{"id":133071,"date":"2020-07-19T05:44:02","date_gmt":"2020-07-19T13:44:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=133071"},"modified":"2020-07-19T05:59:10","modified_gmt":"2020-07-19T13:59:10","slug":"david-shors-unified-theory-of-american-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=133071","title":{"rendered":"David Shor\u2019s Unified Theory of American Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

From New York Magazine<\/a>:<\/p>\n

* Clinton campaign hired pollsters to test a bunch of different messages, and for boring mechanical reasons, working-class people with low levels of social trust were much less likely to answer those phone polls than college-educated professionals. And as a result, all of this cosmopolitan, socially liberal messaging did really well in their phone polls, even though it ultimately cost her a lot of votes.<\/p>\n

* Campaigns do want to win. But the people who work in campaigns tend to be highly ideologically motivated and thus, super-prone to convincing themselves to do things that are strategically dumb.<\/p>\n

* a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn\u2019t have to placate the social views of racist white people.<\/p>\n

* So working-class white people have an enormous amount of political power and they\u2019re trending towards the Republican Party. It would be really ideologically convenient if the reason they\u2019re doing that was because Democrats embraced neoliberalism. But it\u2019s pretty clear that that isn\u2019t true.<\/p>\n

* Non-college-educated white people with low levels of racial resentment trended towards us in 2016, and college-educated white people with high levels of racial resentments turned against us.<\/p>\n

* But when you look at Trump\u2019s support in the Republican primary, it correlated pretty highly with, uh \u2026 racially charged \u2026 Google search words. So you had this politician who campaigned on an anti-immigrant and anti\u2013political correctness platform. And then he won the votes of a large group of swing voters, and vote switching was highly correlated with various individual level measures of racial resentment \u2014 and, on a geographic level, was correlated with racist search terms. At some point, you have to be like, oh, actually, these people were motivated by racism. It\u2019s just an important fact of the world.<\/p>\n

* Obama-to-Trump voters are motivated by racism. But they\u2019re really electorally important, and so we have to figure out some way to get them to vote for us.<\/p>\n

* The single biggest way that highly educated people who follow politics closely are different from everyone else is that we have much more ideological coherence in our views.<\/p>\n

* Mitt Romney and Donald Trump agreed on basically every issue, as did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet, a bunch of people changed their votes. And the reason that happened was because the salience of various issues changed. Both sides talked a lot more about immigration, and because of that, correlation between preferences on immigration and which candidate people voted for went up. In 2012, both sides talked about health care. In 2016, they didn\u2019t. And so the correlation between views on health care and which candidate people voted for went down.<\/p>\n

So this means that every time you open your mouth, you have this complex optimization problem where what you say gains you some voters and loses you other voters. But this is actually cool because campaigns have a lot of control over what issues they talk about.<\/p>\n

Non-college-educated whites, on average, have very conservative views on immigration, and generally conservative racial attitudes. But they have center-left views on economics; they support universal health care and minimum-wage increases. So I think Democrats need to talk about the issues they are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.<\/p>\n

* There\u2019s like 20 percent of the electorate that trusts Democratic elites tremendously. And they will turn their views on a dime if the party tells them to. So this is how you can get Abolish ICE to go from a 10 percent issue to a 30 percent issue. If you\u2019re an ideological activist, that\u2019s a powerful force. If you convince strong partisans to adopt your view, then when the party comes to power, strong partisans will ultimately make up that administration and then you can make policy progress.<\/p>\n

The problem is that swing voters don\u2019t trust either party.<\/p>\n

* Campaigns just can\u2019t effect those kinds of long-term changes. They can direct information to partisans who trust them, and they can curry favor with marginal voters by signaling agreement with them on issues. But there isn\u2019t much space for changing marginal voters\u2019 minds.<\/p>\n

* voters view center-left parties as empathetic. Center-left parties care about the environment, lowering poverty, improving race relations. And then, you know, center-right parties are seen as more \u201cserious,\u201d or more like the stern dad figure or something. They do better on getting the economy going or lowering unemployment or taxes or crime or immigration.<\/p>\n

* One thing that Democrats consistently get rated highly on is improving race relations.<\/p>\n

* What\u2019s powerful about nonviolent protest \u2014 and particularly nonviolent protest that incurs a disproportionate response from the police \u2014 is that it can shift the conversation, in a really visceral way, into the part of this issue space that benefits Democrats and the center left. Which is the pursuit of equality, social justice, fairness \u2014 these Democratic-loaded concepts \u2014 without the trade-off of crime or public safety. So I think it is really consistent with a pretty broad, cross-sectional body of evidence (a piece of which I obviously tweeted at some point) that nonviolent protest is politically advantageous, both in terms of changing public opinion on discrete issues and electing parties sympathetic to the left\u2019s concerns.<\/p>\n

* when violence is happening, people become afraid. They fear for their safety, and then they crave order. And order is a winning issue for conservatives here and everywhere around the world. The basic political argument since the French Revolution has been the left saying, \u201cLet\u2019s make things more fair,\u201d and the right saying, \u201cIf we do that, it will lead to chaos and threaten your family.\u201d<\/p>\n

* the real inflection point in our polling was the Lafayette Park incident, when Trump used tear gas on innocent people. That\u2019s when support for Biden shot up and it\u2019s been pretty steady since then.<\/p>\n

* In the postwar era, college-educated professionals were maybe 4 percent of the electorate. Which meant that basically no voters had remotely cosmopolitan values. But the flip side of this is that this educated 4 percent still ran the world. Both parties at this point were run by this highly educated, cosmopolitan minority that held a bunch of values that undergirded the postwar consensus, around democracy and rule of law, and all these things.<\/p>\n

Obviously, these people were more right wing on a bunch of social issues than their contemporary counterparts, but during that era, both parties were run by just about the most cosmopolitan segments of society. And there were also really strong gatekeepers. This small group of highly educated people not only controlled the commanding heights of both the left and the right, but also controlled the media. There were only a small number of TV stations \u2014 in other countries, those stations were even run by the government. And both sides knew it wasn\u2019t electorally advantageous to campaign on cosmopolitan values.<\/p>\n

So, as a result, campaigns centered around this cosmopolitan elite\u2019s internal disagreements over economic issues. But over the past 60 years, college graduates have gone from being 4 percent of the electorate to being more like 35. Now, it\u2019s actually possible \u2014 for the first time ever in human history \u2014 for political parties to openly embrace cosmopolitan values and win elections; certainly primary and municipal elections, maybe even national elections if you don\u2019t push things too far or if you have a recession at your back. And so Democratic elites started campaigning on the things they\u2019d always wanted to, but which had previously been too toxic. And so did center-left parties internationally.<\/p>\n

* Education is highly correlated with openness to new experiences; basically, there\u2019s this divide where some people react positively to novel things and others react less positively. And there\u2019s evidence that this relationship is causal. In Europe, when countries raised their mandatory schooling age from 16 to 18, the first generation of students who remained in school longer had substantially more liberal views on immigration than their immediate predecessors. And then, college-educated people are also more willing to try strange foods or travel abroad. So it really seems like education makes people more open to new experiences.<\/p>\n

But politically, this manifests on immigration. And it\u2019s ironclad. You can look at polling from the 1940s on whether America should take in Jewish refugees, and college-educated people wanted to and non-college-educated people didn\u2019t. It\u2019s true cross-nationally \u2014 like, working-class South Africans oppose taking in refugees from Zimbabwe, while college-educated South Africans support taking them in.<\/p>\n

Other research has shown that messaging centered around the potential for cooperation and positive-sum change really appeals to educated people, while messaging that emphasizes zero-sum conflict resonates much more with non-college-educated people. <\/p>\n

* Black voters trended Republican in 2016. Hispanic voters also trended right in battleground states. In 2018, I think it\u2019s absolutely clear that, relative to the rest of the country, nonwhite voters trended Republican. In Florida, Democratic senator Bill Nelson did 2 or 3 points better than Clinton among white voters but lost because he did considerably worse than her among Black and Hispanic voters. We\u2019re seeing this in 2020 polling, too.<\/p>\n

* So if you look at Black voters trending against us, it\u2019s not uniform. It\u2019s specifically young, secular Black voters who are voting more Republican than their demographic used to. And the ostensible reason for this is the weakening of the Black church, which had, for historical reasons, occupied a really central place in Black society and helped anchor African-Americans in the Democratic Party. Among Black voters, one of the biggest predictors for voting Republican is not attending church.<\/p>\n

* Democratic politicians, relative to the country, are very left wing. But campaigns really want to win.<\/p>\n

* I think a really underrated political consequence of coronavirus has been a large increase in Democrats\u2019 odds of taking the Senate. A year ago, I thought it was possible but a long shot. Now, it\u2019s something that has a very reasonable chance of happening.<\/p>\n

And I think that\u2019s partly because a lot of Senate Republicans have put themselves in the position of opposing very popular things. The coronavirus has really increased the salience of health care, which is a Democratic-loaded issue. But it\u2019s also made opposing things like paid leave incredibly toxic. <\/p>\n

* It\u2019s not just that every new generation is more Democratic. Something much weirder has happened. People who were 18 years old in 2012 have swung about 12 points toward Democrats, while people who were 65 years old in that year have since swung like eight points toward Republicans. Right now, that\u2019s a bad trade. Old people vote more than young people. <\/p>\n

* The reason people aren\u2019t splitting their tickets anymore is probably because the internet exists now and people are better informed than they used to be. There was this broadband rollout study where they looked at the fact that different places got broadband at different times. And what they saw was that when broadband reached a given congressional district, ticket-splitting declined and ideological polarization went up. <\/p>\n

if we have a neutral national environment in 2024 (i.e., a 2016-style environment), we\u2019re going to be down to 43 Senate seats. It\u2019s really quite bleak. The Senate was always a really fucked-up anti-majoritarian institution. But it was okay because people in Nebraska used to vote randomly. But now they have the internet, and they know that Democrats are liberal.<\/p>\n

* I think one big lesson of 2018 was that Trump\u2019s coalition held up. Obviously, we did better as the party out of power. But if you look at how we did in places like Maine or Wisconsin or Michigan, it looked more like 2016 than 2012. Donald Trump still has a giant structural advantage in the Electoral College.<\/p>\n

So, in 2016, we got 51.1 percent of the two-party vote share (of the share of votes that went to Democrats and Republicans). And if we had gotten 51.6 percent of that, we would have had about a 50 percent chance of winning an Electoral College majority. We probably needed to get to 52 percent in order to have a high chance of winning the presidency. For most of the last six months, in public polls, Biden was at 52 or so. Now, we\u2019re at like 54.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From New York Magazine: * Clinton campaign hired pollsters to test a bunch of different messages, and for boring mechanical reasons, working-class people with low levels of social trust were much less likely to answer those phone polls than college-educated … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21791],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-america"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t