1. It's good to π @KatieHill4CA on @MSNBC bc she f'ed up- but it wasn't like she intentionally orphaned 1000s of children, including babies, to psychologically f' w Mexican asylum seekers like some people we know. Who then received the votes of 70 million OTHER people we know
2. so you know, in the grand scheme of things....
Plus, she's no dummy, as evidenced by her comments as to the LUNACY of canceling your door knocking in the MOST IMP CYCLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY'S LIFE, let alone your life. Someone, or someone(s) pushed that policy & they
Plus, she's no dummy, as evidenced by her comments as to the LUNACY of canceling your door knocking in the MOST IMP CYCLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY'S LIFE, let alone your life. Someone, or someone(s) pushed that policy & they
3. should be fired/demoted/removed. Their other "advice" re-examined ( I'll do it FOR FREE!) They sure as hell should NOT BE driving electioneering strategy in any way going forward. NEVER EVER again. Katie Hill understood the basic math that I have taken to calling the Bitecofer
4. math which in this polarized, hyperpartisanship environment is/requires you to structure your strategy so that at the end of the day (or weeks!) the Dems have turned out enough of their voting coalition that they have matched the Republican's representation in the electorate.
5. "Equalized representation" is IMP in the polarized era bc the main determinant of vote choice for at least 90%, but potentially as high as 95% of the electorate, is partisanship- leaned or full-throated. Certainly, soft-partisans have a love/hate relationship with their own
6. commitment, and bc the data always seems to confirm the nearly universal power of partisanship in the ballot box, what I am leaning towards right now is a different type of thesis about polling error. One that suggests that voters aren't lying to pollsters or intentionally
7. obfuscating their vote intentions. I believe that the issue is, they're lying to THEMSELVES. Again, on that side, you're getting hammered with party loyalty reinforcing messaging- its all about the tribe. Protecting the tribe from the other- from "intruders at the gate" fellow
8. political scientist Morgan Marietta (βοΈhis book a citizens guide to ideology, I use it in my political behavior class) will tell you how much threat from others motivates Republicans. This is true & its why Donald Trump was able to create or artificially stimulate/generate
9. negative partisanship in 2018 & now in 2020 and that's why if you read my research- you were expecting LARGE turnout for Republicans, esp the Trump base.
So back to lying to themselves. Voters do this ALL THE TIME. Which is why, if your messaging strategy depends on explicit
So back to lying to themselves. Voters do this ALL THE TIME. Which is why, if your messaging strategy depends on explicit
10. self-reported "I like this but not that" or "this is effective but not that" you're gonna be in trouble fast (Ds should now be going, but wait, that's how we message test!"
Yes, it is. You see the issue? More recently, Ds are getting real-time analytics which is based on
Yes, it is. You see the issue? More recently, Ds are getting real-time analytics which is based on
11. user response. I'm assuming as D's FINALLY transition for to implicit tests they'll come to realize how truly terrible asking people what moved them is. BC they lie to themselves!! They want o only be moved by positive ads on deep substantive issues. They want to be THAT guy!
12. But they're NOT that guy bc humans have certain baked-in tendencies and in America, some of them have been allowed to, how do I put this....fester???
No one likes neg ads yet, cycle after cycle neg ads dominate.
Why?
BC the data don't lie (even when the people do!)
No one likes neg ads yet, cycle after cycle neg ads dominate.
Why?
BC the data don't lie (even when the people do!)
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
