dagblog - Comments for "10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020"

Barack Obama tweeted late

artappraiser — Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:40:41 +0000

In reply to 10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020

Barack Obama tweeted late afternoon Tuesday, basically right before voting, note the chart is labeled "white adults":

In the midst of campaign season, it’s important to look squarely at what’s at stake. This article speaks to one of the disturbing long term trends that we as voters and citizens need to expect our government to address. https://t.co/m49rbES0i6
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 10, 2020

Edsall on related:

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:17:42 +0000

In reply to 10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020

Edsall on related:

This by ⁦@Edsall⁩ is about a lot more than Sanders. Definitely worth a read. https://t.co/4CPGYgAZXK
— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) March 11, 2020

file this under things many

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:01:42 +0000

In reply to 10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020

file this under things many people wish weren't true but are
— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) March 11, 2020

I don't know exactly why I

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:17:14 +0000

In reply to On the whole "GOTV" thing.

I don't know exactly why I feel this is related, but what the heck. Jelani Cobb is educated and uses reason, therefore he is told that he is a clueless elite:

It’s striking to me that my critics increasingly dismiss me as an elite — I grew up in various hoods in NYC, got evicted from housing as a kid, dad had a 3rd grade Jim Crow education. Calling me elite sounds to my ear exactly like saying congrats to my ancestors.
— jelani cobb (@jelani9) March 11, 2020

On the whole "GOTV" thing.

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:56:15 +0000

In reply to 10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020

On the whole "GOTV" thing.

Blacks who came out to vote in primaries so far are mostly registered Dem voters. But they are not the whole story if one is going to do the skin color tribal thing. I ran across the feed of rapper Nas and it struck me as an example of a significant sub-demographic, with the purity thing and "a pox on both your houses." He puts the hashtags for Vote2020 and BeatTrump here but at the same time, by saying "if I had to" he sounds like he might either not vote at all or vote for someone who is a spoiler:

If I had to, I would vote for Bernie and not Biden. Biden represents nothing new for Black Americans. Nothing. Why vote for something that you know doesn’t work. #Vote2020 #BeatTrump
— BEYNCEcallmeDVA (@BEYNCEcallmeDVA) March 11, 2020

#JoeBiden threw Anita Hill under the bus when he failed to sufficiently investigate & allow all viable witnesses to testify during the congressional hearing for Clarence Thomas. So Black women are suppose to believe that he will nominate a Black woman to the SCOTUS?! #Vote2020
— BEYNCEcallmeDVA (@BEYNCEcallmeDVA) March 11, 2020

Why would you feel bad about? https://t.co/4JBPSzfDKz
— BEYNCEcallmeDVA (@BEYNCEcallmeDVA) March 11, 2020

To give you an idea of where he's coming from, here's a couple more recent tweets,

cynical and tribal

What about the attack on the 15yo Black girl on crown heights? Did you increase NYPD presence to protect Black kids or was she of the wrong religion and hue? https://t.co/Sd7JKyQ5Mf
— BEYNCEcallmeDVA (@BEYNCEcallmeDVA) March 11, 2020

and given to simplistic pronouncements and explanations:

Every virus was created using some type to animal. Stop eating meat, it will lessen the effect of the virus #coronavirus #Manmade
— BEYNCEcallmeDVA (@BEYNCEcallmeDVA) March 11, 2020

The problem is when one gets to the general election: though outliers, this attitude might be more common than is admitted in the inner cities of swing states, like say, in Milwaukee, I remember interviews with inner city Millwaukeeans which basically expressed the same thing about 2016.

But it's not just skin color, I think it's a signficant male thing, they just won't go for moderation or nuance or political sausage making. They want "in your face." They just don't bother to vote because they don't like the choices. Or they chose or write in a spoiler candidate.

Trump "got out the vote" of a significant number of white males of similar general "in your face" attitudes, different grievances but same attitude. Politicians all full of shit, we got to blow this thing up.

"GOTV" is not all it's cracked up to be if they are not meek people who have agreed to vote for your candidate. They may not usually vote because they don't like what is usually on offer, they want a revolution/disruption, they hate the status quo.

The article may indeed be right: that it is more fruitful to go after the waverers who still have some appreciation for how governing in a democracy works by compromise.

Nate Cohn article for NYTimes

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:37:05 +0000

In reply to 10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020

Nate Cohn article for NYTimes from Sept. 11, 2019

Moderate Democrats Fared Best in 2018

A North Carolina election is also a chance to think about what kind of candidate might do best against President Trump.

Dan McCready is the kind of candidate who helped Democrats win the House in 2018.

He’s a Marine Corps veteran who vowed not to support Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker. He doesn’t support “Medicare for all” or an assault weapons ban. And he came less than half a percentage point short of winning a fraud-marred election in a North Carolina district that voted for Donald J. Trump by 12 points in 2016. He’ll have another chance in the redo election of the state’s Ninth District on Tuesday.

As Democrats mull what kind of candidate has the best chance against President Trump, it may be worth considering which candidates fared best in last year’s midterm elections. Over all, moderate Democrats who disavowed Ms. Pelosi and Medicare for all fared better than those to the left of them, according to an Upshot analysis of the 2018 midterm results.

On the debate stage Thursday in Houston, many Democrats will be taking the opposite approach. Some of the debates so far have highlighted unpopular positions like busing, decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings, providing health insurance to undocumented immigrants and abolishing private health insurance.

If the Democratic nominee did wind up embracing a more left-leaning agenda, there is no way to be sure that there would be an electoral penalty. But decades of research suggest that ideologically moderate candidates tend to do well in American elections. The advantage of nominating an ideologically moderate versus an extreme candidate may be smaller in today’s more polarized era, but it still seems to exist.

In Republican-held congressional districts, the Democratic candidates who supported Medicare for all, for instance, fared as much as a net three points worse than those who did not, after controlling for other factors like recent presidential and congressional election results.

Candidates who supported Medicare for all probably differ in other ways from those who opposed it. But Medicare for all is a good proxy for a certain kind of candidate favored by the activist left, and that kind of candidate did a bit worse in last year’s elections.

Similarly, candidates who opposed Ms. Pelosi fared an additional 2.5 points better than those who did not, even after controlling for whether a candidate supported Medicare for all.

It is worth cautioning that the precise effects of moderation — here a cumulative five points compared with someone who supported Ms. Pelosi and Medicare for all — depend on several factors. It makes a difference whether you look at all congressional districts or just the relatively competitive ones (say, those Mr. Trump won by less than 20 points) where voters might have gotten to know the candidates. It also matters whether to include fund-raising success, because moderates tended to raise more money. But the advantage of moderation holds no matter the series of choices.

A substantial body of research shows effects fairly similar to what’s observed here. It’s also roughly equivalent to the gap between the front-runner Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in national polls [....]