General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter (Rachel Bitecofer)
Rachel Bitecofers radical new theory predicted the midterms spot-on. So whos going to win 2020?
By DAVID FREEDLANDER
02/06/2020 05:09 AM EST
What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there arent really American swing votersor not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesnt matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as the center, and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didnt happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?
To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year.
Bitecofer, a 42-year-old professor at Christopher Newport University in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, was little known in the extremely online, extremely male-dominated world of political forecasting until November 2018. Thats when she nailed almost to the number the nature and size of the Democrats win in the House, even as other forecasters went wobbly in the races final days. Not only that, but she put out her forecast back in July, and then stuck by it while polling shifted throughout the summer and fall.
And today her model tells her the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate. If shes right, we are now in a post-economy, post-incumbency, post record-while-in-office era of politics. Her analysis, as Bitecofer puts it with characteristic immodesty, amounts to nothing less than flipping giant paradigms of electoral theory upside down.
</snip>
Excellent read & I recommend following Rachel on Twitter @RachelBitecofer
Fiendish Thingy
(15,624 posts)Rather than focusing on pragmatic centrism, the nominee needs to inspire massive anti-Trump voter turnout.
Thats also why Stacey Abrams Fair Fight movement is so important...
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)Very important in redistricting (and undoing all the damage DeLay did in the late 90's-early 2000's).
I just hope the census isn't fucked with too badly by Trump.
Wednesdays
(17,380 posts)Near as I can tell, they're all equally capable of doing that.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,624 posts)apcalc
(4,465 posts)Im sick of the talking heads anyway , who demonstrate little original thinking and , imo, want to maintain the status quo for their status and their wallets.
Turnout really is everything.
And that means we have to redouble our efforts to combat voter suppression.
Greg Palast is working with Stacy Abrams to attack the voter purging... great investigative reporting on this since Shrub-Florida and trying to go full bore now ahead of November. Good cause to donate to.
He has a name-search list of people in 7 states with voter purges, worth checking out and sharing
https://www.gregpalast.com/
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)From the same article:
Bitecofer has a nickname for this view. She calls it, with disdain, the Chuck Todd theory of American politics: The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.
And it is just not true.
Nailed it!
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Yavin4
(35,442 posts)In.Your.Face!!!
MoonlitKnight
(1,584 posts)Run on what you believe in and get out the vote.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)I was like, Wait, you can study politics? she says. She enrolled in community college, then the University of Oregon, then on to the University of Georgia for a Ph.D., and was soon hired by Christopher Newport University to work in its public-policy division. (She has since been hired away by the Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank based in Washington, D.C., while maintaining her academic post.)
Yavin4
(35,442 posts)That little unknown radio station has had a massive impact on our culture and media.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Trump was elected President and has both governed and campaigned as if the author's premise is true. He talks to his base only. He does not appeal to the alleged "middle" of the electorate.
This idea is neither new nor radical.
-Laelth
N_E_1 for Tennis
(9,734 posts)and how some voted in 2016 I have to agree with her.
dalton99a
(81,516 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,355 posts)Who and what are the young people (18 - 35) enthused about?
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)yes, some areas swung from Obama to Trump by big margins between 2012 and 2016. That doesn't necessarily mean it was swing voters changing from a Democrat to a Republican - it was because the Obama voters in that town or that county from 2012 didn't vote in 2016 or voted 3rd party in 2016, and the Republicans that stayed hom in 2012 came out to vote in 2016.
mercuryblues
(14,532 posts)I read a breakdown of actual Independents years ago. In that article most I voters leaned toward 1 party or another and voted that way. It was that 10% in the middle that candidates tried to win over.
An updated article showing a slight shift of those who are registered I voters. This article has it down to 7% that candidates vie for. The article also states that those 7% are the least politically engaged of all I voters.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/
Azathoth
(4,610 posts)for big picture models to have serious statistical predictive value (they have explanatory value in hindsight, but that's a different subject). Modeling works best when you're calculating expected values of an experiment you run often. Howeverm you end up with all kinds of subtle errors when you try to apply them to once-every-two-year elections.
Big picture models, for instance, pointed towards Trump's win. Vindication, right? No, because Hillary almost certainly would have won if not for Comey's completely unprecedented interference at the last minute. So the models made the correct prediction for the completely wrong reasons.
What is true, however, is that Republicans have cracked the statistical code of our democratic system. They understand that in a polarized two-party system, they are guaranteed 46% of the vote *no matter what*, and even if they lose power for a short amount of time, they will gain it right back in another election cycle or two, if for no other reason than because they are the only "other" candidate on the ballot. Factor in all the anti-democratic structural factors in their favor (massive right-wing propaganda system, electoral college, gerrymandering), and they are guaranteed control at least half, and probably slightly more than half, of the time. Individual republicans who lose races are just statistical noise, while the party as a whole is guaranteed its position over the long term. So there is no reason for them to make any adjustments to how they behave.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Nobody changes their mind on politics except maybe once in a lifetime.
I have NEVER met a person who claims to be a Republican, then switched to Democrat, then back to Republican. (or the opposite, starting as a Dem, flipping then back to Dem).
How often do you change your mind on politics? How often have you flipped someone else? These things happen, but you can count them on one hand.
Nope. It's all about turnout.
It comes down to how the candidate excites people to show up and vote for the guy that represents your own team.
Obama did it better than anyone we know. (albeit about different things) . Hopefully we get a candidate that get's people excited to rush the polls at a greater rate than Trumps people get excited. (and in the right states)
Turnout.
Nobody changes their mind. (especially on the internet)
treestar
(82,383 posts)by campaigning for the eventual candidate. And he had a program about getting people to vote and vote in the lesser elections. Even if he is not the one running, he could inspire people to vote for the Ds.
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)I agree that most of independents really aren't, they're just people who don't sign a paper aligning with a party. They still tend to vote one way or the other. So, there aren't really 15% of voters "available" to be convinced, and more like 6-7%.
Every time Dems reach across the aisle lately, the Repubs cut off our hands. Fuck em.
Yes, it really is about GOTV. While there are not a lot of voters out there that we can convince to changed sides, there are a lot of voters out there that stayed home last time that we need to turn out.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)If there's no "swing voter", then all those millions of people who supposedly voted for Obama and didn't vote for Hillary were a myth?
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)I mean, I don't know
empedocles
(15,751 posts)in 2008. Another is the 2010 tea party crap.
Down tickets are at risk.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)that there are no swing voters.
My brother and and I are really into politics.
My significant other too.
But a lot of my friends hate politics, and, although they USUALLY vote Dem, they say, I know a few who don't decide until almost the day of.
EDIT: I read the link in more detail, and yeah, she's on to something.