This confusion seems to be widespread. Thermostatic politics does not require Biden to change his policy proposals from the campaign. It also does not require close voter attention to policy detail. It just requires voters to see or expect a leftward change in policy from Trump
eg voters asked in the Trump era whether they want more or less immigration or more or less health care spending are now being asked more or less from a new (or expected new) status quo. Fewer should now say more & more should say less, even if no one has changed ideal views
How much that (widespread & largely mechanical) pattern causes changes in votes or differential turnout is a more controversial ? But no one should think “he said it in the campaign” “they haven’t passed all of it yet” or “voters don’t know the details” undermines the pattern
Thermostatic politics is frustrating to practitioners because it is not really about party strategy. All that’s required is a change in policy or expected policy from Republicans to Democrats, which is much bigger than the differences among plausible Democratic policy agendas

• • •

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

Keep Current with Matt Grossmann

Matt Grossmann 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 @MattGrossmann

18 Oct
New @ippsr report on Michigan redistricting draft maps for hearings this week:
ippsr.msu.edu/sites/default/…

We analyzed the collaborative maps across their criteria

Some initial findings:
ippsr.msu.edu/sites/default/…

More resources:
ippsr.msu.edu/redistricting
The Commission pursued a voting rights strategy that maximizes districts with Black population around 40%. Compared to the computer-generated random maps, this looks quite different. Here are draft maps for state House with the highest Black populations:

ippsr.msu.edu/sites/default/…
On partisan fairness, the maps are between perfect symmetry & what would be expected from randomly-drawn maps (which would favor Reps). For example, here is seat share for 38 member senate based on the 2018 Senate results compared to computer & public maps
ippsr.msu.edu/sites/default/…
Read 6 tweets
12 Oct
Across Western democracies, the education divide slowly reversed from higher education voters favoring parties on the ideological right in the 1960s to favoring parties on the ideological left by 2020, easing but not reversing the income divide
academic.oup.com/qje/advance-ar…
In multi-party systems, the education divide coincided with the rise of Green parties on high-education left & anti-immigration parties on low-education right. In the US, factions arose within the major parties, making the 2-party education divide stronger & income divide weaker
Globally, party vote share among the highest educated has become more correlated with party platform positions on sociocultural issues. Party vote share among the highest income voters remains correlated with its party platform positions on economic issues
watermark.silverchair.com/qjab036.pdf?to…
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct
The average swing against the president's party in the midterm election is -3.8% in share of the national House popular vote & -6.2% in House seat share. If that happened from 2020 to 2022, Dems would end up with only 47.7% of the 2-party popular vote & a 45 seat deficit Image
So far, Biden’s underwater approval has not translated into any sign of an anti-Democratic wave on the generic ballot. But research finds ballot numbers follow prez approval & a thermostatic ideological reaction against direction of policy. An R wave would be historically normal ImageImage
We’re having a 2024-appropriate election discussion when the electoral task at hand for Democrats is avoiding a massive wave against them in 2022. 1994 & 2010 were huge & impactful National & state-level waves. They were products of large public thermostatic swings, not messaging
Read 4 tweets
11 Oct
University department faculty sizes change slowly & may respond more to research production than grant availability

Our new paper:
researchcghe.org/perch/resource…
There are real trends in the rise & fall of disciplines, but they are slow. Trends in research university tenure-track faculty do not necessarily match trends in the much larger higher education teaching market
researchcghe.org/perch/resource…
A big source of inertia is that most research university departments are aging, with assistant professors making up a small share of tenure-track faculty (the social sciences are on the young side)
researchcghe.org/perch/resource…
Read 4 tweets
10 Oct
Clinton & Obama comparisons are more for 2024 than now. Both suffered massive losses in 1st midterms, linked to congressional agendas. By re-elections, they had both generic incumbency & a radicalized Republican foil (including on economics) to enable visible triangulation
Low-education voters were traditionally inattentive, meaning both lower turnout & more nature-of-the-times voting. We haven’t yet run a low turnout election or a democratic incumbent under education polarization. But basic midterm backlash dynamics may overwhelm other factors
We don’t know yet how Republicans will look in 2024 (including on economics). 1995-6 & 2011-12 Rep internal fighting (including primaries) & public image had a lot to do with Dem successes in 96 & 12. Left/center conflict could matter less or allow triangulation with Rep foil
Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
Nice @davidshor overview/debate & 2022/24 election simulation:
nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opi…
In my view, Shor's meta point that decision-making by high-education liberal operatives hurts Democrats is more widely important than just recommending popular issue positioning
Messaging effects are quite small & might be overemphasized:
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

But nationalization, coalition group emphasis, context effects, ideological sorting, & polarization are all very important trends that are likely to be affected by many party decisions over time
Policy agenda effects are real, though under media control. Policy position effects seem limited & specific to issues where the parties once had muddled positions. But the long-built liberal & nationalized image of the Democratic Party is very important & Dems used to resist it
Read 6 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!

:(