DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
as a matter of fact, I'd submit that Trump was so ridiculously extreme that rather than energize the opposition, people stayed home because they figured no one would be stupid enough to vote for him.
The real point is that predictions about the behavior of millions and millions of people is a fool's errand.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
I agree that a progressive candidate would most likely energize the base and get out the D vote.
However it has been shown that extreme candidates tend also to GOTV on the other side in a way that more than offsets the desired GOTV.
no it hasn't "been shown". show us when and where this has happened.
Diatribe on how that's all wrong and misguided and I'm a know-nothing idiot coming in 3, 2, 1....
this is about as objective a measure of well-being as you can ask for:
Smedley said:
Diatribe on how that's all wrong and misguided and I'm a know-nothing idiot coming in 3, 2, 1....
I don't write that bluntly, so I'll leave that to someone else.
Doesn't the reality of Trump pretty much prove that there are very prominent exceptions to that rule? Is there anyone as extreme as Trump among the major candidates?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
I agree that a progressive candidate would most likely energize the base and get out the D vote.
However it has been shown that extreme candidates tend also to GOTV on the other side in a way that more than offsets the desired GOTV.
no it hasn't "been shown". show us when and where this has happened.
Diatribe on how that's all wrong and misguided and I'm a know-nothing idiot coming in 3, 2, 1....
did you even read that article? It hardly demonstrates your contention.
"Using a variety of methods, Mr. Hall and Mr. Thompson estimate that in these 125 close elections, a party that chooses the more extreme nominee in the primary sees roughly a six-point drop in the number of its registered voters who show up at the polls in November. It’s a drop-off that does not exist when the party nominates a more moderate candidate."
This says that base participation drops - not that opposition party increases, which is your contention.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Can you pls cite a bunch of these objective measures? It would be helpful to know what you're referring to.
And, can you name a time or times when measures of national well-being were trending up, or at least satisfactory in your opinion?
Among white male adults, life expectancy is down, suicide is up, income and wealth inequality is up. Those are just off the top of my head. And that's mostly in the states between the coasts. It's an indication of being in the coastal bubble when people look at the stock market and the unemployment rate and conclude everything is great for everyone.
And the measures I cited were trending up basically from 1946 until the late '70s. It's possible for health outcomes to improve and for prosperity to spread outside the top 10%.
Well we are really living in bizarro times then, because most states between the coasts are sure shots to vote for Trump over a progressive. It's like the blue-state coastal bubble people who are doing fine, want progressive medicine to save the miserable red-state heartland wretches, but the miserable red-state heartland wretches don't want to take their medicine.
This quote seems to support Smedley's argument:
"Extreme candidates, the researchers say, may mobilize their party’s base — but they tend to activate their opponent’s base even more than their own, resulting in a net loss on turnout. They also seem to lose habitual voters — the people who almost always turn out to vote — to the opposition party, while moderate nominees hold on to those voters. In this way, extreme nominees lose votes in two ways: mobilization and persuasion."
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
I agree that a progressive candidate would most likely energize the base and get out the D vote.
However it has been shown that extreme candidates tend also to GOTV on the other side in a way that more than offsets the desired GOTV.
no it hasn't "been shown". show us when and where this has happened.
Diatribe on how that's all wrong and misguided and I'm a know-nothing idiot coming in 3, 2, 1....
did you even read that article? It hardly demonstrates your contention.
"Using a variety of methods, Mr. Hall and Mr. Thompson estimate that in these 125 close elections, a party that chooses the more extreme nominee in the primary sees roughly a six-point drop in the number of its registered voters who show up at the polls in November. It’s a drop-off that does not exist when the party nominates a more moderate candidate."
This says that base participation drops - not that opposition party increases, which is your contention.
Well the writer of the NYT headline and subhead should be summarily fired, because he or she really got it wrong.
"Unable to Excite the Base? Moderate Candidates Still Tend to Outdo Extreme Ones
An analysis of more than 30 years of House general elections suggests: Don’t nominate someone who will motivate the other side to show up."
It's too late for the hardcopy, but if you alert the NYT editorial department they should be able to fix their egregious error in the digital version.
Klinker said:
From????
The article that Smedley linked to at the NYT.
Smedley said:
Well we are really living in bizarro times then, because most states between the coasts are sure shots to vote for Trump over a progressive. It's like the blue-state coastal bubble people who are doing fine, want progressive medicine to save the miserable red-state heartland wretches, but the miserable red-state heartland wretches don't want to take their medicine.
there are actually some good books on the topic of why people in depressed areas vote in a manner that appears to go against their own interests. One is "Dying of Whiteness" by Jonathan Michel Metzl. It's a respectful and generally sympathetic portrayal of people in downscale rural communities, and it includes analyses of data on outcomes of various policies that have effects on health and mortality. I found it's usually better to read more on the topic than simply be sarcastic and share unsupported generalizations on a message board.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Diatribe on how that's all wrong and misguided and I'm a know-nothing idiot coming in 3, 2, 1....
I don't write that bluntly, so I'll leave that to someone else.
Doesn't the reality of Trump pretty much prove that there are very prominent exceptions to that rule? Is there anyone as extreme as Trump among the major candidates?
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. And even the article I cite uses the verb "suggest" high up and prominently in its thesis, so it's hardly certain that what it says may happen will in fact happen.
I believe the 2016 election was a one-off aberrational thing resulting from a singularly toxic candidate who ran a complacent and godawful campaign. And I'll go on record here saying I predict Trump will lose next year.
Smedley said:
Well the writer of the NYT headline and subhead should be summarily fired, because he or she really got it wrong.
"Unable to Excite the Base? Moderate Candidates Still Tend to Outdo Extreme Ones
An analysis of more than 30 years of House general elections suggests: Don’t nominate someone who will motivate the other side to show up."
It's too late for the hardcopy, but if you alert the NYT editorial department they should be able to fix their egregious error in the digital version.
whatever - we're not arguing about the efficacy of moderate over extreme - we're arguing about the effect of an extreme candidate on turnout.
In other words what you said originally a few posts ago.
And headlines are never good harbingers of the content of the article.
Anyway, did you already forget that you wrote this?
However it has been shown that extreme candidates tend also to GOTV on the other side in a way that more than offsets the desired GOTV.
If you're gonna move the goalposts, let me know ahead of time at least.
jimmurphy said:
This quote seems to support Smedley's argument:
"Extreme candidates, the researchers say, may mobilize their party’s base — but they tend to activate their opponent’s base even more than their own, resulting in a net loss on turnout. They also seem to lose habitual voters — the people who almost always turn out to vote — to the opposition party, while moderate nominees hold on to those voters. In this way, extreme nominees lose votes in two ways: mobilization and persuasion."
maybe - except there's no data in the article to support that contention. The only data I found is what I pointed out earlier - that base participation drops in the general, not that the other party's participation goes up.
Smedley said:
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. And even the article I cite uses the verb "suggest" high up and prominently in its thesis, so it's hardly certain that what it says may happen will in fact happen.
I believe the 2016 election was a one-off aberrational thing resulting from a singularly toxic candidate who ran a complacent and godawful campaign. And I'll go on record here saying I predict Trump will lose next year.
I wish I could be that confident. But without knowing who the Democratic nominee is going to be, I still think Trump has a good chance at reelection.
It seems important to remember that the NYT is a MASSIVE supporter of conservative democrats. Of course they would editorialize against candidates from the left side of the party. They also don't care much for female candidates, a prejudice that can be seen throughout their election reporting.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well we are really living in bizarro times then, because most states between the coasts are sure shots to vote for Trump over a progressive. It's like the blue-state coastal bubble people who are doing fine, want progressive medicine to save the miserable red-state heartland wretches, but the miserable red-state heartland wretches don't want to take their medicine.
there are actually some good books on the topic of why people in depressed areas vote in a manner that appears to go against their own interests. One is "Dying of Whiteness" by Jonathan Michel Metzl. It's a respectful and generally sympathetic portrayal of people in downscale rural communities, and it includes analyses of data on outcomes of various policies that have effects on health and mortality. I found it's usually better to read more on the topic than simply be sarcastic and share unsupported generalizations on a message board.
I'm sorry my snark game can't be beat. It's my cross to bear.
Anyway, the book sounds interesting, what were your takeaways and is any candidate making headway on better understanding this voting bloc and/or tapping into it?
Smedley said:
I'm sorry my snark game can't be beat. It's my cross to bear.
Anyway, the book sounds interesting, what were your takeaways and is any candidate making headway on better understanding this voting bloc and/or tapping into it?
Trump has tapped into it. There are an awful lot of people who would rather do without things like good health care if it means tax revenue is going to pay for the "wrong" people to receive it too. Trumped tapped into the resentment that a lot of downscale white people have toward "elites" and toward people they perceive as lazy and undeserving.
The data analyses are pretty clear that specific legislative choices lead to different outcomes. Looking at health, mortality and educational achievement data in states with and without the Medicaid expansion, with and without stricter gun laws, with and without large tax cuts, he demonstrates the negative effects of certain policy choices.
Sorry I meant are any D candidates making headway with these folks. I know Trump has had a lock on this demographic.
Smedley said:
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. And even the article I cite uses the verb "suggest" high up and prominently in its thesis, so it's hardly certain that what it says may happen will in fact happen.
I believe the 2016 election was a one-off aberrational thing resulting from a singularly toxic candidate who ran a complacent and godawful campaign. And I'll go on record here saying I predict Trump will lose next year.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well we are really living in bizarro times then, because most states between the coasts are sure shots to vote for Trump over a progressive. It's like the blue-state coastal bubble people who are doing fine, want progressive medicine to save the miserable red-state heartland wretches, but the miserable red-state heartland wretches don't want to take their medicine.
there are actually some good books on the topic of why people in depressed areas vote in a manner that appears to go against their own interests. One is "Dying of Whiteness" by Jonathan Michel Metzl. It's a respectful and generally sympathetic portrayal of people in downscale rural communities, and it includes analyses of data on outcomes of various policies that have effects on health and mortality. I found it's usually better to read more on the topic than simply be sarcastic and share unsupported generalizations on a message board.
Doesn't this cut against arguments that a more progressive candidate would blunt the appeal of Trumpism, or that Trump won as a result of insufficiently progressive past presidents?
Smedley said:
Sorry I meant are any D candidates making headway with these folks. I know Trump has had a lock on this demographic.
I don't see any possibility for a Democrat to reach those people. There are about 10 states in the U.S. where the Democratic Party as it currently exists isn't going to be competitive. They should be focusing on places that are trending positively for them like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and perhaps even Texas.
There is an internal logic to the way those voters think. They will forego any possible benefits that flow from the public sector because they believe that fundamentally most government spending is wasteful, ineffective and bestows benefits to a whole lot of people who are too lazy or stupid to contribute to society. It makes perfect sense if you accept that premise. And what does a Democratic candidate have that can appeal to those people, and still hold onto their voters in "blue" states?
PVW said:
Doesn't this cut against arguments that a more progressive candidate would blunt the appeal of Trumpism, or that Trump won as a result of insufficiently progressive past presidents?
no.
I would never argue that a Democrat is going to win Tennessee or Arkansas any time soon. But a more progressive candidate might turn out the voters in the cities and suburbs around Pittsburgh, Philly, Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Phoenix and all the other urban/suburban areas in the swing states.
ml1 said:
I don't see any possibility for a Democrat to reach those people. There are about 10 states in the U.S. where the Democratic Party as it currently exists isn't going to be competitive. They should be focusing on places that are trending positively for them like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and perhaps even Texas.
There is an internal logic to the way those voters think. They will forego any possible benefits that flow from the public sector because they believe that fundamentally most government spending is wasteful, ineffective and bestows benefits to a whole lot of people who are too lazy or stupid to contribute to society. It makes perfect sense if you accept that premise. And what does a Democratic candidate have that can appeal to those people, and still hold onto their voters in "blue" states?
Those states are lost. The Democratic party shouldn't waste one dime on them.
As for foregoing benefits - not true. They'll accept any benefit they can. Just look the highly subsidized farmers or the elderly TEA party members who will happily accept their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
ml1 said:
PVW said:
How do you measure "energizing the base" if not via votes in the primary? If Biden gets the most votes, but he's not energizing the base, doesn't that by definition mean those with fewer votes are doing an even worse job energizing?
Not necessarily. In a field of five or more, the progressive base could be split among two or three alternatives.
And the moderate base could be split between three or four alternatives. Biden + Buttigieg have been outpolling Sanders + Warren. Then throw in the Harris votes and even the Bloomberg votes to the B + B totals. (With Harris dropping out, where will her votes go - Bloomberg?)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
I really think Biden would lose to Trump. But I'm encouraged by recalling this headline from December, 2017:
Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama: Nationally Leads Obama by 18 points in latest poll
or this other one from the same month:
mrincredible said:
STANV said:
Why? What does she add?
I would say that she is a younger woman of color who is more or less in the same political lane as Biden. On paper at the very least those seem like desirable characteristics to add to a ticket. I don't know if you have noticed, but Joe Biden is older, white and male.
Biden is very popular with Black voters so Harris doesn't add much there. Biden is from one coast Harris id from the other. There's a good argument that victory runs through the middle of the country. Of course she is female but so is Amy Klobouchor who has won in Red areas of her State and is still a candidate while Harris's campaign has fallen apart.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
Among white male adults, life expectancy is down, suicide is up, income and wealth inequality is up. Those are just off the top of my head. And that's mostly in the states between the coasts. It's an indication of being in the coastal bubble when people look at the stock market and the unemployment rate and conclude everything is great for everyone.
And the measures I cited were trending up basically from 1946 until the late '70s. It's possible for health outcomes to improve and for prosperity to spread outside the top 10%.