Theme 1: Measuring Opinion (Fed. #10, Fed. #51 , and Pew Research Center

Founders' fears, early polling, indirect measures, etc

Indirect measures

tells action, regional pattern, and intensity

Scientific polling

tells exact percentages and nuance in finding

Examples of indirect measures

election results, newspapers, straw polls, and public action

Examples of scientific polling

Gallup polls, random sampling, specific percentage, tracking over time

Founders’ fears

• Superior force of an interest and overbearing majority (mass public)

• Destructive power of factions driven by passion

• Tyranny by the majority where minorities (elites) could be oppressed

Rally-around-the-flag

Short-term surge in voter approval as the nation unites behind its leader during a national crisis or emergency.

How to Control the “Mischief of a Faction”

• Adopt a large republic to dilute faction (Fed. 10)

• Separation of powers checks majority will

• Representative democracy instead of a direct democracy

Polling during the Founding Era (1787)

• No polling

• No systematic measurement

• Leaders guessed opinions from letters

Polling during the Pre-Modern era (1860)

• Indirect

• Election results

• Straw polls

• Public actions

Polling during the Modern-Polling Era (1941)

• Scientific

• Gallup polls

• Random sampling

• Specific percentages

• Tracking over time

Polling during the Media Age (1960s)

• TV era

• Extensive polling

• TV shapes opinion

• Complex data

• Reveals nuance

Key Points in Civil War Succession

• Indirect methods showed clear patterns but missed nuance

• Election results predicted secession remarkably well

• Fort Sumter created regional unity but national division

• High turnout showed engagement but could'n’t reveal intensity

Other findings

• External threats unify, internal conflicts divide

• Crystallizing moments accelerate change

Challenges in Brown v. BOE

• Limited polling

• Polling gaps

Challenges in JFK Assassination

• Persistant distrust

• Television + conspiracy

Challenges in the Civil Rights Movement

• Paradoxical views

• Goals vs. methods

Final Takeaways

• Public opinion is complex

• Measurement shapes what we know

• Leaders must lead, not follow

• Historical context matters

• Dramatic events can shift opinions rapidly

• What we remember does not equal how it happened

Patterns Seen

1. Measurement matters

2. External vs. Internal Threats

3. Dramatic events accelerate change

4. Opinion is complex

5. Memory reshapes opinion

6. Policy can lead opinion

1970s is the starting point of trends in American public opinion. What are the key characteristics

• Post-New Deal Coalition Era

• High Ticket Splitting Behavior

• Ideological Overlap Between Parties (Conservative Democrats v. Liberal Republicans)

What occurred in public opinion from the 1970s to now?

• Realignment of the South (1980s-90s)

• Decline of moderate members in Congress

• Rise of partisan media (1990s-2000s)

• Digital/social media era (2010s to present)

• Increasing affective polarization

Ideological polarization

difference in policy opinion

Affective polarization

Emotional dislike of the opposing party

Opinion sorting

process by which people with similar views increasingly cluster together; alignment of existing views with party identity

Polarization

Views becoming more extreme with people moving towards end of spectrum; increases disagreement

Generation Effects (Formative Years)

Political events during young adulthood have lasting impact for Generational Cohorts (Silent, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z)

Period Effects

Events that affect all age groups similarly (9/11, COVID-19)

Cohort Effects

Experiences unique to a generation (Great Depression + Silent Gen, Climate Crisis + Gen Z)

Life Cycle Effects

Changes as people age (voter turnout increases with age)

Geographic Sorting

People increasingly live near politically like-minded neighbors

Consequences of Geographic Sorting

• “Landslide counties” increase

• Reduced exposure to opposing viewpoints

• Safe threats reduce electoral competition

• Reinforces polarization