hydrophilic attack
Member
Math has a well-known Hillary bias
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Harry Reid to Bernie Sanders: 'math is math' 'sometimes you just have to give up'
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
There is no evidence that the timing of him dropping out has anything to do with the Democrats ability to campaign against Trump. This is chicken little stuff. John McCain won the nomination on March 4th and Obama took three more months, an even larger gap between Republicans having their shit together and Democrats getting their candidate than we'll see this cycle. What do you remember about McCain's campaign from March to June? Nothing, of course. The idea that Trump can focus on Hillary (because she's definitely going to be the nominee!!!!!) but Hillary can't focus on Trump (because she is spending 107% of her money and mortgaging her house just to fight off no-hoper Bernie Sanders!!!!!!) is asinine.
It's also not the case that Bernie is in scorched earth mode. Are people so deluded by coverage of screeching redditor Bernie fans that they think this is scorched earth mode? In 2008 around this time Hillary was shopping around pictures of Obama wearing brown people clothing as part of flirting with Birtherism. Substantive disagreements between Hillary and Obama were far more brutal than between Sanders and Clinton. Hillary explicitly claimed Obama would not be fit to pick up the red phone in the middle of the night. Bernie is appealing to get some DNC members shuffled around at the convention? Maybe you see this as evidence he'll stop at nothing, until you remember that Hillary's campaign spent all of May 2008 arguing with the DNC on technicalities surrounding the Michigan/Florida delegates that would have helped her if she had won the appeal. Bernie fans claim they'll never vote for Hillary? I'm old enough to remember Barack Obama being called "an inadequate black male" by "Party Unity My Ass" members, mad because a Kenyan usurper stole their party. I don't expect you to have knowledge of history, but I at least expect you to have enough to remember there was at least one election before this. Even at the absolute nadir of tensions today, the party has not been remotely as divided was it was in 2008. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1980. Or 1976. Or 1972. Or 1968. Like, come on.
1968 had literal riots at the convention, with hundreds of people arrested and tear gassed, after the presumptive nominee was shot to death (incidentally, during the first week of June, the same week that we're in right now and people claim is apparently too late to pivot to general election campaigning) and the sitting president forced to quit running for re-election.
"The GOP alternative is more dangerous than McCain" Ideologically? Sure, but for every degree more crazy he is than McCain, he also alienates moderates more than McCain did. McCain was in a better polling position for most of 2008 than Trump was now, he had better favourables that Trump did now (inside and outside the Republican party).
Don't just make assertions that Bernie Is Totally Tanking Hillary's Candidacy And He Has To Drop Out Now. There are intuitive arguments about why losers should drop out so winning campaigns have the most time they can to campaign, but they're not grounded in reality or history. So instead of just making intuitive arguments about what your gut feels, go out and actually get some information.
Team Alucard
Banned
Bullshit.
The Clinton campaign leaked this photo to drudge.
The worst Bernie has done is accuse Hillary of being in the pocket of big money.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Bullshit.
The Clinton campaign leaked this photo to drudge.
The worst Bernie has done is accuse Hillary of being in the pocket of big money.
Bernie is attacking the democratic party, Hillary never did that.
Netherscourge
Banned
And here... people were suggesting the REPUBLICANS were going to have a Civil War.
They're all falling in line.
It's the Democrats that suddenly have an identity crisis.
They're all falling in line.
It's the Democrats that suddenly have an identity crisis.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Clinton also never promised a messy convention fight that would doom the party in November. Her past sins were disgusting in their own ways but what Sanders is doing is worse because he is actively trying to ensure a Trump presidency and that makes me fucking disgusted.
Earthstrike
Member
The obama supporters are the Hilary supporters. They moved from hilary to Obama in 2008 when Obama overtook the pledged delegate lead, the same way they would've if Bernie Sanders achieved the same. He didn't.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Ultimately, the fact that he is trying to discredit Hillary versus Trump makes me really frustrated. At that point it's going beyond winning the Democratic primary and into hurting Democrats' chances against Trump.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Again, this is a post-hoc justification. It's true that Bernie is in some respects different than Hillary. Trying to resist any attempt at historical comparison because This Time Is Different And Much Much Worse is Chicken Little behaviour. If you've decided ahead of time that this is different, then of course you will project and back-fill the differences you see as the explanation for why this is different, then yes of course it's different. Here's the question: Would you have, last summer, before any of this, been able to draw the lines you're drawing now? I find it hard to believe. The fact that it's reactive (and oddly reactionary, given what Clinton supporters have characterized Bernie supporters...) undermines any claim that the conclusion is following the evidence rather than the other way around.
Hillary did argue with the DNC for a month in 2008 due to a controversy about how the Michigan/Florida delegates would be seated. So yes, candidates absolutely do try to rig the convention in their favour. It is routine for campaigns, especially losing campaigns, to try procedural manoeuvres to improve their lot. It typically doesn't work as it won't work for Bernie, but it's not some historical anomaly. Another way you can tell this is a post-hoc justification is use of the word "attack". People running as insurgent candidates have routinely criticized their party's status quo. People running as insider candidates typically inherit the mantle of the party. It's not a problem for Obama to have criticized congressional democrats, and it's not a problem for Bernie to criticize the party. It's true that if he runs a third party campaign or speaks at the RNC or endorses Trump or something, you have a point, but merely being critical of the party is not helping Republicans. This is very very myopic and ahistorical behaviour.
Sanders hasn't "promised" a convention fight in any real sense and it is indeed absolutely routine for losing candidates to promise they'll stick it out to the end. Hillary conceded 4 days after she was mathematically eliminated and several weeks after she was practically eliminated. Dean claimed he'd continue all the way to the convention a week before dropping out. This is something campaigns do. The sky is not falling, Trump is not elected, and if he is elected it won't be because of minor tone policing issues in late May/early June.
Just because you repeat that this is unprecedented doesn't make it true. It'll also be the case that if Sanders does eventually start hurting the party that this still won't retrospectively be true, just as a broken clock is never right even if it's telling the correct time.
It really isn't, Chicken Little.
Already Torn
Banned
I don't know if I agree with people saying Bernie is destroying the Democratic Party. He's definitely destroying his credibility as a "pure" or whatever politician for me though, and I want him to go away because I don't like his desperate fans. So basically he's not doing himself any favors at this point, and he's definitely not doing me any favors.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The fact that she still has to run elections in states all over America will help her in the long run.
Or at least it should help her if she takes those elections against Bernie seriously.
In my opinion, yes it means that (with the knowledge of Bush that people had at the time of voting in the year 2000).
TheSlySoul
Member
I think Bernie's main issue is he should realize the most important thing for the Democratic party is making sure Trump does not win and should convince his supporters this mindset.
Cruz and Rubio realized this (replace Trump with Hillary) and they were crazy.
Already Torn
Banned
Yeah, pretty much. I guess I don't understand what his plan is right now. There's no way he actually thinks he can win right?
TwoDurans
"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I think with any amount of topical research the "pure" aspect gets wiped out. I don't worry about him causing a loss, but I do worry if he is going to cost a senate seat or a handful of house seats. We need to win big in November, win the senate with a supermajorirty to get in a blue judge (or at least scare the GOP in putting in Obama's nominee) and to confirm and fill Clinton's nominees for cabinet level and judicial level positions. Bernie in his delusion may effect the possibility of getting a functioning (at least partially) House again.
psynergylover
Member
What Harty Reid really meant: You got know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run.
hammysaurusrex
Member
Well, I've certainly gained an appreciation for people on the right who sincerely consider themselves right but refuse to get in line on topics such as Creationism and climate science denialism and as a result are subjected to purity tests and told they aren't "real" conservatives.
I concede you're correct. Maybe it's time to just stop worrying about "being left" on a personal level and let the cannibals eat each other clean to see who has the progressive bones.
Maybe it's better that Bernie stays in. If he had conceded defeat with grace and dignity, he would have remained a martyr and hero.
If he's dragged out of the election kicking, screaming and clawing while he bleats on about a rigged system even as he tries to subvert the popular vote.....then he loses that hero/martyr appeal. He just looks like a conspiracy kook and a muckraker. Instead of being an admirable idealist, he becomes an intransigent zealot incapable of compromise or pragmatism -- all the worst things people might have thought about him.
His refusal to quit might actually help to unify the party, simply because it will turn off a number of moderates and independents who had a more positive opinion of him. He's undermining his own brand, really. At his point obviously the Reddit BernieBros will always want to Bern It To The Ground, but there's really nothing that can be done to appease them.
If he's dragged out of the election kicking, screaming and clawing while he bleats on about a rigged system even as he tries to subvert the popular vote.....then he loses that hero/martyr appeal. He just looks like a conspiracy kook and a muckraker. Instead of being an admirable idealist, he becomes an intransigent zealot incapable of compromise or pragmatism -- all the worst things people might have thought about him.
His refusal to quit might actually help to unify the party, simply because it will turn off a number of moderates and independents who had a more positive opinion of him. He's undermining his own brand, really. At his point obviously the Reddit BernieBros will always want to Bern It To The Ground, but there's really nothing that can be done to appease them.
BlastProcessing
Member
I think 2008 and 2016 are more different than you seem to. Something like the Nevada Caucuses did not happen in 2008. Superdelegates and state DNC officials where not receiving a high volume of death threats in 2008. Sanders is 3 times further back than Clinton was in 2008. Clinton and Obama ended 2008 almost tied in total votes. Sanders is behind by more than 3 million now and will be behind by more than 5 million by tuesday.
The issue isn't whether or not Sanders stays in the race, it's how he has chosen to do it.
Clinton attacked the credibility of her opponent, Sanders has done that and also attacked the credibility of the process. He has directly accused Clinton of money laundering. He has sent out emails placing a direct bullseye on down ticket fundraising initiatives. He has questioned the validity of the DNC. He has raised the specter of fraud in every state he narrowly lost and even in some of the blowouts.
This isn't 1968, but its also not a carbon copy of 2008. In 2008 you had establishment people who dragged their feet to support the new guy. Unifying in that direction is much much easier than what we have in 2016. Now it's the outsiders who have to rejoin with the long time faithful. That's a taller order and really requires the losing candidate to respect the sanctity of the democratic process and conceed with grace. Sanders could still do that and I hope and trust that he will. What Clinton did at the 2008 convention really is the gold standard for how the loser should spearhead unity.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Bernard is the last hold out in a game of Monopoly. Game has been going for hours, one player has 95% of the money, and the last guy is basically; 'Well if you want to win, you're going to have to bankrupt me first.' Game is over bud; no one is having fun anymore, time for you to go home.
Already Torn
Banned
I'm going to have to use this analogy, it's perfect!
Cameron122
Member
I feel the same
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Your position is that protectionism is not a tenet of the left. I remember Seattle. I don't know what to tell you, man.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't know if you're reading my posts or not, but yes it is absolutely the case that two different things are different things. Hillary had no chance the end of May 2008. Bernie has no chance now. Trying to find ways the two are different in order to deliberately make sure that we can't talk about any prior primaries in order to push the, again, factually unsupported argument that exit timing in a primary affects the result of the general is exactly what I'm arguing against.
Most of those are the most dramatic possible interpretations of claims that, while the symptom of a losing primary effort, are typical across elections. Clinton did accuse Obama of trying to rig caucuses in addition to, as noted above, engage in a smear campaign about Obama being a foreigner and possibly a Muslim. Clinton did question the integrity of the DNC when they were contesting Florida's delegates, and eventually lobbied the DNC and negotiated with the DNC to get to a compromise. I haven't been asleep since 2008, you're not going to magically come up with some Crazy Thing Bernie Did that I haven't heard of that is a Game Changer. I've been paying attention to campaigns for a long time. Note: Dick Gephardt also accused Howard Dean of election fraud in 2004.
I have no idea if I'm supposed to be patronizing and ask if you've ever heard of Dick Gephardt or Howard Dean. My instinct is to assume people are posting in good faith, but when there's a systematic and deliberate effort to pretend that history didn't exist and if it did exist it only existed in 2008 which was different anyway you can tell because 2016 and 2008 aren't the same numbers, what am I supposed to take away from this?
Criticizing the legitimacy of superdelegates and then trying to win superdelegates at the same time? Am I talking about Bernie 2016 or Bill Bradley 2000? Worth noting, Bradley didn't endorse Gore until the day of the convention, when he released his delegates and allowed them to vote for Gore. That's probably why Gore lost, nothing to do with the economy or his campaign performance or anything with the general, it's because Bill Bradley didn't exit early enough and when he did exit he didn't get in line fast enough! Just like how Bernie is responsible for president Trump nuking Europe, so too is Bill Bradley responsible for the War in Iraq.
Not endorsing until the convention? Wow, Bradley is even worse than Bernie. Well, except that in 1992, Bob Casey didn't even endorse Clinton and Gore at the convention, he waited until after the convention. Clinton beat Bush in a landslide, but maybe the landslide would have been 50% larger if Casey had dropped out earlier or endorsed more forcefully. Bob Casey is not a very good democrat and not a very good governor. Not like California Governor Jerry Brown. Did you hear that Bernie attacked Jerry Brown and the democratic establishment this week? Wow, Bernie is really hurting Hillary's chances. Oh wait, Jerry Brown was the runner-up candidate in 1992 to Bill Clinton and refused to endorse Clinton or release his delegates to support Clinton? I guess Jerry Brown is even worse of a party wrecker than Bernie. This explains why Clinton lost to Bush. Wait, what am I saying now?
Ah yes, Bernie is different because he's an outsider candidate. Surely we've never seen those before, like when Reverend Jesse Jackson was the 1988 runner-up and was the first black candidate ever, not even an elected official, widely noted as appealing to young people and independents. Maybe you would say that you can't compare Jackson and Bernie because Jackei was a civil rights leader who marched with Dr. King. Err, wait... Okay. Remember when he didn't drop out at all even when he lost, and actively instructed his delegates to vote against Dukakis at the convention? and then when his delegates tried to derail the entire convention to get Jackson appointed to the VP slot? You don't remember that? I guess we really can't compare 2016 to any other election. By the way, there's no evidence suggesting Jackson voters didn't come back to the flock for the general. Bush won a crushing victory. Maybe it's because of Jesse Jackson... or maybe it's because Bush whooped Dukakis at the debates, painted him as extreme in the campaign, and ran the Willie Horton ad? All things that occurred after the convention.
I mean, I'm not trying to be rude here, but maybe instead of saying "This Is Why This Cannot Be Compared To Any Other Moment In History" people could try to, like, read up on some history? There is no connection or evidence to connect the timing and manner of primary candidate dropouts to effects on the ability of the primary winner to campaign in the general or win election. There is little to no evidence to suggest advertising and campaigning at this stage in the game has any correlation with general election results. The position that these are pivotal days is at odds with the entire empirical literature on campaign effects.
JinjoUnchained
Member
The solution is to tax math so it doesn't have so much power and influence.
Clinton is not entitled to become the nominee. If she has to work for it, then she will have to work for it.
I will be voting for Sanders in my coming state primary because his campaign's objectives more closely match my own views. However, in the increasingly likely scenario that Clinton obtains the nomination, I would vote for her in the general election - because at that point, making sure the Republican party doesn't get control of all 3 branches of government is what's important at the end of the day.
I will be voting for Sanders in my coming state primary because his campaign's objectives more closely match my own views. However, in the increasingly likely scenario that Clinton obtains the nomination, I would vote for her in the general election - because at that point, making sure the Republican party doesn't get control of all 3 branches of government is what's important at the end of the day.
BlastProcessing
Member
I do know who Gephart and Dean are. I have been around and I am absolutely trying to discuss in good faith.
Gov. Moonbeam certainly hurt Clinton in 92, if not for Perot spoiling that election, those wounds could have been fatal. Clinton only carried 43%.
Dukakis' campaign was a tire fire for many reasons and it's a pretty good template for how I would imagine a Sanders General Election would go.
My concern about Sanders actions has less to do with how it affects the Presidential race than it does down ticket. That's the difference I see. Sanders has provided almost no support for congressional democrats. I will give him credit for fundraising for Feingold, I wish he would do more of that. I think that he could become an amazing asset down ticket this election. His fundraising maschine and big rally ability would be amazing assets in many races. His demographic liabilities could be mitigated and he could help elect a congress that could make his policies a possibility.
I don't just want Sanders to meet the low bar of democratic candidate history, I would like him to exceed that. If he wants to help this country and build a bridge to a future that aligns with his platform, he will do just that.
I think it's fair to criticize someone for over simplifying a situation and claiming that it's completely different from history. I also think the opposite is true, that, especially in politics, we rely far too much on shoehorning current events into past narratives.
There are fundamental differences in the way that media works between now and when Jackson or Brown were running. I would argue that those differences matter. Social media allows everyone to curate their own news bubbles. The very idea of what a "news cycle" is is being fundamentally challenged. All of this greatly affects how parties will be able to form functional coalitions.
CountAntonius
Member
Stumpokapow putting some sense into this thread.
The first time Jerry Brown ever endorsed a Clinton was last week. He was so toxic that they didn't even allow him to speak at the convention, yet he forced his way to make a speech, which he used to attack the entire party.
It does amuse me that Bernie called him establishment because I very much doubt Bernie would go that far.
The first time Jerry Brown ever endorsed a Clinton was last week. He was so toxic that they didn't even allow him to speak at the convention, yet he forced his way to make a speech, which he used to attack the entire party.
It does amuse me that Bernie called him establishment because I very much doubt Bernie would go that far.
BlastProcessing
Member
And Clinton went on to only get 43% in that election. Some of those attacks did land. Perot absolutely took advantage of Brown's outsider rhetoric. I watched it happen with my parents.
Team Alucard
Banned
Because there was a legitimate third party who got close to 20% of the vote.
BlastProcessing
Member
Yes, and because of that, it's pretty hard to draw comparisons between Brown and Sanders or to say that Brown's attacks didn't hurt Clinton.
It's neither a left nor right issue- both Sanders and Trump are pro-protectionism.
Heavy_D206
Member
What if asking him to drop out repeatedly leads to him leaving and not giving Hillary his endorsement?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
In what states and how many votes do you think Clinton lost because Perot purportedly took advantage of Brown's dissatisfaction with the process? I ask because we might perhaps think that California would be the state where this impact was felt most, and Bill Clinton became the first Democrat since Johnson to win the state. I am not going to dismiss that Perot siphoned at least some votes from Clinton, or even that Perot would attempt to leverage what other people had said about Clinton to do so, but there isn't any particular evidence that Clinton done worse than he would have in the counter-factual world where Brown gave a full-throated endorsement, and it's plainly true that in terms of the outcome we would want to measure Clinton was not hurt by this.
A more conventional read of the 1992 election would be: GHWB was widely regarded as a good president with a solid record, especially on foreign policy. Most first-term presidents are re-elected. However, a perfect storm of events occurred when the economy went into a recession, Bush's credibility was undermined by breaking his tax pledge. The weakness in the economy opened up the campaign to space for someone with economic credibility. Enter Ross Perot, who ran primarily on a campaign about the national debt. Perot performed well and at some points had shots of winning wide swaths of the country, but dropped out of the race and bungled re-entering the race. This undermined his credibility as an effective leader. In general, it is believed that Perot drew voters from both parties. Most of the attacks about Clinton that people remember--the affairs and womanizing, as well as "I smoked but I didn't inhale", originated from the Bush campaign, not the Perot campaign. Clinton eventually won a commanding electoral college victory despite Perot's strong national finish in the popular vote.
It's difficult to read that story and see how Clinton was hurt by Perot piggybacking off Jerry Brown's discontent with Clinton.
BlastProcessing
Member
Yes he did and yes it is.
BlastProcessing
Member
At that point Brown wasn't particularly popular in California. Perot makes it hard to read at all, that was my primary point. I don't think it's a controversial take to say that, without Perot, Bush wins that election. Perot's effect on the election is so large it's hard to gage the extent that Brown effected the outcome. A truism that I think has held pretty fast in American politics is, the more unified party wins, so I look at this year's election through that lens.
It is completely possible that Johnson plays a similar 3rd party role this year.
I still have no idea who thought that was a good idea. The fact that they put his name on it like a 3rd grader's lunch box is my favorite part.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Can't wait until June 8th.
sturgboski
Member
I am a fan of math as described by the Genetic Freak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
As I observed earlier, when I waded into this conversation--Protectionism is a position historically associated with the left (the right are historically classical liberals who favour opening up markets, dismantling protection, suppressing unions, and growing international trade, while the left are historically progressives, trade unionists, and labour interests who favour protecting domestic labour, ensuring worker protection, and raising wages). I really can't believe this is something that needs to be explained. Bernie is a protectionist specifically because he's a social democrat: free trade hurts American workers and benefits American companies.
Just as access to abortion is associated with the left, and yet there exist Democrats who are pro-life, so too can protectionism be a position associated with the left and yet there exist those on the right who are protectionist. Most on the right who are protection motivate their position differently, often through ethnic nationalism, anti-immigration, Fortress America, foreign policy isolationism. This is how it is possible for Donald Trump to have a similar substantive position as someone on the left. If the only politicians you've ever heard of are Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders then I guess you might view protectionism as a position from across the political spectrum.
Moreover, Trump does not neatly plot across the liberal-conservative dimension. I recently analyzed polling data from YouGov from the mid primary. The largest predictors of positive feeling thermometer ratings of Trump were: concern about immigration; anxiety about personal economic status; white; ideology "not sure". The largest predictors of positive feeling thermometer for Cruz were "very conservative", "Evangelical Christian". Trump's positions since the beginning of the primary have been heterodox for the party and the ideological spectrum. He routinely took position left of the Republican party, and certain in partisan opposition to the Republican party, for example opposition to the war in Iraq, open criticism of past Republican administrations, and yes, his protectionism. He also routinely took positions right of the Republican party: on immigration, obviously, the wall, his criminal justice policies are way off the deep end, a muscular and extensive view of the presidency. Trump's willingness to break with many of the cross-partisan cross-ideological consensus. So the fact that Trump has taken a position does not mean the position is not left, it means that Trump is not neatly classified on the spectrum when it comes to many issues.
It is also possible for someone who is neatly ideological to draw support from individuals who don't substantively agree with them ideologically. I suspect Bernie has appeal among many groups who don't support Bernie's positions, but support the idea of Bernie. The same was probably true of Obama. Many outsider candidates draw this kind of mantle. Insider candidates too, hence why the summer of 2000 consisted of pundits wondering about how Al Gore could overcome his personality problem: People want to have a beer with Bush, not Gore! Even though Bush didn't drink. Even though being a folksy cowboy has nothing to do with being president and nothing to do with any policy position.
As it relates to the example, Bernie is quite far left (DW-Nominate first dimension score -0.512). He's the furthest left candidate since George McGovern (-0.57). He's one of the top ten furthest left voters in the Senate since the 70s. Well to the left of Barbara Boxer or Al Franken or Ted Kennedy or Walter Mondale. (Notably right of Elizabeth Warren though). The idea that Bernie is not really to the left, he just has a bunch of bonkers positions that have nothing to do with being to the left is weird. Hillary has the voting record of a moderately progressive Democrat (her only real heterodox issue is that she's much more hawkish than most Democratic candidates) and Bernie is far to her left. Substantively the gulf between the Democrats and Republicans is more important than the gulf within the Democrats of course, there's no doubt about that, but let's not redefine history so that Bernie is somehow not progressive.
User 463088
Banned
Assuming (and this is a big assumption) he wins California, and manages, somehow, to over perform in NM, NJ, PR and the Virgin Islands?
At minimum, he'd need to get 450 to switch from Hillary to him.
Hillary has not acted as though she is entitled to it. She has, you know, won more states, more delegates and more of the popular vote than Bernie has. There is only one candidate who is making the argument that he deserves the nomination even though he's lost.
And, i think it's great that you're voting for Bernie if that's who you support.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Maybe true, but certainly unidentified except in hindsight. We diagnose the failures of a failed campaign as, in hindsight, having never united the party. This has been argued of Romney 2012. It is difficult to tell-and maybe difficult to get partisans to admit candidly--during the election the extent to which someone has united the party. Had Obama lost, doubtless the first go-to explanation would have been the power of the PUMA contingent. When Romney lost, the no great enthusiasm that the Republicans had for him as a candidate was blamed, but if he had won, there would have been a story about how Republicans united and accepted a moderate conservative. And yet both Obama/McCain in 2008 and Obama/Romney 2012 polled pretty much exactly in line with a predictive model that used only economic performance and incumbent president's approval rating to predict 2-party vote shares, so what exactly did we think the effect of "party unity", even if we could measure such a thing, was?
If it just refers to partisan vote loyalty--i.e. percentage of D voting R or vice versa--then we can measure it through exit polling but I'm not sure we could identify the causal effect versus the measurement error in party ID self-reporting and I suspect it's a lot more stable than most people think over time.
I would argue these polarities you are describing are outdated, and that the openness/protectionist axis is something entirely different now that's showing up primarily under a racial/class divide, rather than an ideological one.
Sanders' supporters in Iowa sound a heck of a lot like the Trump voters you are describing: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-demographic-profile-of-a-Bernie-Sanders-supporter White people with high economic insecurity.
Today, there's broad economic agreement on a lot of issues between the right and left (even as they differ on many others), and the question is less which side of the bolded you take, but whether you believe the bolded statement to be an accurate description of trade-offs.
everyday math
Banned
Don't put words in my mouth! 😜
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked