As psychologists say, “It’s the situation, not the person.” The strongest predictor of what people will do is what others around them do. In this thread, I’ll describe what behavioral contagion theory says about how the campaign is likely to play out during the final two weeks.
First some background: During the pandemic, I’ve been participating in weekly Zoom calls with former Peace Corps Volunteers who served with me in Nepal during the late 1960s. As among so many of my other friends, there is high anxiety in this group about the election.
During our early calls, prediction markets were pegging the presidential race as a near tossup. That struck me as preposterous, and I tried to explain why. As our conversations unfolded, it gradually became my role on the call to reassure others about Biden’s prospects.
My optimism sprang from a belief that the three crises then unfolding—the pandemic, the resulting economic devastation, and heightened concern about racial injustice—would be durable and that Trump’s response to each of them would be spectacularly ineffective.
That view has proved largely correct. And with polls now having shifted significantly in Biden’s favor, the group’s panic level has fallen a bit. Yet with November 8, 2016 still fresh in everyone’s memory, considerable apprehension remains.
Things could indeed change sharply during the next two weeks. But as I’ll attempt to explain, behavioral contagion theory tells us that any such change is overwhelmingly likely to be in Biden’s direction.
What others do is important because none of us has the information necessary to navigate complex and uncertain environments successfully on our own. Looking to others for clues about what to do is therefore highly adaptive most of the time. The same logic shapes voting choices.
In an earlier thread, I described a simple example illustrating how even a single person’s change of mind could launch a cascade that would completely transform public opinion about an issue:
A conversational dynamic like the one described in that thread is now firmly under way. Consider, for example, the caustic denunciation of Trump by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse in a recent conference call with constituents:
Sasse is of course a special case. Although he is up for re-election, the Democratic party has abandoned its own primary winner in the wake of a sexting scandal and is now urging voters to support a write-in candidate. Sasse’s re-election bid is safe. Not so for several others.
Few other GOP senators up for re-election are likely to oppose Trump frontally for fear of alienating his hard-core supporters whose votes they desperately need. But even here, there are signs of slippage. Last week, for example, John Cornyn was cautiously critical of Trump.
Incentives to defect will be far more powerful for Republicans whose immediate fortunes do not hinge on remaining loyal to Trump. Among this group, the number of people speaking out, currently a trickle, will become a torrent:
thedailybeast.com/trumps-taking-…
Former officials in the George W. Bush administration, for example, are now running anti-Trump ads. Public Biden endorsements are also appearing from former national security officials, retired military four-star officers, former Justice Department officials, and many others.
Three of the nation's most prestigious scientific journals--THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, SCIENCE, and NATURE--have just taken the unprecedented step of publishing scathing anti-Trump editorials.
slate.com/technology/202…
Every such declaration will make it easier for others to desert the president. And with Democrats enjoying a massive cash advantage in the home stretch, each defection will be widely highlighted in closing ads. That
Trump's ship is sinking is now a widespread public perception.
The cake is of course not yet baked. None of this is a reason to feel safe. Trump’s slim remaining hope is for the election to be close enough to challenge in the courts. For his defeat to be certain, it can’t be close. He must lose big.
Alert to the dangers of complacency, the Biden campaign is urging supporters to view the Democratic margin as razor thin. They needn't worry. The lingering trauma of 2016 all but guarantees heavy turnout by Democrats and independents, no matter what polls say.
It’s also reassuring that the number of undecided voters, already small by historical standards, has been shrinking day by day. As David Sedaris described such voters in an earlier essay,
With two weeks left to go, there are countless down-ballot candidates that need our support, if you can afford to contribute. There are phone calls to make, letters and postcards to write. With a strong finish, we can deliver the humiliating defeat that Trump so richly deserves.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robert H Frank

Robert H Frank Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @econnaturalist

22 Jul
As Genevieve Guenther (@DoctorVive) points out, the climate conversation has finally moved past the mindless disputes with denialists that dominated recent discussion. But we now seem stalled in the absence of a consensus about what to do next.
In the face of record wildfires and 100°F Arctic temperatures, most people now accept that we face a deadly serious challenge. Now many ask, is rapid decarbonization even feasible at any cost? And if so, is there any prospect that voters would be willing to bear that cost?
On the first question, if you’re not familiar with the work of the energy engineer Saul Griffith, I urge you to read this short piece that explains how we can decarbonize rapidly:
medium.com/otherlab-news/…
Read 9 tweets
4 Jun
Will General Mattis end up being Citizen B, whose willingness to speak out proves explosively contagious?
In a recent thread about behavioral contagion’s role in debate, I described an example involving 10 citizens—A through J—who would oppose an authoritarian regime publicly if they thought it safe to do so. Citizen B was the pivotal figure in this example.
Each has a threshold indicating her/his willingness to speak out as a function of how many others are speaking out. A, for example, is willing to speak out no matter what. B and C are more cautious, each willing to speak out only if at least 20% of others are also speaking out.
Read 11 tweets
19 May
Economic Naturalist Question #15. Why don’t top-ranked private universities charge higher tuition than many of their lower-ranked counterparts? #EconTwitter
After posing this question, my former student Lonnie Fox noted that although the ratio of applications to available slots is far higher at top-ranked universities than at their lower-ranked counterparts, tuition payments vary little across schools of different rank.
Top-ranked schools typically admit less than 10% of applicants, whereas many lower-ranked schools admit more than 50%. Expenditures per pupil are also higher at top-ranked schools. If both costs and demand are higher at top-ranked universities, why don’t they charge more?
Read 12 tweets
25 Apr
Economic Naturalist Question #2: Why do brides often spend thousands of dollars on wedding dresses they will never wear again, while grooms typically rent cheap tuxedos, even though they will have many future occasions that call for one?
Jennifer Dulski, who got married six months before she took my class in 1997, posed one of my all-time favorite responses to my Economic Naturalist writing assignment.
Asking why brides buy and grooms rent is an interesting question because it would seem that each would do better by following the other’s strategy. Why don’t brides rent and grooms buy?
Read 11 tweets
18 Apr
Yesterday I described an act of kindness directed toward my family by someone none of us had met. The gesture was not one that most of my fellow economists would have predicted. But psychologists have shown that taking such steps makes people happier. 1/
Elizabeth Dunn (@DunnHappyLab) gave one group some money and told them to spend it on somebody else. She told a second group to spend the money on themselves. Afterwards, those in the first group were significantly happier than those in the second. 2/
ted.com/talks/elizabet…
The current lockdown provides an opportunity to reflect on whether Dunn’s finding holds for you. If, like me, you’re able to work from home, you haven’t suffered the devastating income losses that others have. But you’ve almost surely been spending less money on yourself. 3/
Read 8 tweets
4 Apr
The observations in the tweet below suggest another question: Why would the sacrifices necessary to make progress against both future pandemics and the climate crisis be much less painful than many believe? 1/
Progress against these challenges will of course require massive investment in renewable energy and similar outlays for hospital surge capacity and medical research. But experience in the current pandemic shows why these expenditures need not require painful sacrifices. 2/
This experience supports a robust finding from the large literature on the determinants of human well-being: Beyond a point that has long since been passed in the West, further increases in many forms of private consumption serve only to raise that bar that defines adequate. 3/
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!