Social scientists were no more accurate than lay people in predicting or assessing social consequences of COVID-19; estimates of the magnitude of change were off by more than 20% and <1/2 accurately predicted the direction of changes #SocSciResearch psyarxiv.com/g8f9s/
According to their objective indicators, largest change was an increase in violence. People expected large increases in loneliness & decreases in life satisfaction that didn’t materialize & expected prejudice to increase; it declined. They overestimated increases in polarization
The study focused on aggregate US psychological indicators & mostly surveyed psychologists. But there were no big differences based on subject area or level. Lay people expressed more confidence in predictions. Lay & experts mostly agreed, with both vastly overestimating changes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Prez polls missed in 1948, 1952, 1980, 1996, 2000, & 2016 & we’ve had many repeated discussions: late movers, likely voter models, 3rd party overestimates, shy voters, sampling methods, absentees, undecideds, last-minute events, herding, misinterpretation amazon.com/Lost-Gallup-Po…
Polling miss Recriminations have long been intertwined with academic skepticism & a long feud over journalistic vs social science descriptions of campaigns. The precursor to data journalism was “precision journalism,” an explicit call for integrating social science.
presidential elections have long been seen as the big (often failed) test for public social science. Blaming presentation of results & too much certainty & worrying about influencing results have long histories. But reporting has long suffered from the problems blamed on polls
A strong US presidency is critical for addressing national concerns, but Trump & global populism highlighted deficiencies. Howell & Moe recommend expanding agenda power (fast-track for everything) while cutting pardons & insulating DOJ & intelligence. amazon.com/Presidents-Pop…
They pinpoint threats to governance in the contemporary Republican Party & compare Trump to global populists in message & behavior. But they also see federal policymaking as inherently ineffective (blaming Congressional response to interests & localities), stimulating populism.
I did not see much evidence that objectively poor governance stimulated Trump's victory & I do not think strong centralized liberal policymaking would diminish populist backlash; longstanding thermostatic trends in opinion & policy suggest it would likely increase it.
Americans are using a bit more ideological language in explaining their party attachment over time, though the growth is mostly among Republicans; Democrats still use a lot more group benefits language #polisciresearch automated coding of likes/dislikes dropbox.com/s/ho4h6ne58w6l…
This paper also only uses in-party likes.
You can see the common words in each category below.
Voter conceptualizations are surprisingly uncorrelated with our party messages data. Both Republican voters & politicians talk about ideology more & groups less (& Democrats the reverse) but partisans aren't responsive to year-to-year changes in rhetoric.
Trump underperformed the national Republican House vote share in 2016 by 3 points. He may underperform Republican House candidates again this year. House Republicans also may gain share over Democrats vs. 2018. Trump-specific explanations should account for broader Rep success.
Republicans have won at least 18/27 of Cook House toss-ups (with Democrats leading in only 3) along with 4 lean Democratic races & 1 likely Democratic race: cookpolitical.com/analysis/house…
That sounds like even stronger poll overperformance than President or Senate.
Unclear whether House Democrats will blame Leadership for poor performance, whether anyone will challenge Pelosi, and how much value she’ll see in continuing.
Reporters & activists spent a primary year portraying Democrats as moving left & embracing ideological politics. But Biden has run a decidedly non-ideological campaign. If he & moderate Senate candidates win, unclear why they would learn a different lesson than they normally do
Relative Dem underperformance with minorities might lead to calls for a return to more identity-based appeals. But high turnout could reduce perceptions of turnout/persuasion trade-off for moderation. Some Dem primary fights will continue but could be harder in Rep backlash years
In governance, Dems may encounter similar internal difficulties as 2009 (even with many of same issues, eg health & climate). But the left traditionally concedes if the alternative is passing nothing. It’s unclear why that changes now. & Red state Dems may get cautious quickly
"The Limits of Party: Congress & Lawmaking in a Polarized Era" shows that much policymaking commentary is wrong. Despite more partisan processes, legislative outcomes have not changed: they are just as bipartisan & (un)productive as usual 1/n amazon.com/Limits-Party-C…
Although Congress passes fewer bills, they pass more pages of legislation.
Out of 265 majority party priority items since 1985, congressional majorities have failed on 47% of them, mostly succeed on 21% of them, & achieved partial success on the rest. amazon.com/Limits-Party-C…
No matter whether you consider all bills that pass Congress, only landmark legislation, or only majority party priorities, most of what passes generates support from minority party legislators & leaders. The path commentators expect, rolling over the opposition party, is rare.