Monday, 19 June 2017

New Study Shows What Really Happened in the 2016 Election

quote [ A new survey of the electorate explodes many of the myths we believe about American politics. ]

Main link is to Jonathan Chait's analysis. Actual study is here.
Fascinating stuff, some folks won't like it.

Other big SCOTUS news:
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case
First case judging the constitutionality of politically-motivated gerrymandering. Depending on the outcome this one could significantly alter the US electoral landscape. (moved from previous post now categorized as 'business'. This is potentially pretty big news, if anyone wants to make it its own post, OK by me)
[SFW] [politics] [+2 Informative]
[by sanepride@8:38pmGMT]


bbqkink said[1] @ 9:14pm GMT on 19th Jun
I was with him until the last sentence..."the social issues are where they need to focus."

Duhh what?

4. Trump won by dominating with populists.

So you think the answer to that problem is to focus on social issues...why?
sanepride said @ 9:22pm GMT on 19th Jun
Because 'populists' as defined here are liberal on economic issues but conservative on social/cultural issues. He's saying if the Dems want to win back the working class Trump voters they need to move to the center on social issues.
bbqkink said @ 9:43pm GMT on 19th Jun
Well that runs about 50/50 some are conservative and some are liberal, but the social issues are not why Democrats lost.

If you walk out on a stage and start talking about women's rights , Black lives matter, Gay are going to lose about 1/2 of your support. That is true with populist as well.

If you come out and scream "$15 or Fight" or chant "Universal Healthcare" you are going to attract a crowd. Berrine and Trump both proved that. I know in my own mind that Bernie would have won. But I think it is less than a 50/50 chance any populist could get nominated as a Democrat.

But Bernie planted a seed that is starting to grow. Berniecrats have been elected to state chairs in over 60% of elections! (8 wins out of 13 races so far) The question is will it provide any fruit by 2020.

But to say social issues are what needs to be fixed is wrong headed...if you provide a proper populist message they will vote....well for somebody like "grab em by the pussy" Trump...And he won the women's vote.
sanepride said @ 10:20pm GMT on 19th Jun [Score:2]
Trump won the white women's vote, not women overall. The big takeaway here is that the biggest driver of political division is culture/identity/tribalism. Trump was the most effective at exploiting this division.
bbqkink said @ 10:42pm GMT on 19th Jun
You are right about the women's vote had it in my head the other way. I still say the division is class not culture/identity/tribalism.
sanepride said @ 10:51pm GMT on 19th Jun
Sorry bbq but that narrative just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Thing is when you really talk about class, essentially at this point you have the rich and you have everyone else. There really aren't that many of the rich. So among everyone else, there must be something that drives what we know is deep political division.
bbqkink said @ 11:07pm GMT on 19th Jun
There must be something that drives what we know is deep political division.

Ya, racism, sexism, religion...and we don't need to move in their direction to achieve a majority.
sanepride said @ 11:12pm GMT on 19th Jun
racism, sexism, religion being the byproducts of culture/identity/tribalism, not necessarily class divisions. Addressing the division doesn't necessarily mean embracing the worst aspects of it.
bbqkink said @ 11:22pm GMT on 19th Jun
But it is still not the problem. The problem was that a corporate Democrat allowed a Republican get to her left in the rust belt.
sanepride said @ 12:26am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Well if you believe the results of this study it is the problem. On the economic issues there really isn't so much disparity among voters. It's not that 'a corporate Democrat allowed a Republican get to her left', it's that an establishment Democrat was outflanked by a populist Republican. Now if you're arguing that this study is essentially wrong, that's a different story.
bbqkink said @ 1:03am GMT on 20th Jun
On the economic issues there really isn't so much disparity among voters.

The disparity is among the candidates. The people are in agreement even some of those social conservatives that voted for trump the populist programs are very popular.

"It's not that 'a corporate Democrat allowed a Republican get to her left', it's that an establishment Democrat was outflanked by a populist Republican"

Outflanked on her left...Trump lied and said things that made people think he was a populist...that's how he won.
lilmookieesquire said @ 10:16pm GMT on 19th Jun
"Democrats may be pressured to move further left on identity issues, given that both younger voters and the party’s donor class are quite far to the left on identity issues."


"it may be harder for Republicans to continue to push a traditional conservative free-market agenda. If so, this would leave conservatives with little place to go. "

Are fairly interesting interpretations of the data.

The data comes from the "VOTER survey". That database is found here:

From their FAQ:
"How are EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Survey data collected?
Every two years, the EAC administers the survey to 55 States and territories, requesting election administration-related data at the county-level or county-level equivalent. Most states rely at least to some degree on centralized voter registration databases and voter history databases, which allow state election officials to respond to the survey at the local level for each question. Other states rely on cooperation from county election offices to complete the survey."

I checked out the voter survey instrument. It's a long survey and looks telephone based. That is likely to skew data towards an older demographic, which is fine.

I'm a little bothered that the original study didn't go into the population sample or go into weighting or really have a lot of information about significance values etc of their conclusions. That said, the conclusions seem fairly interesting.

My own thing, though, is that I don't understand how someone can be socially conservative and financially liberal. What does that even mean? Like you hate the gays and are willing to spend money on it?
sanepride said @ 10:26pm GMT on 19th Jun
If you think about the rust-belt working class or southern black voters, they might qualify as social conservative/economic liberals. Think about devout church-goers who might also be pro-union and/or civil rights activists.
bbqkink said @ 11:04pm GMT on 19th Jun
But you don't have to appeal to their social conservative views just don't insult them.
sanepride said @ 11:13pm GMT on 19th Jun
So maybe this is what Chait means when he says to focus on social issues.
bbqkink said @ 11:24pm GMT on 19th Jun
The trouble is the party is using them as a Litmus test to get nominated...and has been losing badly in the process.
sanepride said @ 12:29am GMT on 20th Jun
Perhaps- but maybe it's more that the party- by trying to enforce a degree of ideological purity on these social issues- ends up coming across as elitist and alienates a large swath of voters who feel their views aren't taken seriously.
bbqkink said @ 1:21am GMT on 20th Jun
Agreed 100%.
foobar said @ 5:48am GMT on 20th Jun
That's because their views aren't being taken seriously, nor should they. Democrats aren't going to win by being better Republicans.
backSLIDER said @ 1:29am GMT on 20th Jun
I actually participated in that one.
bobolink said @ 10:10am GMT on 20th Jun
"The issue space where Clinton lost voters who had supported Obama was in the array of social-identity questions, revolving around patriotism and identity." So you can complain about the data, explain the data, or deny the data, but if you want to win you've got to play by the data.
Ussmak said @ 4:14am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
sanepride said @ 4:33am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
rhesusmonkey said @ 5:05am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-2 Bad Pr0n]
filtered comment under your threshold
sanepride said @ 5:14am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:0 Insightful]
A fair bit of analysis there, but the thing is when a comment opens with 'NY Jew author' I don't really need to read one more word.
Why should it color the discussion? Because the commentor has clearly identified himself as an anti-semite?
rhesusmonkey said @ 4:49am GMT on 21st Jun
Well, I did go back to look at post history and it's a mixed bag. Not like Maryyugo and penchant for only posting articles critical of Islam.

I did not read that as much "anti-semitic" as "representative of Democratic base", of which, let's be honest there are several New Yorkers, and several Jews. Maybe i'm just being optimistic?
sanepride said @ 6:07am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
No offense, you might be a little naive on the intent. Maybe you're not so well-versed on the history of the smear, that bullshit is right out of 1930's Germany, or modern 'alt-right' nationalism.
Icing on the cake: According to your own demands of action against the %1, you yourself are officially anti-semitic.
Implying...what? That the '1%' are largely Jews? Something something Jews controlling the world's wealth, banking, media, etc?
I had previously given Ussmak the benefit of the doubt. No way around it, asshole's a fucking nazi.
arrowhen said @ 6:53am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
A Jew from New York is an NY Jew. A Jew from New York who writes books is an NY Jewish author. "Jew" as an adjective is an anti-semetic slur.
sanepride said @ 2:49pm GMT on 21st Jun
That's a good point, but even if Ussmak had used the more proper adjective 'Jewish', the context in his spittle-filled rant would still be pretty shady.
arrowhen said @ 6:49pm GMT on 21st Jun
Sure, even without the slur it would have been a questionable comment. With it, there's no question anymore.
ComposerNate said @ 8:28am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
Ussmak said @ 4:01pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
ComposerNate said @ 4:19pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:0 Funsightful]

I miss Jewbie
sanepride said @ 4:21pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:0 Underrated]
"NY jew author"
Very revealing that you were compelled to open your comment with this observation.
Now that you've made it clear just what you are every 'contribution' you make to this forum from now on will be colored by this.
Maybe you'd be happier back at stormfront.
bbqkink said @ 2:09am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings