This volume explores the conflict between two forces: party polarization and party factionalism. The major change in America's two political parties over the past half-century has been increased polarization, which has led to a new era of heightened inter-party competition resulting in stronger and more cohesive parties. At the same time, elections, particularly primaries, often reveal deep internal factional divisions within both the parties, and the 2020 election was no different. The Democratic coalition typically pits moderate or establishment candidates against progressive activists and candidates, while the Republican Party in 2020 was, at times, polarized not only between moderates and conservatives but between those willing to criticize President Trump and those who would not. How did these two opposing forces shape the outcome of the 2020 election, and what are the consequences for the future of American party politics and elections?

The industrial revolution was the single most important development in human history over the past three centuries, and it continues to shape the contemporary world. With new methods and organizations for producing goods, industrialization altered where people live, how they play, and even how they define political issues. By exploring the ways the industrial revolution reshaped world history, this book offers a unique look into the international factors that started the industrial revolution and its global spread and impact.

The 2016 presidential election was unconventional in many ways. The election of President Donald Trump caught many by surprise, with a true outsider - a candidate with no previous governmental experience and mixed support from his own party - won the election by winning in traditionally Democratic states with coattails that extended to Republican Senate candidates and resulted in unified Republican government for the first time since 2008. This result broke with the pre-election conventional wisdom, which expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and a closer Senate divide. This surprising result led many political scientists to question whether 2016 truly marked a major turning point in American elections as portrayed in the media - a break from the conventional wisdom - or whether it was really the exception that proved the rule. In this volume, political scientists examine previous theories and trends in light of the 2016 election to determine the extent to which 2016 was a break from previous theories. While in some areas it seems as though 2016 was really just what would have been predicted, in others, this election and the new president pose significant challenges to mainstream theories in political science. In particular, prominent political scientists examine whether voter trends, with particular focus on groups by gender, age, geography, and ethnicity, and election issues, especially the role of the Supreme Court, followed or bucked recent trends. Several political scientists examine the unconventional nomination process and whether this signals a new era for political parties. The role of conspiracy theories and voter confidence in the administration of elections are also discussed. Finally, contributors also examine the indirect effect the presidential candidates, especially Trump, played in congressional election rhetoric.

As a survey of the most current and significant issues affecting party politics in the United States, "The Parties Respond "has become a standard for reference and college course use. Mark Brewer and L. Sandy Maisel draw together leading scholars for thirteen original essays. The topics addressed include partisanship in the electorate, parties and the media revolution, the campaign and election process, and parties in government. The fifth edition is significantly revised with twelve new chapters, bringing each of these topics up to date for the modern political arena and highlighting the many changes in party politics over the past ten years.

Party affiliation has long been the driving force behind electoral politics in the United States. Despite this fact, scant attention has been devoted to the American electoratea (TM)s party imagesa "the "mental pictures" that individuals have about the parties which enable citizens to translate events in the larger political environment into terms meaningful to them as individuals. Party images are central to understanding individualsa (TM) political perceptions and, ultimately, voting behavior.

Party Images in the American Electorate systematically examines the substance, evolution, and manipulation of party images within the American public over the last half century, both within the public as a whole and within important subgroups based on class, race and ethnicity, sex, and religiosity. Ultimately, this important book investigates how these party images are tied into the story of party polarization and how they affect electoral outcomes in the United States.

Party affiliation has long been the driving force behind electoral politics in the United States. Despite this fact, scant attention has been devoted to the American electoratea (TM)s party imagesa "the "mental pictures" that individuals have about the parties which enable citizens to translate events in the larger political environment into terms meaningful to them as individuals. Party images are central to understanding individualsa (TM) political perceptions and, ultimately, voting behavior.

Party Images in the American Electorate systematically examines the substance, evolution, and manipulation of party images within the American public over the last half century, both within the public as a whole and within important subgroups based on class, race and ethnicity, sex, and religiosity. Ultimately, this important book investigates how these party images are tied into the story of party polarization and how they affect electoral outcomes in the United States.

In Dynamics of American Political Parties, Mark D. Brewer and Jeffrey M. Stonecash examine the process of gradual change that inexorably shapes and reshapes American politics. Parties and the politicians that comprise them seek control of government in order to implement their visions of proper public policy. To gain control parties need to win elections, and winning elections requires assembling an electoral coalition that is larger than that crafted by the opposition. Parties are always looking for opportunities to build such winning coalitions, and opportunities are always there, but they are rarely, if ever, without risk. Uncertainty rules and intra-party conflict rages as different factions and groups within the parties debate the proper course(s) of action and battle it out for control of the party. Parties can never be sure how their strategic maneuvers will play out, and, even when it appears that a certain strategy has been successful, party leaders are unclear about how long apparent success will last. Change unfolds slowly, in fits and starts.

Contemporary American politics is highly polarized, and it is increasingly clear that this polarization exists at both the elite and mass levels. What is less clear is the source of this polarization. Social issues are routinely presented by some as the driver of polarization, while others point to economic inequality and class divisions. Still others single out divisions surrounding race and ethnicity, or gender, or religion as the underlying source of the deep political divide that currently exists in the United States. All of these phenomena are undoubtedly highly relevant in American politics, and it is also beyond question that they represent significant cleavages within the American polity. We argue, however, that disagreement over a much more fundamental matter lies at the foundation of the polarization that marks American politics in the early 21st century. That matter is personal responsibility. Some Americans fervently believe that an individual's lot in life is primarily if not exclusively his or her own responsibility. Opportunity is widespread in American society, and individuals succeed or fail based on their own talents and efforts. Society greatly benefits from such an arrangement, and as such government policies should support and reward individual initiative and responsibility. Other Americans see personal responsibility-while fine in theory-as an unjust organizing principle for contemporary American society. For these Americans, success or failure in life is far too often not the result of personal effort but of large forces well beyond the control of the individual. Opportunity is not widespread, and is by no means equally available to all Americans. In light of these basic facts of American life, it is the responsibility of the state to step in and implement policies that alleviate inequality and assist those who fail by no fault of their own. These basic differences surrounding the idea of personal responsibility are what separate Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, in contemporary American politics.

Contemporary American politics is highly polarized, and it is increasingly clear that this polarization exists at both the elite and mass levels. What is less clear is the source of this polarization. Social issues are routinely presented by some as the driver of polarization, while others point to economic inequality and class divisions. Still others single out divisions surrounding race and ethnicity, or gender, or religion as the underlying source of the deep political divide that currently exists in the United States. All of these phenomena are undoubtedly highly relevant in American politics, and it is also beyond question that they represent significant cleavages within the American polity. We argue, however, that disagreement over a much more fundamental matter lies at the foundation of the polarization that marks American politics in the early 21st century. That matter is personal responsibility. Some Americans fervently believe that an individual's lot in life is primarily if not exclusively his or her own responsibility. Opportunity is widespread in American society, and individuals succeed or fail based on their own talents and efforts. Society greatly benefits from such an arrangement, and as such government policies should support and reward individual initiative and responsibility. Other Americans see personal responsibility-while fine in theory-as an unjust organizing principle for contemporary American society. For these Americans, success or failure in life is far too often not the result of personal effort but of large forces well beyond the control of the individual. Opportunity is not widespread, and is by no means equally available to all Americans. In light of these basic facts of American life, it is the responsibility of the state to step in and implement policies that alleviate inequality and assist those who fail by no fault of their own. These basic differences surrounding the idea of personal responsibility are what separate Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, in contemporary American politics.

The 2016 presidential election was unconventional in many ways. The election of President Donald Trump caught many by surprise, with a true outsider - a candidate with no previous governmental experience and mixed support from his own party - won the election by winning in traditionally Democratic states with coattails that extended to Republican Senate candidates and resulted in unified Republican government for the first time since 2008. This result broke with the pre-election conventional wisdom, which expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and a closer Senate divide. This surprising result led many political scientists to question whether 2016 truly marked a major turning point in American elections as portrayed in the media - a break from the conventional wisdom - or whether it was really the exception that proved the rule. In this volume, political scientists examine previous theories and trends in light of the 2016 election to determine the extent to which 2016 was a break from previous theories. While in some areas it seems as though 2016 was really just what would have been predicted, in others, this election and the new president pose significant challenges to mainstream theories in political science. In particular, prominent political scientists examine whether voter trends, with particular focus on groups by gender, age, geography, and ethnicity, and election issues, especially the role of the Supreme Court, followed or bucked recent trends. Several political scientists examine the unconventional nomination process and whether this signals a new era for political parties. The role of conspiracy theories and voter confidence in the administration of elections are also discussed. Finally, contributors also examine the indirect effect the presidential candidates, especially Trump, played in congressional election rhetoric.

In Dynamics of American Political Parties, Mark D. Brewer and Jeffrey M. Stonecash examine the process of gradual change that inexorably shapes and reshapes American politics. Parties and the politicians that comprise them seek control of government in order to implement their visions of proper public policy. To gain control parties need to win elections, and winning elections requires assembling an electoral coalition that is larger than that crafted by the opposition. Parties are always looking for opportunities to build such winning coalitions, and opportunities are always there, but they are rarely, if ever, without risk. Uncertainty rules and intra-party conflict rages as different factions and groups within the parties debate the proper course(s) of action and battle it out for control of the party. Parties can never be sure how their strategic maneuvers will play out, and, even when it appears that a certain strategy has been successful, party leaders are unclear about how long apparent success will last. Change unfolds slowly, in fits and starts.