Insight into US Elections
Larry Sabato who teaches in Virginia gave a lecture in London this summer which analyses US elections; he is particularly interesting on the growing rift between the two major parties; the superficial reporting of daily events by the media rather than underlying trends; and the hugely important shifts in demography that are shaping elections to come.
It is a standard lecture but stick with it, there is also a Q&A session at the end.
The text, not quite the same as the talk is here:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox...NAL_script.pdf
Lecture Obama's Elections (BBC) - YouTube
Re: Insight into US Elections
I'm going to be reading the transcript so don't lose heart that nobody has responded to this interesting thread. Appreciate the link.
Re: Insight into US Elections
Very insightful analysis on a number of longer term trends. First there is the observation that incumbents hardly ever lose. He backs it up with facts that demonstrate this trend. Incumbents only seem to lose if there is a scandal. I don't think he provides a reason for this fact, except maybe implicitly party infighting during the primaries greatly diminishes the momentum of the challenging party.
Then he points out that after two successful terms, it is difficult for either party to maintain momentum subsequently because the public is fed up with the entrenched party's scandals, missteps etc. This may be true, but if and when this trend is broken and one party gains ascendancy, whose to say that the public won't be so far on one side of the fence to make this general tendency moot.
I enjoyed the discussion about the further polarization of politics and how individuals are apt to call themselves "independents" because of its cachet even though they are really in one camp or the other. I remember I was discussing various issues with someone here who had predominantly conservative views, but didn't want to be pegged as a conservative. I asked him what liberal policies he supported that would qualify him as a sort of political hybrid. He said he doesn't go for any "liberal agenda". Uncharitable translation: right-wing hack who does not want to admit it.
Sabato's comments then shift to a discussion of the trend in voting patterns by demographic, with women of any race, minorities, and younger individuals voting for the Democrats. The shift in the Republican's focus towards its most conservative base makes it exceedingly difficult for them to poach any of these votes. And the fact that minorities are becoming a larger proportion of the voting public makes the trend look ominous for Republicans. This is why we see Republicans trying to define America culturally in a way that seems based on the white Christian ideal. But white Christians (and I hold no grudge whatsoever) have only one vote. So Republicans have tried to make it more difficult for some minorities to cast their vote rather than trying to appeal to them.
One thing I disagree with is this: he says that Republicans are afraid that if they moderate their views on any social issue they will lose the white evangelical vote. After-all, he who tries to appeal to everyone appeals to no-one. But in my view as long as Republicans are more conservative on social issues than Democrats, they will retain this vote. Are white Evangelicals ever going to vote for the Democrats?
One thing he doesn't discuss with regard to party polarization is this. Does a party gain or lose popularity based on a policy shift away from the center? Is there a way to peg some historical norm for each party and look to see who has deviated the most from it? This might be relevant in national elections if for instance some individuals want an excuse to vote for the Republicans but just can't find one because they have become too extreme. Maybe they support a less graduated tax but have a gay son for instance.
Or perhaps another way of looking at it is that the entire spectrum has shifted in one direction, but one party is less responsive to these trends and remains fixed. That might be a reasonable definition of conservative.
The last point is about the news cycle and the undue attention paid to the most recent gossip. This is a very astute point...and something that deserves more attention.
Re: Insight into US Elections
"A tall stack of research shows that true independents are tiny in number perhaps 5% to 8% of the electorate and many of them are disengaged and do not vote at all."
I suppose everything has been discussed in broad terms but what can the Republicans do to increase their popularity? First, I think that even though this is a small proportion of the public, they can get a lot of these votes. Those who are undecided are not so turned off by the Republicans' views on gay marriage, income inequality, civil rights, and abortion. Their votes are potential GOP votes and they may only need a slight nudge/appeal to get them.
What else can Republicans do? I've said that I think those Republicans who scream the loudest might be the least relevant. For instance, when Republicans want to take a more moderate stance on immigration, we have gatherings of "minutemen" and name-calling (RINO). Ignore them. Work for some sort of conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens. They may not agree with this politically, but it is politically shrewd. Who amongst the minuteman crowd would defect, if the Republicans present a plan that is less alienating, but more stringent than the Democratic recommendations?
How about gay rights? This is how they can moderate their views without becoming carbon copies of the Democrats. They should say that they support states' rights on the issue, meaning that a state should have a choice to make gay marriage legal if they so desire. They should say that they now believe it is an abrogation of equal protection to allow states to change their Constitutions (rather than their laws) to disallow gay marriage. The difference is that Constitutions are founding documents and once an amendment is made a higher threshold is required to overcome it. So they say they leave it up to the states, and don't support federal interference with states' decisions (such as what is included in DOMA). A state makes a decision and the federal government will not interfere with it.
The abortion issue: they acknowledge that it is decided law, and that they do not support invasive and underhanded requirements to interfere with this recognized right. However, they support the state's interest in protecting fetuses in the case of late term abortions, requiring short waiting periods, or whatever else has been allowed by the Supreme Court. They should also if they choose say that they disagree with the law as decided but they will do nothing to interfere with it.
I do not know how they win the African-American vote. They've screwed the pooch on that one I'm afraid. And it's significant. But what can they do? First there was the Southern strategy for decades and then appeals to racism throughout Obama's presidency, and continued exploitation of racial wedge issues. They can moderate this too. They will continue to win the racist vote even if they make more of an effort to banish flagrant acts of racism from their party, and they may make it seem more reasonable for some conservative-minded African-Americans to vote Republican.
In short: nothing to lose imo by moderating their policies. I could be wrong. Maybe an Evangelical Christian will get angry, move to San Francisco, start smoking pot and vote Democratic if they do. But I doubt it. Of course, if they moderate their views and win, they can't do exactly what they want. Perhaps they think it's better to lose and shut down the government by abusing the filibuster?
Re: Insight into US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
"A tall stack of research shows that true independents are tiny in number perhaps 5% to 8% of the electorate and many of them are disengaged and do not vote at all."
I suppose everything has been discussed in broad terms but what can the Republicans do to increase their popularity? First, I think that even though this is a small proportion of the public, they can get a lot of these votes. Those who are undecided are not so turned off by the Republicans' views on gay marriage, income inequality, civil rights, and abortion. Their votes are potential GOP votes and they may only need a slight nudge/appeal to get them.
What else can Republicans do? I've said that I think those Republicans who scream the loudest might be the least relevant. For instance, when Republicans want to take a more moderate stance on immigration, we have gatherings of "minutemen" and name-calling (RINO). Ignore them. Work for some sort of conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens. They may not agree with this politically, but it is politically shrewd. Who amongst the minuteman crowd would defect, if the Republicans present a plan that is less alienating, but more stringent than the Democratic recommendations?
How about gay rights? This is how they can moderate their views without becoming carbon copies of the Democrats. They should say that they support states' rights on the issue, meaning that a state should have a choice to make gay marriage legal if they so desire. They should say that they now believe it is an abrogation of equal protection to allow states to change their Constitutions (rather than their laws) to disallow gay marriage. The difference is that Constitutions are founding documents and once an amendment is made a higher threshold is required to overcome it. So they say they leave it up to the states, and don't support federal interference with states' decisions (such as what is included in DOMA). A state makes a decision and the federal government will not interfere with it.
The abortion issue: they acknowledge that it is decided law, and that they do not support invasive and underhanded requirements to interfere with this recognized right. However, they support the state's interest in protecting fetuses in the case of late term abortions, requiring short waiting periods, or whatever else has been allowed by the Supreme Court. They should also if they choose say that they disagree with the law as decided but they will do nothing to interfere with it.
I do not know how they win the African-American vote. They've screwed the pooch on that one I'm afraid. And it's significant. But what can they do? First there was the Southern strategy for decades and then appeals to racism throughout Obama's presidency, and continued exploitation of racial wedge issues. They can moderate this too. They will continue to win the racist vote even if they make more of an effort to banish flagrant acts of racism from their party, and they may make it seem more reasonable for some conservative-minded African-Americans to vote Republican.
In short: nothing to lose imo by moderating their policies. I could be wrong. Maybe an Evangelical Christian will get angry, move to San Francisco, start smoking pot and vote Democratic if they do. But I doubt it. Of course, if they moderate their views and win, they can't do exactly what they want. Perhaps they think it's better to lose and shut down the government by abusing the filibuster?
well the Republican party could start be separating church and state in their ideology..... and maybe I dunno focus on results instead that benefit the people they wish to represent. #justathought.
Re: Insight into US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
One thing I disagree with is this: he says that Republicans are afraid that if they moderate their views on any social issue they will lose the white evangelical vote. After-all, he who tries to appeal to everyone appeals to no-one. But in my view as long as Republicans are more conservative on social issues than Democrats, they will retain this vote. Are white Evangelicals ever going to vote for the Democrats?
One thing he doesn't discuss with regard to party polarization is this. Does a party gain or lose popularity based on a policy shift away from the center? Is there a way to peg some historical norm for each party and look to see who has deviated the most from it? This might be relevant in national elections if for instance some individuals want an excuse to vote for the Republicans but just can't find one because they have become too extreme. Maybe they support a less graduated tax but have a gay son for instance.
Or perhaps another way of looking at it is that the entire spectrum has shifted in one direction, but one party is less responsive to these trends and remains fixed. That might be a reasonable definition of conservative.
The last point is about the news cycle and the undue attention paid to the most recent gossip. This is a very astute point...and something that deserves more attention.
This is also a reply to Victoria's post:
I think a criticial element that Sabato has not discussed is the role of religion in general, not just the 'evangelical vote'. De Tocqueville was struck by the importance of Christianity in the American communities he visited, it was, ideologically, as important as their notions of freedom. Put simply, how would any Presidential candidate -male or female- do if he or she declared no interest in religion and for that reason refused to say God Bless America at the end of a public speech-? It is ironic, perhaps, that the separation of religion from the state in the USA nevertheless makes it almost impossible for a President to do what the French President does in a similar moment-where in France the secular state is also a legacy of revolution, and say: Vive La France, et Vive la Republique!
Long Live America and the American Republic! maybe doesn't have the same tone?
On the bias in the media, this is surely an inevitable consequence of the USA rescinding the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting which was set up in 1949 when there were fewer broadcasting networks which as a result were obliged to reflect a diversity of opinion -although they were not legally obliged to provide 'balanced' reporting as in the UK where political issues even today are expected to be 'balanced' through the offer of rival parties to comment on a report. Once the proliferation of cable and then the internet diversified the source of news, you allowed one-dimensional reporting to go unchallenged, which means that people prone to one or another angle can get all their news and comment from like-minded people and are never really challenged on their views.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are interested in historical election analysis, VO Key pioneered the concept of voter re-alignment (he even called them 'key elections'!) which suggests a re-alignment roughly every 25-30 years. It is not without its critics, but if in future the general public believes issues such as gay marriage, divorce, maybe abortion, are no longer contentious, the need to vote Democrat to protect the policies loses its impulse, and other issues may come along which the Republicans can exploit to their advantage. Do not underestimate the ability of the Democrats to implode -they were an incoherent mess between Johnson and Carter -indeed, if you except Carter as a one-off, the Democrats were in a mess from 1968 to the Clinton Presidency. The next generation will have different ideas about what is important.
This is the link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realign...#United_States
Re: Insight into US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
If you are interested in historical election analysis, VO Key pioneered the concept of voter re-alignment (he even called them 'key elections'!) which suggests a re-alignment roughly every 25-30 years. It is not without its critics, but if in future the general public believes issues such as gay marriage, divorce, maybe abortion, are no longer contentious, the need to vote Democrat to protect the policies loses its impulse, and other issues may come along which the Republicans can exploit to their advantage. Do not underestimate the ability of the Democrats to implode -they were an incoherent mess between Johnson and Carter -indeed, if you except Carter as a one-off, the Democrats were in a mess from 1968 to the Clinton Presidency. The next generation will have different ideas about what is important.
This is the link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realign...#United_States
I do want to read about that. I suppose in that perspective we have not had a realignment of the voting public. The incumbent President was re-elected and both parties have their share of support. If things reach a critical mass the next election could be "realigning", or it could prove that Democrats merely benefited from a charismatic Presidential candidate who followed a relatively unpopular GOP president.
If issues such as marriage, divorce, and abortion are no longer contentious the Republicans would have a strong advantage with small government Libertarian sorts. I just started reading Sabato's Obama and the New America and his recommendations are fairly similar.
But they are not ready to concede on the social issues and I suppose in re-assessing things, maybe it would be premature for them to take these issues out of the election. This is particularly the case with Congressional elections, which are highly regionalized and where emphasis of these issues could benefit them.
I'm about halfway through his book and so far nothing about religion or its role in our society. One thing I'm interested in reading about is the balance between religion's role in the private sphere and how someone might avoid allowing it to dictate their voting patterns. I remember GW Bush said at some point that he doesn't cease to be a Christian publically or when he acts in an official capacity.
The establishment clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But it can pass laws whose strongest justifications are based on religious tenets rather than secular principles.
