Kevin's Three Laws of Politics:
- Politics is always and everywhere the business of persuading the public.
Winning power is fine. But in the long run, politics is marketing. You're doomed unless you can steadily draw the public in your direction. This law is #1 for a reason. - The Median Voter Theorem is holy writ.
Yes, of course you can elect extreme true believers in strong districts. Big deal. Chuckles the clown can do the same. But enduring majorities are built on the great unwashed middle, and you need to maintain a brutal honesty about where they stand. Don't fool yourself by ignoring salience or getting suckered by vague, cost-neutral survey questions. - In close races, details make the difference but the details are meaningless.
Should you advertise on Facebook or TV? Run a negative or positive campaign? Increase base turnout or try to switch centrist voters? All important questions! But at a broad level these are just the boring details of a mid-level campaign professional. Durable success depends on making the public more afraid of the other guys than they are of you.
Don't mistake details of the moment for real politics. The former is paper shuffling and bottle washing: necessary but ultimately just scutwork. In a democracy, real politics is all about appealing to public opinion on a grand scale. If you don't do that, nothing else matters.
Law #1 is why the Supreme Court's legitimacy is in trouble.
"Yes, of course you can elect extreme true believers in strong districts. Big deal."
It is a big deal, because these extreme true believers talk in a way that put off voters in the middle, so cause loses in the purple areas. One of the reasons tthat Democrats don't do better is that there is always "true believers" that make it easier for Republicans to scare voters off.
The white lower-income voters that have supported Republicans for fifty years are not really afraid of extremists on the left. They are afraid of losing the supremacy of White Christianity, as blacks are given equal rights and other non-whites immigrate. But a large part of the country, maybe the majority, supports equal rights and is not in favor of theocracy.
As I keep saying, it is not acceptable even to most people on the right to admit to racism, so they will cite particular things which they are supposedly afraid of or put off by, such as pronouns, wokeism, etc. They may say they are afraid of socialism, but that is not a real threat from Democrats.
There are also people in the middle who are not dedicated to either side, but their issues are not necessarily those which the right is always calling on to activate the racism and religiosity of their base, so giving in on the latter issues may not win many votes. The issues for the swing voters certainly include their (defective) perception of the economy, and abortion for many, but maybe other things that are not so obvious and not part of the things that either the left or the right think are important.
Blaming the difficulties that the Democrats have winning white working class voters on racism and the loss of supremacy of white Christian voters
is not going to help win elections. Sure, racism exists and there are white Christians watching their "supremacy" slip away, but the bigger isssue, imho, is the growth of economic inequality over the past 40-50 years and it's easy (perhaps not entirely fair) to blame the Democrats, especially the "elites" within the party, as much as the GOP. It is very hard to bring out the better angels of peoples natures when they see their prospects and their children's prospects diminishing. See Dean Baker below. The GOP exploits this by blaming immigrants and "others" very effectively. And the moral preening of those on he left does not help.
https://cepr.net/the-case-for-the-trumpers-anger/
The Great American Combo Platter.
It's not racism, it's racism AND toxic masculinity. They are scared of women running things too.
So why don't all the "true believers" of maga-cult scare any Republican?
They believe in violence, threats, and intimidation of elected officials and anybody who disagrees. With GUNS, no less. They don't believe in elections, unless they win. They're not into letting voters vote. They're hateful to black and brown people. Et cetera.
Why does everyone get so terrified by bargaining for lower prescription drug prices, making sure the crazies don't get their hands on guns, helping middle income people pay the outrageously inflated costs of higher ed? How come a day worker at just above minimum wage is so concerned that the billionaires might have to pay taxes?
Bust up the Congress and overturn the national election, YEAH! Kidnap, torture, rape and kill the governor? YOU BETCHA! How come this doesn't scare voters who call themselves "Republicans"?
You are assuming "they" are all the same. That is a bad bad assumption.
There are several tens of millions that are beyond repair, but there are several tens of millions that are not. At least few millions of them are open for convincing, in general the "battleground" states, and that is where Deomocrats can improve their position.
So you’ve got no answer then?
It’s a very simple question. You posit that extreme lefties put off purple voters; Why then do maga true believers not do the same?
They *do* put off purple voters. The election we just had proved that multiple times over.
However, purple voters will have a harder time rejecting a far-right extremist if the opponent is a far-left extremist. Running moderates and non-extreme liberals makes it easy for them.
Well, you're certainly right: "they" (and us!) are not all the same. But see my diatribe, below, on "languge."
"In a democracy, real politics is all about appealing to public opinion on a grand scale. If you don't do that, nothing else matters."
The paradox of Kevin's rules is that it's the "true believers" that actually obsess about marketing and fight publicly to push the Overton window in the left's direction (which is why they get labeled "extreme"). The politicians chasing median voters trip over themselves to not say much of anything that might offend anyone, making sure no one has any idea what Dems actually stand for and aspire to.
Citizen wrote: The paradox of Kevin's rules is that it's the "true believers" that actually obsess about marketing and fight publicly to push the Overton window in the left's direction (which is why they get labeled "extreme").
Citizen, you are absolutely right about who obsesses about marketing and attempts to push the window towards the left. Sadly, though, even though they obsess about it they show a complete lack of understanding of the public they are marketing to. So their attempts to push the window leftward are met with, not apathy but antipathy--strong resistance and push-back.
Which, in a nutshell, is Kevin's point.
I think just the opposite has happened, though. The "progressive wing" of the party found it's footing and has had success pulling the party and the country back in that direction a bit. Who would have thought that Joe Biden would be actually be pushing (and winning with) a very progressive platform! The key is to make that the new "middle" so it doesn't feel extreme at all.
But Kevin, it is easier to piss on a tree than the forest…
All true. But the problem is, we've gotten ourselves into a dynamic where the GOP is the party of yelling, screaming, quitting school, buying guns, and economic chaos, and the Democrats are the party of quietly, calmly cleaning up messes. It's "working" in the sense that the GOP reliably creates messes and the Democrats reliably clean them up. But the Democrats will have a problem "persuading" any one as long as their established role in our system is to be the quiet, responsible ones. Luckily I think the younger generation sees through the GOP's game and won't stand for it anymore. Or at least that's my hope.
I hope you are right but I also think Joe Biden and his administration, by turning away from some of the calm "centrism" of recent Dem leaders and speaking a language closer to LBJ and FDR - not something I expected from Joe - is important too. The image of the high falutin' liberal elites talking down to the great unwashed, certainly not entirely fair but easily exploited by faux regular guy conservatives has not been a good one for Dems.
Good points.
Re: language. I strongly agree that Dems have generally not found the words that seize people's emotions in the way the other party has. Is it that much harder to appeal to people's "better angels" than to that little devil sitting on their shoulder?
Today, Josh Marshall over at talkingpointsmemo.com meditates upon the Meaning of the Election and observes that when Joe Biden debuted the term "MAGA Republicans", as distinguished from the rest of them, he was really onto something. By distinguishing the Trumpublicans from the old school people, who still like Ike and believe that JFK would be a Republican today (talk about being mired in the past!), he made it possible to attack the current extremism on the right without by implication insulting the Republican voters who are really uncomfortable with trumpism.
As you may have noticed, the "R" section of the country is hypersensitive about being disrespected, or looked down on, by us "elites." Sounds like low self esteem to me, but you have to work with what you have. The Republican Party for the last 70 odd years has adopted the Southern Strategy of going whole hog with racism. LBJ had some words about that, and he would know.
But Biden has opened up an alternative message: You are not those people. You're better than that.
I think it's working.
"Median voter" is an oxymoron.
Yes, there is not one continuum of political opinion and some "median" people who sit right in the middle. Different things motivate different people and each party has to come up with a combination of things what will appeal to different bodies of voters, not tune everything to some magic median.
On the mark! And some people feel in their gut one way when ti's a hypothetical and completely different when reality smacks them upside the head - i.e. a woman in Texas with an ectopic pregnancy.
Point 2 is wrong. There hasn't been an "enduring majority" nationwide since Southern Democrats were basically Repubs.
California has an enduring majority, but that is because its urban population far outstrips its rural population, and the Rupubs are only going after small towners. There is some statistic, and Kevin loves a good statistic, that even when Hillary Clinton lost, she carried something like 1,000 or 2,000 of the countries most populated counties WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS.
The real rule number 2, if you have to have a rule, is that US elections, are decided by turnout, we not only do not have a "median voter" but with our system of voting and districting its all turnout in whatever voting districts are in play.
Trump attempted to form a new rule, something like 100% of 38% is better than 60% of 62% - he banked on all base vs. who cares what his "non-base" even thinks. And it worked, once. Because the slander against Hillary was off the charts.
Last week shows its not a winning strategy, but for Dems its turnout, turnout, turnout.
Obama quoting MLK: The arc of the moral universe bends towards justice....
Some times it snaps back...
Fear drives a lot of politics....and a lot of it is fear of the loss of status...
Hope is what builds communities and helps people overcome their fears.
Lots of median people don't vote. If a candidate can excite more people to vote he or she can win with a platform that is not where the current median is located. Trump brought the racists out of their burrows. Dobbs inspired women and lots of men to vote for their rights. Look what Obama did. The lesson is to run on a message that inspires even if it is negative, like don't vote for fascists. Too many candidates run scared of making a misstep or offending some group or some donor.
I would add, it's important to see how much harm you're going to do to your enemies. This is where Democrats entirely fail, and failing in this makes the harmful seem strong.
dear heaven, here is the Wordle I just now did,
https://postimg.cc/3dnXyVwL
Rule 4: Run good candidates. By and large the Democrats followed that rule and the Republicans ignored it. Jeebus, the GOP ran Don Bolduc in NH against a vulnerable Maggie Hassan !
Biden was a surprisingly good candidate in 2020. I, for one, underestimated him.
But 2024 ? At 82 ? I mean, to paraphrase the line about Shackleton, I get down on my knees and thank Joe for what he's done. But I think he needs to step aside in 2024. And sadly it does not look like Kamala Harris has the goods.
So who ?
I disagree. Joe clearly still has it. I think he should pick a different running mate in 2024, but unless his health collapses he should absolutely run again. It's become common for people with money, good health habits, and good doctors to live into their 90s. If he paces himself and delegates his powers responsibly, he will probably be fine.
Rules 1 and 2 contradict each other. I don't know what to make of Rule 3. Generally, the rules seem to presuppose a smug, self-satisfied nation well on its way to ossification, and politicians intent on distracting the people with pablum while they focus on building a nice nest egg for themselves. Which is a pretty good description of politics at least on one side of the aisle, if not both.
"Should you advertise on Facebook or TV? Run a negative or positive campaign? Increase base turnout or try to switch centrist voters?"
These are all bad questions, because none of these are mutually exclusive. You can and absolutely should advertise on both Facebook *and* TV. (Yes, there will be budget constraints, but both media face diminishing returns as the number of ads increases so you will get more bang for your bucks by doing both.)
You both can and should run a mix of positive and negative messages. All-positive campaigns are too bland and boring, all-negative puts people off. It's like making a tasty sauce: you need the starch *and* the spice, either one alone is not tasty.
And contrary to what extremists claim, there is no contradiction between turning out the base and persuading the center. You persuade the center by having sane, popular policy positions and avoiding extremist idiocy; you turn out the inconsistent voters by knocking on their doors, calling them on the phone, and sending them mail to remind them that there is an election happening. Adopting more extreme positions does not improve your base turnout. Extremists keep claiming that it does, even though it's been proven wrong thousands of times, because they want power and it gives them more power if they can fool people into believing it. Do not listen to them, they are telling a self-serving lie.
Just saw the people of Uvalde voted overwhelmingly for Greg Abbott.
Proving you can actually shoot a conservative's children and as long as you do it with a gun they'll be perfectly fine with it.
I had seen that. So disheartening.
I increasingly tend to believe the divide in Democratic circles isn't so much ideology as it is elitist vs. Regular Joe (referring to style of candidacy).
I definitely think the "regular Joe" quality of Fetterman's brand helped widen the appeal of his progressivism. TBH same dynamic as Bernie (with his thick Brooklyn accent and rumpled attire). Normie voters seem to dislike elitism and crave authenticity.
I think it was Colbert who said it was like Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein vs Discount Dracula, so victim of the elites vs the elite.
So true! Like him or hate him, Trump shows you exactly who he is. Same with Bernie and Fetterman. Voters hate it when some candidate is imported into their district and then suddenly starts dressing in perfectly pressed flannel shirts that make him look like an LL Bean model. Voters can smell the phonies a mile away.
All very nice and very true. But right now the question is: How long is this democracy going to last? Your median voter (a statistical object, not a human being) obviously couldn't care less, otherwise how come that the median voters split nearly 1:1 in the 2022 election?
What now?
And anyhow: How does your theory explain someone like Margaret Thatcher? Her (obviously extreme) policies systematically impoverished majorities of her voters and yet they came back to her time and again.
The median voter theorem depends on political opinion being distributes on a bell curve. If, for instance, political opinion is distributed on a "brassiere curve" (a peak on the right, a peak on the left, and a dip in the middle) you may do better by trying to hit whichever of the peaks is higher in your district.
I usually like what Kevin says. But this is despicable. The worst type of politics, they type we should all be fighting against.
"Durable success depends on making the public more afraid of the other guys than they are of you."
No, durable success depends on making the public believe you can make their lives better, and then demonstrating it so they keep believing it.
Short term success can be achieved by making the public more afraid of the other guys. But at some point, you have to do something to make things better, or the system collapses and you are out of a job anyway.