Einige konservative Wähler in den Vereinigten Staaten betrachten hetzerische Pro-Waffen-Rhetorik als Zeichen dafür, dass ein politischer Kandidat nicht bereit ist, mit den Demokraten Kompromisse einzugehen – und dass diese mangelnde Kompromissbereitschaft den Kandidaten für diese Wähler vertrauenswürdiger und attraktiver erscheinen lassen kann.

I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.70074

From the linked article:

In a new study published in Political Psychology, researchers found evidence that **some conservative voters in the United States view inflammatory pro-gun rhetoric as a sign that a political candidate is unwilling to compromise with Democrats—and that this unwillingness to compromise can make the candidate seem more trustworthy and appealing to those voters**. This pattern reflects a broader trend in American politics, where signaling opposition to the other side can be used as a strategy to build trust with a party’s base.

The study was prompted by an effort to understand the strategic use of inflammatory rhetoric in U.S. politics. The researchers were especially interested in why certain candidates, such as Mehmet Oz during his 2022 Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, chose to produce provocative political messages that seemed likely to alienate moderate voters.

The researchers found that candidates who used inflammatory rhetoric were viewed as less willing to compromise with Democrats, especially when participants believed that liberals would react negatively to the post. This perception, in turn, made some candidates appear more trustworthy to conservative voters who disliked Democrats.

Interestingly, the rhetorical style of the message had a greater influence on perceptions than the candidate’s background. This suggests that what a candidate says—especially how offensive it is to the other side—can override doubts based on their prior political history.

The findings showed that conservatives who held more negative views of Democrats were more likely to find inflammatory candidates trustworthy and were more inclined to vote for them. On the other hand, conservatives with more neutral or positive views of Democrats preferred the candidates who used less inflammatory, more civil language. This pattern suggests that the effectiveness of inflammatory rhetoric depends not just on the message itself, but also on the audience’s existing attitudes toward the political opposition.

Across all three studies, the researchers found consistent evidence that inflammatory rhetoric functions as a signal of political intransigence. It sends a message that the candidate is unwilling to compromise with the other party, and for voters who strongly dislike that party, this can be seen as a positive trait. However, this effect is not universal among conservatives. Those who feel more moderately or positively about Democrats tend to react negatively to inflammatory candidates.

Consider also that the GOP is pro-killing and pro-violence. It’s their first resort in most foreign and domestic and interpersonal scenarios.

I mean, it makes sense, in a twisted way. If you believe the Ds are evil, then you will want to vote for a candidate who shows great hostility towards the Ds.