identity?
7.) Veteran status - somewhat common
8.) Disability status - probably not common
9.) Educational attainment - common
10.) Family ties - common
11.) Home region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) - common
12.) Occupation (not counting illegal occupations such as assassins and drug dealers) Politics is embodied so how you vote has alot to do with the types of bodies you have and how you use them in the world. Occupation obviously has alot to do with that. See:
Why Is Your State Red or Blue? Look to the Dominant Occupational Class
