U.S. Democratic Primary

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But that's my point, it cant be a starting point, because it's the end point

No. It is the current reality from which to move forward.

AKA...good starting point...

[CharonY]

On 8/11/2019 at 4:33 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

How do you take advantage of that knowledge?

If I pick a position at the median for each (which could be the same position depending on how the graphs correlate)

Where do you go to do better?

The premise is that the Democrat positions, well to the left of centre, have less scatter...so by picking there you have more "happy" voters...

So do you pick there?

If so, by trying to maximize "happy voters", you have positioned yourself much more objectionably for most.

This is something strategies have to work out, but of course the structural elements also play a role. E.g. while the base has always been clearly voting based on party affiliation, key is mobilizing. But there are the primaries, which are a weird US thing, which generally mean that during that time candidates traditionally shift more to the left/right in order to win it, as registered Reps/Dems, especially those showing up to those primaries  want to be pandered to. Afterward, the candidates generally pivot to the middle, or quite frequently, somewhere around centre right, IIRC. 

Now if we ignore primaries and look at the graphs there are a couple of interesting points. If only looking at the total electorate (ignoring party affiliation and ignoring who is more likely to show up to vote) it would make a lot sense for Dems to go very far left on economics and slightly less so on pro-immigration policies. For Reps it would make sense to heavily go for anti-immigration but be less so on the economical axis. The risk of straddling the middle is losing the bulk on either the further right/left (which, may just decide not to show up to vote).

There is also more information in the article that one could look at. for example, what is the profile of undecided voters? Those appear to be fairly liberal on immigration, but conservative on economics. That is slightly surprising, considering how polarizing immigration seems to be, but that also seem to coincide with voters who tend to have higher degrees and higher incomes. 

But what is missing from the article is weighing the axes. For example, it is not clear (unless I missed it) whether the two parameters are equally predictive of voting behaviour or whether one or the other is considered more important. For example, it is possible that for those highly conservative in immigration, it may be the pivotal issue (as they e.g. see a cultural threat from immigration), whereas those liberal might see it as important, but perhaps not as important as a tax cut.

The most important point, however, is that the article does show that the commonly used talking point about the appealing to the middle may not be a no-brainer after all.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

Now if we ignore primaries and look at the graphs there are a couple of interesting points. If only looking at the total electorate (ignoring party affiliation and ignoring who is more likely to show up to vote) it would make a lot sense for Dems to go very far left on economics and slightly less so on pro-immigration policies. For Reps it would make sense to heavily go for anti-immigration but be less so on the economical axis. The risk of straddling the middle is losing the bulk on either the further right/left (which, may just decide not to show up to vote).

 

 

Good post. Just wondering about your thinking on this part. It seems to contradict (or tend to go against) what you are saying in the rest. (not with regard to positioning economics left of immigration but the far left part)

 

Other news:

Looks like Elon Musk is onboard...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/elon-musk-tweets-support-of-democrat-presidential-hopeful-andrew-yang.html

One question:

He describes himself as a registered independent...what the heck is that?

Edited August 13, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

One question:

He describes himself as a registered independent...what the heck is that?

A fence sitter who acts holier-than-thou and often pretends to “rise above” partisanship, when in reality they tend to vote consistently for one party over the other in election after election after election.  

IMO, it generally provides an easy “out” in social situations since they aren’t required to have any courage to actually defend their convictions.

Worse still, it simply removes their ability to participate in primaries and dilutes the power of their voice. 

I’ve said some controversial things there. Probably best to split into a new thread if exploration is desired. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

A fence sitter who acts holier-than-thou and often pretends to “rise above” partisanship, when in reality they tend to vote consistently for one party over the other in election after election after election.  

IMO, it generally provides an easy “out” in social situations since they aren’t required to have any courage to actually defend their convictions.

Worse still, it simply removes their ability to participate in primaries and dilutes the power of their voice. 

I’ve said some controversial things there. Probably best to split into a new thread if exploration is desired. 

I don't think that's necessary. Is it fair to assume Musk just made that up and that there is no such registry? Or is there such a thing?

I tried google but nothing clear one way or the other...

[iNow]

Yes, one can register as independent 

It basically means that person simply cannot participate in either party’s primary. 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, one can register as independent 

It basically means that person simply cannot participate in either party’s primary. 

Pedantic point: some parties have open primaries. I have voted in both democrat and republican primaries despite only ever having registered as an independent. I have also been prevented from voting in certain primaries, as they were restricted to registered party members. Where I now live you don't register with a party and can vote in either primary, but not both.

Not being affiliated with a party might reduce the amount of political literature you get in the mail (or possibly phone calls) by a small amount.

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, one can register as independent 

It basically means that person simply cannot participate in either party’s primary. 

Colorado recently passed a law allowing primary voting by independents. We still have a problem with some folks turning in both ballots, but we're working on it.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Pedantic point: some parties have open primaries.

And a welcome point, it was. Thanks for adding clarity

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We still have a problem with some folks turning in both ballots, but we're working on it.

My immediate thought was to turn in one ballot for the person I like most and another ballot for the weakest possible opposition I'd like them to go up against in the general election. Maximizing the R.O. my voting I. (ROI), as it were.

Edited August 13, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Good post. Just wondering about your thinking on this part. It seems to contradict (or tend to go against) what you are saying in the rest. (not with regard to positioning economics left of immigration but the far left part)

Not really, I want to remind you that we are still in the primary, which, as I mentioned, requires a generally more progressive (or conservative) agenda than during the actual election. And as I mentioned, the data seems to indicate that the bigger share of potential voters for the Dems are on the rather far left part of the scale. As indicated in the report, the lower left part of the graph (i.e. far left  and left on both, immigration and econonimcs) captures 32% of all voters and 60% of Dems. Moreover, the authors mentioned that in the lower left cell, (i.e. the most progressive on both dimensions) the highest proportion of higher educated Dems are found, who generally are more politically engaged. Which is going to a point I tried to make, which is that even among those groups there are sub-targets that need to be mobilized, potentially with different means.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not really, I want to remind you that we are still in the primary, which, as I mentioned, requires a generally more progressive (or conservative) agenda than during the actual election. And as I mentioned, the data seems to indicate that the bigger share of potential voters for the Dems are on the rather far left part of the scale. As indicated in the report, the lower left part of the graph (i.e. far left  and left on both, immigration and econonimcs) captures 32% of all voters and 60% of Dems. Moreover, the authors mentioned that in the lower left cell, (i.e. the most progressive on both dimensions) the highest proportion of higher educated Dems are found, who generally are more politically engaged. Which is going to a point I tried to make, which is that even among those groups there are sub-targets that need to be mobilized, potentially with different means.

 

That makes more sense. I suspected that was what you really meant to say...

Good post with that cleared up. I would tend to agree. It is just a shame if pushed so far left...lots of ammunition for Trump as I am sure he will try to hold them to it (which is fair if he does)

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is just a shame if pushed so far left...lots of ammunition for Trump as I am sure he will try to hold them to it (which is fair if he does

I’ll defer to Mayor Pete on this point, as I feel he sums up the core issue nicely (video at the link):

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-senator-prove-buttigieg-republicans-label-democrats-socialists-1451987

Quote

supporting the government-run health care insurance system would only provide Republicans with ammunition to attack the Democratic Party as a bunch of socialists.

"It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. If we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists," Buttigieg said, earning applause from those in attendance.

"So," he continued, "let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it."

 

[iNow]

Former Colorado Governor, John Hickenlooper, has chosen to drop-out of the race. One down, seven hundred and ninety-three (that feels  aboutright, doesn't it?) to go!

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Former Colorado Governor, John Hickenlooper, has chosen to drop-out of the race. One down, seven hundred and ninety-three (that feels  aboutright, doesn't it?) to go!

A senate run is in the cards for a few candidates.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Castro has made the Fall debates:

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

astro has made the Fall debates:

Unfortunately, his position of decriminalization border crossings is one of the least popular among the broader general election voting public (doing only marginally better than Yang's UBI proposal and other proposals for reparations)... <emphasis mine>:

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-policy-agenda-popularity-ranked-862338/

Quote

Below, in inverse order, the percentage of American adults who deem Democratic policy proposals a “good idea”:

Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $1,000 a month: 26%

Reparations for slavery: 27%

Decriminalizing illegal border crossings: 27%

Abolishing the death penalty: 36%

Medicare for All that ends private insurance: 41%

Eliminating the Electoral College: 42%

A tax on fossil fuels: 50%

$15/hour minimum wage: 56%

A sales ban for assault weapons like AR-15s: 57%

Raising taxes on incomes above $1 million: 62%

A Green New Deal: 63%

Legalize recreational cannabis: 63%

A pathway to citizenship for the undocumented: 64%

Medicare for All (that want it) — i.e. a public option to private insurance: 70%

 

[iNow]

Passionate climate advocate and Washington state governor, Jay Inslee, has chosen to leave the race. 

[iNow]

Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from NY and passionate advocate for women’s rights, equality, and freedom of choice has withdrawn from the race. 

[iNow]

NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio has ended his bid for the presidency. 

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio has ended his bid for the presidency. 

To the surprise of no one. There was recently a good article regarding Yang on the Atlantic, which echoes my thoughts rather closely. Among the most likely candidates, Warren is now very close to Sanders. What I like from her platform is that despite populist elements, it contains quite a lot of details and specifics which invite a critical analysis. It seems for the most part quite data-driven (or at least well-balanced on empirical evidence). That part, I like quite a bit. 

[iNow]

Warren is a solid candidate and her growth shows it. Her biggest obstacle, as sad as it is, is that she’s female and millions of people won’t care about her plans.  They only care about her pants parts. 

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Warren is a solid candidate and her growth shows it. Her biggest obstacle, as sad as it is, is that she’s female and millions of people won’t care about her plans.  They only care about her pants parts. 

That seems to be the case, unfortunately. It plays into the whole electability situation where the assumption is that women are less electable and therefore they are. Another aspect is probably that there is quite some opposition from Wall Street, so money is likely to be pumped into opposing candidates.

[iNow]

Her anti corruption message is resonating. The question is whether enough of us plebes will come out in support of her to counteract the Wall Street opposition you cite. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

To the surprise of no one. There was recently a good article regarding Yang on the Atlantic, which echoes my thoughts rather closely. Among the most likely candidates, Warren is now very close to Sanders. What I like from her platform is that despite populist elements, it contains quite a lot of details and specifics which invite a critical analysis. It seems for the most part quite data-driven (or at least well-balanced on empirical evidence). That part, I like quite a bit. 

Do you like the part where she is evasive as to whether her implication that she won't raise middle class taxes is untrue?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you like the part where she is evasive as to whether her implication that she won't raise middle class taxes is untrue?

That’s tortured syntax, but you’re asking if we feel she is being evasive on questions about tax increases. 

I say, no. I’ve seen her at enough appearances to know her answer. The issue is total cost to American families. Total cost and annual expenditures will go down for most Americans if her plans are implemented. 

Now, taxes will go up for some and not everyone will see a net reduction in total cost, but the moment she says that openly she gets hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads against her, ads that quote her out of context. 

Words matter. She’s rightfully cautious when these types of gotcha questions get asked, but she’s also honest and authentic.

The issue is total cost, and those will go down under her plans for the vast majority of the middle class (since her funding model is to primarily tax 2 cents on only those individual dollars earned above $50 Million).