2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

Specific knowledge of me suggests I would stay home if my party's candidate

(1) says he's going to do certain things as president I would like but may well not, because he's just shifting this way or that following polls, or for example
(2) says that he was against the Iraq invasion when he voted for it

Therefore, while I prefer that candidate over the other, I really don't know what I'm getting. Trump and Reagan never had this problem, because they said the same things every time, so you knew they meant them. Whereas Biden said he was against the Iraq invasion initially, what he really meant was he was calculating whether or not the invasion proposition was going to be a winner before deciding to get on board. Reagan, OTOH, admitted that he used to be a democrat, but explained that was before he saw the light. And you could believe he meant it.
theory: if you have a candidate that is perceived to be more real, whatever that is, that should affect whether people stay home or go out and vote.
When have the democrats had such a person? Sanders maybe.
Of course, having been a senator for a long time never helps you because you've got a trail of votes they can spin against you. Advantage: Trump, Reagan, George W.

[jimbogumbo]

Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

I think the better strategy is to unite almost everyone on the left side of the mean, and get out the vote. Then, "help" the right side split, and when one of their candidates loses pick up a few them if the further right candidate wins, or hope the Far Right sits out if the centrist wins.

The US is far too fractured right now for the moderation strategy to work.

[marshwiggle]

Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

[marshwiggle]

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

[jimbogumbo]

Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

That statement would work for people who get there news from normal sources. That is increasingly fewer of the just to the right of center folks.

[jimbogumbo]

I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.

Conventional thinking is that Biden wasn't a very strong candidate, and Trump was a historically weak one, so you may be right. However, my guess is that 2020 will be looked back at as a victory to the median voter strategy: Trump ran to the right, Biden ran to the center (sort of) and the center candidate won.

[marshwiggle]

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

[Langue_doc]

I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.

Many people voted for Biden the way they voted for Hillary: they held their noses and did what they thought was their duty. Biden was most definitely not seen as a strong candidate.

[ciao_yall]

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement. Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

EDIT: Sorry I need to add to this. He is not running as a social conservative, because he is the candidate for the liberal party, but he ran to the center of the Democratic party on social issues.

[Parasaurolophus]

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Biden did not win on policy, and to think so is, I think, delusional. He won because people thought Trump was a historic threat. And even then, he barely squeaked out a victory.

[marshwiggle]

"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

His choice of Harris for a running mate, with all of the associated hoopla, was very much about appealing to the progressives, so her statements would be expected to make the correct talking points. Which she did.

[Sun_Worshiper]

"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

His choice of Harris for a running mate, with all of the associated hoopla, was very much about appealing to the progressives, so her statements would be expected to make the correct talking points. Which she did.

Harris is not on the left flank of the party. She was seen as someone that was moderate but a POC, which would appeal to both parts of the party.