One thing I think most politics reporters and commentators have yet to internalize is that polarization inherently means the days of presidents hitting 55% approval months into office are probably long gone, and 60% might never happen again (under normal political conditions)
Biden is unpopular (compared to past presidents) in part because of his own personal failings, in part because of his party’s political failings, but also (and this is a big one that gets left out!) because the structures of our politics have changed massively since even the 90s
I guess the final point here is that bc elections are closer now than they used to be, and bc there are more safe seats, a 50% approval still buys parties a lot — maybe as much as a 55% approval used to. But a 40% approval can also be as bad as a 30-35% one from the ~70s.
Maybe a better way to say this is: The days of massive presidential landslides and 80-seat House majorities are over, but within that narrow window of outcomes we still have, a small swing in approval probably generates a larger swing in outcomes than it would have 50 yrs ago.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is one of those things that makes sense at first but falls apart after the slightest of scrutiny. We had primaries before we had polarization, and polarization has worsened as the modern primary system has mostly stayed constant. 1/2
2/2 I do think primaries *sustain* some amount of polarization, but they didn’t cause it. We have polarization bc leaders & voters moved to the poles (esp on the right). We need 2 give pols incentives to move to the center, and complete democratization probably isn’t the solution
(Not making any statements about the politics of this article)
It's amazing how much attention this "focus group" is getting when the firm hasn't so much as published a methodology or report on findings. IMO there is a reason nobody who knows about research is writing about this
I will say that it's pretty stunning how new people think the finding that the Democrats are alienating working-class whites is, when education polarization has been increasing steadily since the 50s. Is this really about CRT and campus "wokeness" or something deeper and broader?
I do think @ryangrim does a better job than other commentators at trying to sort that out -- but also think the academic literature has many answers that have been left out of The Discourse. Like this paper for US dropbox.com/s/3nsueuaoquxz… or this globally: academic.oup.com/qje/advance-ar…
I think it is very odd that we’re getting these stories about Democratic collapse in very rural areas when the swing against them in VA was much larger in 50-50 and 60-40D precincts, which tend to be suburban, and when the turnout decrease was much larger in very urban counties.
This is partially explained by the logit curve (50-50 areas have more personable voters in them than 75-25 jurisdictions!) but, really once you look at the turnout data there is no world in which McAuliffe’s loss was made in rural VA
I do think there is also a base rate fallacy going on in the underlying articles. Eg, the NYT piece compares Youngkin’s +2 win to McCain’s -6 in 2008 but doesn’t look at relative shares. And most of the change for Ds happened before 2020! So it’s not rly a 2021 story... at all
I am running a live election-night model for the governor’s race (similar to the NYT “needle”) and will be posting updates in this thread as results pour in. The model turns on once ~20 precincts report e-day votes & ~5 counties report absentees.
The state elections website (which is publishing statewide returns publicly) is really taking its sweet time. Lagging the networks by quite an amount. But with 3 absentee dumps and results from 107 precincts, reporting jurisdictions show a small shift toward Dems v 2020.
I imagine the model will switch itself on any moment now and then I can send you a screenshot