t makes me so angry that such a tiny slice of certain swing states control the fate of the nation. (But as noted last week, that's because being angry at Republicans is too big and futile. Really, the anger should just be on them.)
Oh I don't know, anger about the electoral college seems about right to me. There will always be people whose political views differ from yours, but it's neither inevitable nor just that our voting system purports to be democratic but in actuality is designed to thwart the will of the majority.
It sounds nice to talk about increasing voter turnout, but nobody actually wants that. It's always been about getting your voters to turn out.
Anyway, this reads extremely optimistically:
If they were to all vote in November, 33 percent say they would support Democrats, 30 percent Republicans and 18 percent a third-party candidate.
That's 33 percent for the Democrats, plus 18 percent for the Democratic Socialists!
That was a long and frustrating read, or quite possibly I'm just super complainey today, but likely both. Could you give me a Venn diagram, a pie chart, SOMETHING to help me get a grip? I thought the endless lists of percentages were trying to reconcile two different perspectives on how to break down nonvoters, then I got to this sentence "Again, paralleling More in Common's data and Kendi's research, the Knight study distinguished a huge "disconnected" group..." and I realized they're comparing THREE different systems, and then a paragraph later "Highlighting the complexity of nonvoters, Knight was able to further parse this disconnected group into three distinct subdivisions.." Yeah, highlighting the complexity. Yes, you are.
To the OP, though, yes, deeply depressing.
That was a long and frustrating read, or quite possibly I'm just super complainey today, but likely both. Could you give me a Venn diagram, a pie chart, SOMETHING to help me get a grip? I thought the endless lists of percentages were trying to reconcile two different perspectives on how to break down nonvoters, then I got to this sentence "Again, paralleling More in Common's data and Kendi's research, the Knight study distinguished a huge "disconnected" group..." and I realized they're comparing THREE different systems, and then a paragraph later "Highlighting the complexity of nonvoters, Knight was able to further parse this disconnected group into three distinct subdivisions.." Yeah, highlighting the complexity. Yes, you are.
To the OP, though, yes, deeply depressing.
3-4: I only skimmed the Politico article, but it seemed to be getting at the same idea as this one, which opens with a Venn diagram and also has some fairly clear scatterplots.
It focuses on moderate/undecided/independent voters rather than nonvoters, but the implications are the same. People like to talk about moderate voters or nonvoters as if they're one bloc who could be swayed to one side or the other by the right issue or whatever, but there's little evidence of that. Some self-described moderates are left-wing on one issue and right-wing on the next, some are solidly left-wing or right-wing but think of themselves personally as moderate in comparison to something other than the modern parties (people around here and in my family would describe themselves as moderate while campaigning for Democrats because Republicans have gone nuts in recent years), some just don't have strong opinions at all.
Same for nonvoters, apparently. There's no silver bullet to mobilize that huge fraction of the population that isn't already firmly aligned.
6 thanks. I remember that one. If someone is going to write an article about how things are overwhelming and depressing I do appreciate some good scatterplots.
This kind of thing reinforces my belief that the only way to win is to reach across the cultural, rather than the political divide. In this country it is really notable that Corbynisti simply could not process the idea that anyone might not share their enthusiasm. They talked as if the only problem was getting out to potential voters the message that he had all these wonderful policies, and was nothing at all like Tony Blair, and the election would end with a landslide.
No, not that landslide. The one that was supposed to happen.
Bernie can't have quite the same cultural baggage as Corbyn, who positioned himself ostentatiously on the other side in every war Britain has fought in his lifetime. He wasn't a pacifist. He was egging on the IRA, and indeed Saddam. But I suspect he has enough baggage of a similar sort to pull the same triggers in otherwise undecided voters. What that would be in a US context I just don't know.
Yeah, I think Sanders has actually been quite good at reaching out across the cultural divide, in ways that have sometimes been controversial on the broader left (though not within his own devoted following). Stuff like the Joe Rogan endorsement. He doesn't really come across as a condescending urban elite to the sorts of people who hate condescending urban elites.
Bernie is popular. He may not stay popular, but at this moment, at least, he polls favorably. I don't think that was ever true of Corbyn.
And Bernie bridges the cultural divide that Trump exploits merely by being a white guy. In 2016, Bernie voters were more conservative than Clinton voters. I wonder how that compares with this year.
I'm convinced by a former cow-orker that the best way to increase turnout is to throw fun parties right outside polling places, which has the advantages of (1) you can target your efforts pretty well to turn out *your* voters, (2) can be done entirely by civil society groups outside the regular political process, and (3) targets low-engagement voters *really*well.
https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1231332108880273413
Related to the OP -- an interesting article in vox today: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data
But early polling testing how Democratic nominees would fare against Trump suggests a different conclusion: Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing candidate in the Democratic primary, polls as well against Trump as his more moderate competitors in surveys. Democratic voters have appeared to take these polls to heart, as a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Democrats believe Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump.
...
Our data (laid out in an academic working paper here) also found what polls show: that Bernie Sanders is similarly electable to more moderate candidates. But, on closer inspection, it shows that this finding relies on some remarkable assumptions about youth turnout that past elections suggest are questionable.
We found that nominating Sanders would drive many Americans who would otherwise vote for a moderate Democrat to vote for Trump, especially otherwise Trump-skeptical Republicans.
Republicans are more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated: Approximately 2 percent of Republicans choose Trump over Sanders, but desert Trump when we pit him against a more moderate Democrat like Buttigieg, Biden, or Bloomberg.
...
Despite losing these voters to Trump, Sanders appears in our survey data to be similarly electable to the moderates -- at least at first blush. Why? Mainly because 11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated -- but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated.
...
12 - glad someone was right there with the William Henry Harrison hard cider cartoon.
Republicans are more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated: Approximately 2 percent of Republicans choose Trump over Sanders, but desert Trump when we pit him against a more moderate Democrat like Buttigieg, Biden, or Bloomberg.
I truly don't trust these voters worth a hill of beans. They're kidding themselves that they'd ever vote for anyone besides Trump, and then they'd fall in line even if the Democratic candidate's last name started with a B.
15: Haven't read the paper but I'd guess the headline 11% number is very sensitive to that 2%.
I think that's probably right. Anyone who's willing to admit to a pollster that there are circumstances under which they'd vote for Trump seems likely to me to be an almost certain Trump vote, regardless of the Democrat.
15: Haven't read the paper but I'd guess the headline 11% number is very sensitive to that 2%.
I haven't read the paper either, and have some skepticism, but I'm interested in looking at it. At first glance it looks well enough done that it's worth figuring out what it actually shows.
17 is right I think. Their actual, if not stated choice, is between Trump and not voting.
I don't even think it's that. They're Trump voters, full stop. Republicans have no nuance.
18: Yeah, the Vox article was good (and scary).
15/ 17 / 20 -- I worry this is too cynical. I agree in general, and I think persuasion is very difficult (and overemphasized in the horse-race coverage of politics) but I don't think it's impossible. To my eye 2% is a plausible number of Republicans who would vote against Trump and are sensitive to the Democratic campaign -- that doesn't mean that one poll captures how they would actually behave in November, but I don't think it's worth dismissing out of hand.
The link in 18 is so grim. My anxiety, ow.
22 I'm not clicking through, but how many of those 2% live in California? Massachusetts? Maryland? A disproportionate share, I'd expect.
for that matter, how many of them live in Russia?
NB I was far too lazy to look up methodology before 25
Somehow, in this moment, I have a hard time worrying about electability. I mean, I get that it's a hugely important issue, but something has gone badly wrong in this country -- something deeper than Trump. I think Bernie, more than any of the others, gets that, and is willing to address it. I don't think Democrats should pass up this opportunity, even if it is risky.*
I still think about that debate with Hillary: "I think the secretary of state is right, the American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails." That's a direct attack on the actual problem -- it's the opposite of the political chicanery we've grown accustomed to. Bernie is willing to directly take on the crazy media narrative in a way that Hillary was not, or could not.
*I mean, I'll still vote for Warren if she's around when my primary is held because she, too, gets it. But she, too, is risky.
It's the "something deeper than Trump" thing that makes me viscerally opposed to Bloomberg I think. Not that there can't be a rational preference between him and Trump, but that either way you lose by going further down this path. I guess I see Trump as a symptom, not a root cause.
Somehow, in this moment, I have a hard time worrying about electability.
I like Nate Silver's comment today:
Let me see if I can express this the right way. I don't think "which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump" is literally an unknowable question. But there are questions where the uncertainty can be well-quantified and others where it can't, and that one's in the latter group.
I think polls like the one done above do provide useful information, and are worth taking seriously, but there are good reasons to not feel too confident about any assessments of electability.
Real questions:
1. What's the succession plan for candidate Sanders if incapacitated/expired after getting the nomination? His running mate presumably steps up, but who then becomes running mate? Are there ways to organize this in binding fashion at the convention? And how would/should this affect the choice of running mate?
2. Why does anyone cite national polls at all? Everyone knows only the swing states count. The Vox paper above used a national sample.
Weights To correct for any over- or under-representativeness in our sample, we constructed survey weights to match either national data provided by the Census (2018 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey) or the 2016 electorate
Very different but 1972 had a very big influx of new young voters (although turnout was still comparatively low, there were still a larger than usual influx of new young voters due to the voting age drop).
Sigh.
While on politics, Before Nevada Biden had only finished higher than 4th one time in a Presidential primary/caucus and that was in Delaware where he got htird after he had dropped out of the race.
Has he considered calling Sanders "articulate"?
30 I'm sure there is something. Our law here is that if a legislative or county candidate drops out (or becomes unavailable) after the primary, then the county central committee votes someone onto the ballot. Several years ago, the long time county clerk was so competent that no Republican filed to run against her. She resigned just after the primary, so we voted someone onto the ballot for an uncontested election. Guy won a full time responsible elected office, in a county with over 100,000 people, with like 19 votes.
Nationally, I think the parties do it. The bigger problem is that each state has a deadline for getting on the ballot -- states run elections -- and if the candidate misses the deadline, they might need a legislative fix. While lots of states don't have legislatures in session in the fall, so the governor would have to call a special session.
34 last sounds like a massive rigging opportunity.
8: The British Left is way weirder than the American left. Or rather, the relative ratios of weirdos and non-weirdos is very different. I have met people like Momentum supporters in the US, but there aren't enough of them to take over a wet T-shirt contest let alone an actual political party.
30. Horace Greeley was the Dem candidate (against Grant) in 1872. He lost the election by a landslide, and died on November 29th, before the Electoral College met. His electoral votes were divided among four other candidates, including his running mate. None of this mattered, but it's a precedent of sorts.
Sounds like a massive rigging opportunity.
I don't know. Portions of the American left look pretty fucking weird from here. I'm thinking immediately of MeFi. But you don't have the great revulsion from imperialism of the British left, because you still have an empire which by and large works for you. Even when you lose wars, as in Iraq, it's not experienced as an existential national humiliation, the way that it was by the Left here.
30.2: Swing states are not immune to national trends. If the national electorate is moving towards or away from a candidate by 1 or 2 points, the average swing state may not move exactly in lockstep with the rest of the country, but that's a pretty good guess as to how they will be affected (just from a possibly different starting point). If Clinton had picked up another point or two nationally in 2016, she almost certainly would have carried MI, WI, and PA, and the electoral college along with them (thanks, Comey). Because high-quality national polling happens a lot more often than individual polls of most states, watching the national trends is often the most useful information available about how the swing states are likely to go. I remember Nate Silver days before the Nevada caucus this year talking about how there hadn't been any good polling of Nevada in over a month (a couple came out a few days before the caucus).
Because high-quality national polling happens a lot more often than individual polls of most states, watching the national trends is often the most useful information available about how the swing states are likely to go. I remember Nate Silver days before the Nevada caucus this year talking about how there hadn't been any good polling of Nevada in over a month (a couple came out a few days before the caucus).
And indeed, the 538 primary model, which relies heavily on national polls to compensate for a lack of state polling, nailed the result in Nevada (final forecast was 39% for Bernie; actual result was 40%) and has done remarkably well throughout the primaries so far.
Nice, I didn't see that their forecasts for past elections now contrast final prediction and result. They are pretty spot on in most cases; it looks like the biggest swings from their forecasts were Biden in Iowa (26% projected, 14% actual) and Klobuchar in New Hampshire (11% projected, 20% actual).
Yeah, it's quite an impressive achievement so far, especially since this is the first time they've tried to formally model a primary and it's a much more complicated process than anything else they've done.
huh. interesting to see if they can keep that up through the primaries.