127

The Biden Campaign is Courting an Unexpected Group of Voters: Republicans (www.npr.org)

submitted 5 months ago by Sneptaur@pawb.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

108 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

For that evidence they’d need to look to Congressional downballot races which are more fluid and open to experimentation. The evidence of progressive voter mobilization doesn’t show up there either.

I disagree. This is from the 2020 election:

Funny enough, the two Florida democrats who lost in blue districts also specifically distanced themselves from a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage on the basis that it was too progressive - both they and Biden lost in Florida while the ballot measure passed.

Progressive policies are broadly popular. Running on things that are popular tend to get you more votes. People like it when you do stuff for them.

The only evidence I've seen to the contrary is a NYT opinion piece that cites centrist think tanks and random people's opinions. I didn't see anything in there that looked reliable or compelling.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

So I don't necessarily disagree with your chart, but it's neither statistically relevant nor comprehensive enough to draw any kind of firm conclusion. It's really just a grossly oversimplified snapshot that includes people from all over the country, and it doesn't correct for any other confounding variables. The source I linked in my first comment is much more comprehensive.

Progressive policies are broadly popular. Running on things that are popular tend to get you more votes. People like it when you do stuff for them.

Yes, I get that from an intuitive sense and based on scattershot polling. It's a great sound byte, but it's just a sound byte. You've not provided evidence of any of those propositions, and per my original response to you, the party is looking for electoral evidence, not intuitive suppositions.

The only evidence I’ve seen to the contrary is a NYT opinion piece that cites centrist think tanks and random people’s opinions. I didn’t see anything in there that looked reliable or compelling.

No offense, but the only "evidence" you've provided to support your assertion is a jpeg with 16 names on it, so I find your retort conveniently dismissive. They're not "random people", some of them are academics, and many of them are actual progressives. But fine, if you prefer that I be held to a higher evidentiary standard than you are, here's what I can cobble together:

Combining a regression discontinuity design in close primary races with survey and administrative data on individual voter turnout, we find that extremist nominees—as measured by the mix of campaign contributions they receive—suffer electorally, largely because they decrease their party’s share of turnout in the general election, skewing the electorate towards their opponent’s party. The results help show how the behavioral and institutional literatures can be connected. For our sample of elections, turnout appears to be the dominant force in determining election outcomes, but it advantages ideologically moderate candidates because extremists appear to activate the opposing party’s base more than their own. (note: this was cited in my NYT source, so I assume you missed it)

Following previous literature, we use campaign donations to estimate the ideological positions of non-incumbent candidates. We f ind that in primary elections more extreme candidates receive more votes, and are more likely to win, than moderate candidates. However, the differences between extremists and moderates are small. More importantly, we show that the “reward” to extremism in the primary is swamped by an opposing reward to moderates in the general election. In general elections moderate candidates tend to receive more votes, and win more often, than extremists. (this one was, too)

I examine how the nomination of an extremist changes general-election outcomes and legislative behavior in the U.S. House, 1980–2010, using a regression discontinuity design in primary elections. When an extremist—as measured by primary-election campaign receipt patterns—wins a “coin-flip” election over a more moderate candidate, the party’s general-election vote share decreases on average by approximately 9–13 percentage points, and the probability that the party wins the seat decreases by 35–54 percentage points. This electoral penalty is so large that nominating the more extreme primary candidate causes the district’s subsequent roll-call representation to reverse, on average, becoming more liberal when an extreme Republican is nominated and more conservative when an extreme Democrat is nominated. Overall, the findings show how general-election voters act as a moderating filter in response to primary nominations. (this one as well)

My results support the notion that voters abstain due to indifference and imply that candidate positioning has a large effect on voter turnout and third party voting. Nonetheless, my results indicate that the candidates can best compete by adopting centrist positions. While a candidate can increase turnout among his supporters by moving away from the center, many moderate voters will defect to his opponent. (this one, too)

Using ideology measures derived from campaign contributions, we find that unsuccessful challengers in the U.S. House are generally more extreme than those who win, but ideological extremity is not a disadvantage to those seeking to represent an extreme constituency. More importantly, our existing political institutions may actually serve to mitigate the already high levels of partisan polarization in Congress.

And this source goes into a great amount of detail to address the "progressive paradox" that you're highlighting, whereby progressive policies are ostensibly popular but progressive politicians less so. It suggests that how you frame progressive policies matters a lot to whether or not it'll reach a receptive audience.

So yes, based on the evidence I can find the popularity of progressive policies does not translate into progressive victories. The Party is interested in electoral success, and if progressive politicians repeatedly fail to mobilize enough turnout to win elections except in the most ideologically pure districts, the Party is going to consistently hedge toward moderation on a national stage.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

Thank you for filtering out the irrelevant information and editorializing in the opinion piece.

I'll concede that there is some evidence to support your position, but I would still argue against it. Much of the data used in these studies comes from a different political landscape than what we're dealing with today. There are many studies that show increasing political polarization over time, and I would argue that that reduces the fluidity of voter choices. Republican voters now are less likely to vote for a Democrat now than they were in the 90's, when, for example, Bill Clinton won Louisiana and Tennessee. I would also point out that this conventional wisdom failed to account for Trump's 2016 victory and the fact that the Republican party remains strong despite becoming increasingly extremist.

I don't have time to read through all of your studies but I did read through the first. Something I found notable, which I expected, was that while the study found that extremism was correlated with general election losses in both parties, the effect was significantly more pronounced in the Republican party. This makes the successful rise of right-wing extremism even less coherent with your point of view. But from my perspective, it makes perfect sense - in the current polarized environment, mobilizing one's own base is more effective than appealing to the center, so much so that even if you're promoting broadly unpopular policies, it can still win against someone who has failed to adapt.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Again, you're intuitively correct. I actually agree with what you're saying, and I acknowledge that the current landscape is changing the fundamentals in a way that we can't fully understand just yet. But from an institutional perspective, there's going to be a bias against unproven strategies until evidence emerges that the risk of backfire is low. It's more "the devil you know" and all that. The testing ground for the electoral effectiveness of progressive voter mobilization is downballot. Until consistent signs of success emerge in downballot races, the Party is simply not going to take a risk on the national stage. And I'd counter that if downballot success isn't happening, then there's something underneath your argument that might be missing. If there's some kind of underlying fundamental that's missing from the puzzle, it might be phrased like this (I'm reworking your last point):

In the current polarized environment, mobilizing one’s own base ~~is~~ should be more effective than appealing to the center, so much so that even if you’re promoting broadly unpopular policies, it can still win against someone who has failed to adapt. But young and progressive voter turnout is consistently low enough that this positive effect is dampened.

I'll admit it's a chicken-and-egg argument, in that you can't test progressive mobilization without first putting forward a progressive candidate, which isn't going to happen until progressive voters mobilize, and so on. But I think the Party's major, overwhelming fear is that progressive voters won't show up even if you give them what they want, and then the electoral damage would be overwhelming. To put a bit of punctuation on it, my state (North Carolina) has a persistent Republican supermajority in the Legislature which many locals are tying directly to the leftward shift of the party at the national level. The more leftward the Democratic Party goes on social/cultural issues, the redder North Carolina gets, especially in the past few years. We had a Democratic trifecta as recently as 2010 and they've so thoroughly baked in Republican control that I don't anticipate Democrats taking control of either house (or the judiciary) through the end of my life, which is crippling for centrists and progressives of all stripes.

this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024

127 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19080 readers

3429 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News