Reply With Quote
republicans are #StillWithHer
Very first sentence about moderates performing better in presidential elections is all I need to hear. The more moderate candidate has lost every presidential election in this country since McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972.
I just copied and pasted. It's in the news.
"Canonical theories predict that moderate candidates perform better in general elections." That line?
Is it not the commonplace assumption that moderates perform better? If so, that'd seem to line up with canonical theory.
It will crater BEFORE Biden even runs in november -
I will not vote if they bernie - knowing that it will mean 4 years of trump
If they Bernie - again -
the democratic party is done - and they had a great shot at blowing up the system and - for once - giving the poor and middle class a win -
and THIS is from the Democrat party - who are supposed to represent the poor and middle class - and Bernie was gift-wrapping them a ing strong movement of NEW voters - and the latino base and the young black base.
Its over for this Dem party and on the other side - the Republican party is also - once trump leaves the trump base will have to won the destruction.
It’s a peanut log of an assumption the DNC/MSM squeezes out of its face anus on a regular basis such that it’s become commonplace despite it being proven wrong every 4 years.
Do you agree that beginning in 1980 and in every presidential election thereafter the more moderate candidate lost?
But it's not an assumption. The paper is describing what canon teaches, and is accurate. The rest of that paragraph reads:
Canonical theories predict that moderate candidates will typically perform better than lessmoderate candidates in general elections (e.g., Downs 1957). Empirical research has generallysupported this prediction (e.g., Canes-Wrone, Brady and Cogan 2002; Hall 2015). For example,Canes-Wrone, Brady and Cogan (2002, p. 133) find that Members of Congress who cast 3 to 4additional high-profile votes aligned with the extreme of their party receive 1 to 3 percentagepoints (pp) fewer votes in the next election. Abramowitz likewise finds that Democratic USHouse candidates who supported Medicare For All in 2018 received approximately 2.2pp fewervotes than their peers in similar districts who did not.1However, whether moderate nominees areusually ‘more electable’ is far from settled, and reasonable skepticism remains (e.g., Cohen et al.2016; Achen and Bartels 2016).
The doom and gloom talk.
Trump was supposed to be the end of the Republican party. I'm all up for a third option and I've said I'm open to voting for Bernie if they screw him if he has enough of a lead that a brokered convention wouldn't make sense.
These two parties have existed for 200 years nothing will change that. Will it be weakened? probably.
So they’re using congressional elections to predict presidential elections. yeah I’ve read all I need to read.
Why are they using past congressional races to predict the successful candidate profile in presidential races instead of say, past presidential races? It’s an intellectually dishonest apples to oranges comparison.
Are you going to answer my question or keep ignoring it?
Criticizing Bernie =|= supporting a moderate. It's possible that Bernie is an atrocious candidate and the moderate (Biden or Bloomberg) is also an awful choice. The point of the article is to test the notion that Bernie, as an extreme figure, is likely less electable than (what you'd say is an already unelectable) moderate. The two points are not mutually exclusive.
Just because moderates don't do well (a point that I'm not entirely sure on since the paper references some research showing the opposite: that they do well) is not support for Bernie. Bernie has his own host of problems, vulnerabilities, and other issues that, in my mind, make him unelectable. Again, that doesn't mean "therefore vote moderate." You're setting up a false choice here.
Well, I think I answered it above. You're trying to pigeon-hole what I'm arguing into something I'm not. Without having read the paper in any detail, I think you raise a valid distinction. But what's the significance of it, other than President is not Congressman?
And by the way, the study down to support the conclusion that Bernie needs unheard-of youth turnout was couched in terms of the 2020 presidential candidates, so I don't think there's much to the apples/oranges comparison.
The choice is either Bernie or Biden (a moderate). What am I missing here?
I’d be fully supportive of a candidate like Sherrod Brown who isn’t a Democratic Socialist (he has by far the most realistic healthcare plan in terms of being able to get it through Congress while also making a big difference) but is more progressive than Biden or Bloomer but he’s not available.
The paper points out how moderates did in purple congressional districts in midterm elections, and I’ve always agreed in that instance moderates do better. Does it touch on how moderate presidential candidates do or do they leave that as the elephant in the room no one can sufficiently explain away?
A President that still can't remember where he is
For starters, midterm elections (2018) are a lot different than general election (you could run on the platform of student loan forgiveness + 6 figure salaries for part time jobs, and you’d still be lucky to get much in terms of millennial turnout.
Warren, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Trump, write in, not voting.
I'm not seeing that. This is what I see:
Data
As part of surveys for other projects, we collected 40,153 unique survey responses during January– February 2020. In these surveys, we asked respondents how they would choose in a contest between Donald Trump and one of the Democratic nominees. We asked about the five leading Democratic contenders as of January 2020: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden,Michael Bloomberg, and Pete Buttigieg. We asked each respondent about only one randomly selected Democratic candidate in order to limit strategic responding, resulting in approximately8,000 observations per candidate. This large sample size allows us to detect shifts in candidatechoices across Democratic candidates that, while small in absolute terms, could be enormously electorally consequential.We conducted this survey using the online platform Lucid, which Coppock and McClellan(2019) validate as relatively nationally representative. We strongly caution against drawing firm conclusions about the absolute value of Trump’s likely popular vote margin over Democrats’ from this one online survey conducted early in the election season. However, the large size of its sample does allow us to make unusually precise comparisons between the Democratic candidates,especially as compared to typical national polls with under 1,000 responses.In the survey, after other content for other studies, we first gave respondents a brief preamble about the upcoming election and asked how they would vote in a contest between RepublicanDonald Trump and a randomly selected one of the five leading Democratic candidates. If respondents said they were unsure or preferred a third party, we asked them if they leaned towards Trump, leaned towards the Democrat, or were completely undecided. During the second half ofour field period, we added a “would not vote” option.We also conducted an experiment that allows us to check whether our findings would differ ifrespondents were shown attacks against the Democratic candidates. This allows us to investigatewhether our answers might change were respondents more fully informed or exposed to thegeneral election campaign. For respondents in an “Attacks Shown” condition, we showed somerespondents attacks against the Democratic candidates before they selected between Trump andthe Democratic candidates.3In the first half of the field period, we randomly sampled two ofseveral attacks for each Democratic candidate; in the second half, we showed the three mosteffective attacks on each candidate as judged by the first half of the data. Respondents in a controlcondition saw no attacks. In our main analyses we pool across these conditions; later on, we showour results are similar across the conditions
i think the concept of purple districts is extrapolated to purple states
Right, a bunch of hypothetical polling (those polls worked wonders for Hillary) with no emphasis being given to how past presidential elections actually worked. They’re literally doing everything to try and predict a future presidential election other than studying how past presidential elections worked
Even though they provided the “would not vote option” that doesn’t solve for the huge swing in voter turnout election by election. Your average American participating in a poll study isnt going to admit there’s a scenario where they wouldn’t vote at all.
On a case by case basis sure. Arizona for example is atypical and has a lot of “purple” voters, particularly educated suburban white women who are fiscally conservative but more liberal on social issues, so Kristen Sinema is the ideal senate candidate in AZ.
Other purple states have a lot of solid blue voters and around the same amount in solid red voters so it comes more down to who has better turnout. I’d put Ohio in this category.
So if the issue is turnout, the point is a) yes b) Bernie needs 6% greater youth turnout (18-29) than Obama got in 2008. The basis for that conclusion is some number crunching from questions on how Bernie does vis-a-vis Trump:
The Reason Sanders Appears Equally Electable
Two important patterns lurk beneath the headline finding that Sanders appears equally electable as the leading more moderate Democrats.
First, Trump also wins more votes when against Sanders than he does when against a more moderate Democrat. In particular, Figure 2 shows that Trump also gets 0.9-1.5pp more votes in head-to-heads against Sanders (and Warren) than in head-to-heads against any of the moderate candidates. As can be seen when we examine where these differences come from by party in Figure 3, this is driven in part by Republicans being 1.8pp more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders were the nominee; with one of the moderate candidates as a nominee, most of these Republican votes flow to the Democratic candidate.
Second, Sanders’ similar number of Democratic votes against Trump relative to the leading moderates is driven by him bringing respondents who otherwise say they have no preference,would vote for a third party candidate, or would not vote into the Democratic column. Figure 2 found that Democrats receive 1.0-3.4pp more votes in head-to-head questions with Sanders as the nominee than if one of the other Democrats is named. However, as we saw, this is not because Sanders wins votes from Trump. Instead, Figure 3 shows this advantage is a sum of two main dynamics: despite losing an additional 0.4% of Democrats, (an imprecisely estimated) 0.9% of Independents, and 1.8% of Republicans to Trump, Sanders converts approximately 3.7% of Democrats from answering “Neither/Would not vote” to saying they would turn out to vote for Democrats.
This offsetting dynamic appears key to understanding why Sanders appears relatively electable in our data:Sanders converts just enough Democrats and Independents from saying they are indifferent or would not vote to supporting Sanders to offset his losses of votes from the Democratic column to Trump’s column.4 These results also appear in battleground states, as shown in Figure A5. Sanders’ Equal Electability Case Requires Large Increases in Youth Turnout Investigating which demographics convert from being indifferent or not voting to voting for Democrats with Sanders in head-to-head questions can help inform the plausibility of the casethat Sanders is equally electable as the more moderate candidates.In Figure 4, we show that Sanders’ conversion of votes from the neither/would not vote4An explicit “would not vote” option was only present in half our data; Figure A4 shows that these results aremostly driven by changes between the “Democratic candidate” and “Would not vote” category. In Appendix D, we discuss how reducing third party voting alone does not explain how Sanders can offset increases in Trump voting.7
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
