Think your ‘beer buddy candidate’ will represent your interests? Think again. 

Do you think it’s fun to have a beer with political candidates? If so, will it affect your vote?

As a behavioral scientist, I remember that in 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) elected the relatively unknown Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be governor, I realized that voters were I began to wonder about the importance of recognizing the similarities between Vice President’s running mate.

Palin was widely known She was praised for her high level of empathy., regardless of qualifications. Some voters thought so. she is the same as meand that recognition drove them to support her.

At that time I was perplexed. There’s something I’ve been wondering about lately.

Judgments of similarity are powerful in social life. We make friends with people, we marry them, we join groups of people similar to ourselves. But humans are so complex that we can resemble each other in countless ways.

We may be similar in age, race, and religion. We can share social or economic values. And you can drink the same beer and root for the same sports team. Certain similarities lead to longer-term relationships more than others. similarity of attitudes There’s more to a lasting marriage than a shared interest in ice fishing or historical fiction (for example, about money, sex, or religion).

In politics, analogy can serve a peculiar function.

Take advantage of local advantages. At least since Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, candidates’ hometowns have been used to emphasize or, more cynically, invent similarities with voters.

Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.) using this strategy Dole was born and raised in Russell, Kansas, where he announced his candidacy. The intended message was clear. Bob Dole is hard-working, down-to-earth, and dedicated to America. Just like you! Thanks to his Kansas roots, Dole portrayed himself as an average American.

My father and his extended family were also born and raised in Russell, Kansas. So the Dole campaign stood out to me. At the time, I corresponded with him about issues on which we disagreed, such as reproductive rights. Although I used Russell’s story and cited my own grandmother, who knew Russell, to discuss abortion rights, I was unable to persuade Russell to consider the psychological and physical costs of my position. could not.

I played a game that I could relate to. But Doll didn’t accept it. So the fact that he’s from the same hometown as my father wasn’t enough of a similarity to get my vote. It didn’t outweigh our policy differences.

Connections based on similarity are the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s campaign strategy. There’s nothing new about that. But what is worrying is that Trump has bonded with his supporters primarily through shared anger. My specialty in behavioral science is the study of emotions, and research shows that when two people believe they feel the same way, they are more likely to imagine that they are similar in many other ways. I already know.

Donald Trump, a wealthy businessman, probably isn’t angry about the tax burden on the middle class.or Manufacturing job losses In certain states.or soybean price.If you search online for the cause of his anger, you will find references to his anger. lose the 2020 election and his current legal troubles.

But the fact that he may not be personally angry about things that infuriate his supporters seems irrelevant. “The Apprentice” has already turned many voters into feel like them I know him.

When candidates connect emotionally with voters, they have a unique power and can harness that emotion to advance their political agenda. This strategy takes several forms. Back when Americans had facts to agree on, common sentiments could be attributed to measurable issues or achievements.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (R-Vt.) benefited from advocacy groups Anger against big business.Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used groups optimism about the economyClinton gave his name to that sentiment Ark, the hometown of hope.

However, emotional similarities can be artificial and intentionally misdirected. Former Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) has argued that the state’s public sector workers receive an inequitable distribution of resources compared to private sector workers, arguing that some Wisconsinites caused anger.he used that anger enact policy.

We carried out two National survey research Americans’ attitudes toward people who hold public sector jobs, including public school teachers, public university professors, and employees of the Department of National Resources (or other state equivalents).

Across America, people’s admiration for public sector workers far outweighed feelings of resentment and envy toward them. So people are left to their own devices and are not necessarily angry at state officials. But they can advance their agenda by appearing equally angry and focusing voters’ attention on plausible reasons for their feelings. It worked well in Wisconsin. It worked when mounting the January 6, 2021 event.

So how does similarity affect voting? Before assessing similarity, we must first ask whether a candidate meets the minimum qualifications for political office. .Given the job description For the President of the United States, these include an understanding of the Constitution, knowledge of civics and American history, and a grasp of the law.

Such qualifications are often considered as differences rather than similarities between candidates and voters. But that’s to be expected. We hire electricians, accountants, and lawyers with exactly the training required for their professions, even if we don’t.

Once the minimum eligibility benchmarks are met, you can move down the list and consider similarities in everything from policies to your favorite baseball team. When it comes to emotional sharing, the fact that a candidate’s anger level seems to match your own may indicate whether the candidate is fit for office, has sound judgment, or It reveals little about whether it will improve our lives or the state of our country. All that means is that they’re both angry.

Paula Niedenthal is a professor of psychology and director of the Niedenthal Emotion Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a past president of the Association for Affective Science and her textbook ““Psychology of Emotions” (2nd edition).