U.S. presidential election modelling

[MigL]

Pandering to every group, and further sub-dividing society.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pandering to every group, and further sub-dividing society.

Don't you mean, pandering to any group.

Society has it's fundamentals, usually a village...

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Respectfully where possible. Recognize and stop the political weaponization of it. One can call out white supremacy without calling everyone who might consider voting for Trump as supporting it, and one can embrace diversity without condoning or participating in the worst aspects of it.

So do identity politics, but just in a way I feel comfortable about it? Is it about that?

 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Democrats using identity politics rings hollow for you because you feel the Republicans do it more?

It is more about the fact that conservatives are bitterly complaining about it, but engaging in it wholeheartedly. The underlying though behind it is of course the assumption that certain folks are considered the norm and therefore pandering to them is not identity politics. However, if something benefits other then them suddenly it it is pandering or identity politics. 

Specifically it is historic mindset that has marginalized experiences different from what one would consider the majority. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

So do identity politics, but just in a way I feel comfortable about it? Is it about that?

 

There's a reason the term "identity politics" carries lot's of baggage, and "embracing diversity" has positive connotations.

What I described I wouldn't consider "identity politics", though I realize others might.

 

[CharonY]

On 10/30/2020 at 11:53 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

There's a reason the term "identity politics" carries lot's of baggage, and "embracing diversity" has positive connotations.

What I described I wouldn't consider "identity politics", though I realize others might.

 

I stumbled across an interesting article on US politics that investigates identity and policy based preferences in Dem and Rep voters, respectively between 2008-2014. The study suggests that Republican voters rally more around identity rather than politics, compared to Democratic voters.

Edit: try this one https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720003746

The reference is Cayton and Dawkins; Perspectives on Politics 1-15.

Article is not free, but perhaps there are articles on the paper. Abstract:

 

Quote

The electoral connection incentivizes representatives to take positions that please most of their constituents. However, on votes for which we have data, lawmakers vote against majority opinion in their district on one out of every three high-profile roll calls in the U.S. House. This rate of “incongruent voting” is much higher for Republican lawmakers, but they do not appear to be punished for it at higher rates than Democrats on Election Day. Why? Research in political psychology shows that citizens hold both policy-specific and identity-based symbolic preferences, that these preferences are weakly correlated, and that incongruous symbolic identity and policy preferences are more common among Republican voters than Democrats. While previous work on representation has treated this fact as a nuisance, we argue that it reflects two real dimensions of political ideology that voters use to evaluate lawmakers. Using four years of CCES data, district-level measures of opinion, and the roll-call record, we find that both dimensions of ideology matter for how lawmakers cast roll calls, and that the operational-symbolic disconnect in public opinion leads to different kinds of representation for each party.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

The link doesn't seem to work.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/incongruent-voting-or-symbolic-representation-asymmetrical-representation-in-congress

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The link doesn't seem to work.

 

I edited my post. to address that. Edit: Ack, accidentally edited the link in your post, too.

Edit2: tried to put in the original faulty link so that it does not look as if you misquoted but I lost it. So whatever is weird with the link and quote, it is all on me. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

I edited my post. to address that. Edit: Ack, accidentally edited the link in your post, too.

Edit2: tried to put in the original faulty link so that it does not look as if you misquoted but I lost it. So whatever is weird with the link and quote, it is all on me. 

Thanks. 

With it being behind a paywall I'm not going to understand the context of that abstract as written, but it seems they've concluded that while both Parties lawmakers are often not aligned with there constituents when voting, Republicans are even more tolerant of their lawmakers voting against their wishes, or at least the majority wishes of their districts.

Shouldn't that indicate untapped potential for the Democrats, if they toned down the vitriol toward voters to the right of them? (Also indicating room for a third party to make some headway if one were to form)

Were you able to read the article or just the abstract?

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Shouldn't that indicate untapped potential for the Democrats, if they toned down the vitriol toward voters to the right of them? 

The issue is gerrymandering. It’s nearly impossible for republicans to lose given the expert precision with which they’ve redrawn voting districts to stack voters together and crack challengers apart. This is the far more parsimonious explanation for what we see than your frequently introduced “blame the left at every chance” hypothesis paraphrased as, “the right-wing media ecosystem would stop endlessly attacking and lying about democrats if only those mean ole dems were slightly nicer when they spoke.”

Edited December 22, 2020 by iNow

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Thanks. 

With it being behind a paywall I'm not going to understand the context of that abstract as written, but it seems they've concluded that while both Parties lawmakers are often not aligned with there constituents when voting, Republicans are even more tolerant of their lawmakers voting against their wishes, or at least the majority wishes of their districts.

Shouldn't that indicate untapped potential for the Democrats, if they toned down the vitriol toward voters to the right of them? (Also indicating room for a third party to make some headway if one were to form)

If they will vote against their interests, that suggests to me that these are single-issue voters, so they aren’t going to vote for a democrat. 

The vitriol is a convenient excuse to point to, but I seriously doubt this is the reason behind their vote. They get mad over a variety of issues, but if you show them that their anger is misplaced (because e.g. the issue has been misrepresented) they aren’t mad at being lied to, and don’t change their vote. >40% of the voters are not going to vote for a democrat.

The untapped potential is in people who don’t usually vote. Or can’t, owing to voter suppression. Or whose votes are diluted (as iNow points out) owing to gerrymandering 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The issue is gerrymandering. It’s nearly impossible for republicans to lose given the expert precision with which they’ve redrawn voting districts to stack voters together and crack challengers apart. This is the far more parsimonious explanation for what we see than your frequently introduced “blame the left at every chance” hypothesis paraphrased as, “the right-wing media ecosystem would stop endlessly attacking and lying about democrats if only those mean ole dems were slightly nicer when they spoke.”

I can understand your frustration, but when faced with statements such as "it's nearly impossible for Republicans to lose" (or even for more reasonable claims against Republicans, which tend to predominate ones against Democrats in this Forum), I'm more likely to give a counterargument than "sing to the choir", given that my positions tend to be moderate and my view that much of the political rhetoric generally is self defeating, especially when overstated or simply inaccurate. I do realize it does motive many on both sides to get out and vote, but it loses credibility with moderates, and often motivates potential voters on the other side.

Are you are against speaking more nicely to the Right on principle, even if it could reduce, in part at least, making it "nearly impossible for Republicans to lose"?

Edited December 22, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you are against speaking more nicely to the Right on principle, even if it could reduce, in part at least, making it "nearly impossible for Republicans to lose"?

Why does the left have to nicer? Why is the right being given a pass, especially considering the level of vitriol?

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Shouldn't that indicate untapped potential for the Democrats, if they toned down the vitriol toward voters to the right of them? (Also indicating room for a third party to make some headway if one were to form)

That is a very strange reading. What it actually means is that Democratic leaders have a higher need to promote policies that align with their voters, whereas Republicans have no such need. They just need to stick to identity politics (which could include encouraging vitriol to the voters to their left). I am at a loss how you came to that conclusion based on the abstract.

I do have the full paper, so if you have specific questions I might be able to address them. One of the basis of the study is that previously it was found that Republicans tend to vote more frequently against their district opinion than Dems, but still remain in office. Fundamentally they found that among Republicans, voters want congruency with their identity, regardless of what they really want (policy-wise). For example, if asked whether they want access to health care (even to public options) they might answer in the affirmative (i.e. align positively with the issue policy-wise). However, being against the Affordable Care Act is congruent with their conservative identity, which seems to take precedence. I.e. if a policy-maker votes against ACA as a Republican (congruent decision with identity) even if their constituency is actually for it (incongruent with policy preference), they won't be penalized. With Democrats the effects lie more on the policy axis. I.e. incongruencies there will be more penalized than incongruency with identity. In other words, we do have an asymmetry in partisan preferences. 

I.e. for Republicans there is an incentive to follow voter's symbolic preferences, rather than policies. That in turn means that Republicans are more likely and easier to become a solid voting block which is mostly based on identity. That, in turn, explains why folks vote for policies which appear to go against their interests, it is a case where identity politics supersedes policy. Moreover, it also highlights why partisanship is likely not going away, there is much less incentive for Republicans to cross the aisle to get promote policies that may benefit their constituents, if it goes against their identity. It also kind of shows a blueprint for Trumpism, which was full-on identity politics with little to no policy and why especially Republicans may be receptive for it.

 

[MigL]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Why does the left have to nicer?

Because if they aren't, then they are as bad as Republicans ?
What is that old saying about lying down with pigs ? Or the one about taking the high road ?
 Be  careful what you wish for; if Democrats start acting like Republicans, we are really screwed.

Just stickin' up for my buddy, JC  .

Edited December 22, 2020 by MigL

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Because if they aren't, then they are as bad as Republicans ?

If Dems got a bonus for ethical treatment, this explanation might work, but they don't. You're holding them to standards where the Republicans get a pass to be pigs, but the best the Dems get is not being like them.

I know, I know, you don't care either way because you don't have a horse in the blah, blah, blah. But your admiration of the OLD Republican ways has warped your standards for viewing the present Republicans, imo. Fighting fire with fire (to flip the lying-with-pigs perspective) is sometimes the best way to correct course. In the case of gerrymandering, do you really think the solution is for the Dems to be nicer?

 

[MigL]

Are we not trying to show them the 'better way' ?
Trying to set an example of how a just society behaves ?

If Republicans and Democrats use the same methods of lying/cheating/manipulating voters, does the name still distinguish them ?
If Communists and Fascists both use gulags, mass murder and starvation to control people, are they really different ?
If the US acted like N Korea or Iran, in their many conflicts, the US would have nuked them a long time ago, and then would have been no different than those terrorist/oppressive regimes.

Even Jesus did not slap his tormentors back, but turned the other cheek and said "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"
( you think maybe I went too far with that last Religious part ??  )

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we not trying to show them the 'better way' ?
Trying to set an example of how a just society behaves ?

If Republicans and Democrats use the same methods of lying/cheating/manipulating voters, does the name still distinguish them ?
If Communists and Fascists both use gulags, mass murder and starvation to control people, are they really different ?
If the US acted like N Korea or Iran, in their many conflicts, the US would have nuked them a long time ago, and then would have been no different than those terrorist/oppressive regimes.

Even Jesus did not slap his tormentors back, but turned the other cheek and said "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"
( you think maybe I went too far with that last Religious part ??  )

Well, that is an entirely different argument. Going back to political preference, outcomes of the presented (and similar studies) suggest that there is not a big chance for Democrats to win over Republicans as their voting preference is not aligned with policies (which could be negotiated) but their identity. I.e. they won't vote for a Dem even if they had conservative policies. Rather it is required that the person identifies as a conservative, which, given the shape of the political parties would probably also require a switch of parties. So effectively it means that Republicans cannot be appeased, whereas Dems could be (in contrast to what has been mentioned before by JC, it is weird that folks assume that only the middle to left is able to do anything). 

The tricky bit would couch policies that seem to conform with conservative identity (like, say offer universal health care and call it "anti-obama act for health self-determination").

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Why does the left have to nicer? 

To win over the moderates.

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

 Why is the right being given a pass, especially considering the level of vitriol?

No pass. They need to be nicer as well. Again, if they want to win over the moderates. If either side don't, and feel the ends of getting out more of their base justify their tactics, how is it not hypocritical to complain about the other side doing the same?

I was also addressing INow in particular with that question. 

I guess I could address someone on the Right with the equivalent question, if one happens to post in a one sided manner and I see no one piling on them already,

...though I thought I covered it here generally in that very short post:

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

... my view that much of the political rhetoric generally is self defeating, especially when overstated or simply inaccurate. I do realize it does motive many on both sides to get out and vote, but it loses credibility with moderates, and often motivates potential voters on the other side.

 

Having said all that, what makes you feel the Democrats deserve a free pass from yourself? (and others on here consistently disparaging only one side)

Or at least with respect to the recent election, how did the Democrat tactics work? If it wasn't for Trump's inept response to the Pandemic, it seems likely he would be getting another term.

As it was, enough moderates rejecting Trump but voted Republican down ballot to allow them gains in the House, and possibly hang on to the Senate. This was not expected, even accounting for any gerrymandering that was already established and known to be in place well prior to the latest campaign.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is a very strange reading. What it actually means is that Democratic leaders have a higher need to promote policies that align with their voters, whereas Republicans have no such need. They just need to stick to identity politics (which could include encouraging vitriol to the voters to their left). I am at a loss how you came to that conclusion based on the abstract.

Because I believe there are enough moderates to make a difference. Again look to the recent election...enough to throw out Trump while still allowing the Republicans gains in the House.

The Republicans may have felt no need to reasonably align with their voters (I think that's greatly overstated in any case)....but at least they had the sense not to espouse such misalignment as "defund the police". (note that Biden was notable in not taking that stance, but speaking up against it at least to some degree)

Edited December 22, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Because if they aren't, then they are as bad as Republicans ?

They aren’t as bad, though, IMO. Their leaders aren’t calling places sh*thole countries, putting kids in cages, allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die of a preventable disease, sitting on legislation for months that would help people, or trying to deny them healthcare.

But heaven help us if someone uses a four-letter-word and calls them out on it. 

 

Quote

What is that old saying about lying down with pigs ? Or the one about taking the high road ?
 Be  careful what you wish for; if Democrats start acting like Republicans, we are really screwed.

False equivalence. I said nothing of acting like Republicans. That would saying “be meaner, greedier and more callous”

Why isn’t the party of the religious right ever called to act more with the Christian ideals they claim to possess?

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To win over the moderates.

Is there any evidence that this will happen?

Quote

No pass. They need to be nicer as well.

Who out in pundit-land is calling for this?
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is there any evidence that this will happen?

As per my post above (it came at essentially at the same time as your's so you probably didn't see it) enough rejected Trump but voted Republican down ballot. I consider this evidence that moderates can make a difference.

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who out in pundit-land is calling for this?
 

You're requesting an argument from authority?

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because I believe there are enough moderates to make a difference. Again look to the recent election...enough to throw out Trump while still allowing the Republicans gains in the House.

It seems you are confusing moderates with undecided or non-aligned voters. For the most part, folks that call themselves moderate are somewhat left. There is comparable little to no evidence that being nice to conservatives would anyhow impact their voting strategy. The Voter Study group has some data showing that most moderates are center-left when it comes to issues (especially immigration and economic issues). So the overall evidence suggests that to encourage moderate to vote Dems, they need to align more with center-left policies and basically not try not appease to conservative ideals, as that core group cannot be swayed (and the moderate fringe is too small to matter anymore. 

The group of folks that are truly in the middle (non-aligned with any party, undecided up to election and middle in terms of policies) are a vanishingly small proportion of the electorate (about 2%). 

While I am no expert on the US system (and really barely understand it), it seems to me that instead of swaying folks (or being nice as you put it), it is more about mobilizing folks to get to the polls (or preventing folks from doing so). I.e. turnout seems to be a deciding factor. In contrast to European-style parliamentary systems, there is much less strategic voting.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You're requesting an argument from authority?

No, that’s not argument from authority. 
 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It seems you are confusing moderates with undecided or non-aligned voters. For the most part, folks that call themselves moderate are somewhat left. There is comparable little to no evidence that being nice to conservatives would anyhow impact their voting strategy. The Voter Study group has some data showing that most moderates are center-left when it comes to issues (especially immigration and economic issues). So the overall evidence suggests that to encourage moderate to vote Dems, they need to align more with center-left policies and basically not try not appease to conservative ideals, as that core group cannot be swayed (and the moderate fringe is too small to matter anymore. 

The group of folks that are truly in the middle (non-aligned with any party, undecided up to election and middle in terms of policies) are a vanishingly small proportion of the electorate (about 2%). 

While I am no expert on the US system (and really barely understand it), it seems to me that instead of swaying folks (or being nice as you put it), it is more about mobilizing folks to get to the polls (or preventing folks from doing so). I.e. turnout seems to be a deciding factor. In contrast to European-style parliamentary systems, there is much less strategic voting.

I googled it. My context was "a person who holds moderate views, especially in politics". I hadn't realized Americans consider it centre left.

The Oxford dictionary suggests the first definition and Wiki suggests the latter for Americans but not otherwise.

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Summarized: Yes, everyone should be nicer and more honest. No, that’s not going to happen or change votes if it did. 

Any other fun political fictions we should spend pages upon pages exploring further?

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Summarized: Yes, everyone should be nicer and more honest. No, that’s not going to happen or change votes if it did. 

Any other fun political fictions we should spend pages upon pages exploring further?

As I suggested on page one, pages and pages ago....or one page back to be precise...a third party would make it more likely.