I’m not American, so I could be wrong about this. But at first glance it seems to me that Republicans have to run two vastly different campaigns, one in the primaries and the other in the general election, while Democrats could run pretty much the same campaign in the primaries as well as the general election. It seems to me that people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would have to get called flip-flops if they were to run for presidency in 2016 while Hillary Clinton would be able to run just one campaign.
Am I wrong, or is the Democratic party just larger than the Republican party and therefore more mainstream?
Am I wrong, or is the Democratic party just larger than the Republican party and therefore more mainstream?
Generalizing over the whole nation, the higher the voter turnout, the better the Democrats do. This is part of why the two parties like to accuse each other of tolerating voter fraud or illegal voting (Republicans accuse Democrats of this) and of suppressing voter turnout through tricks such as voter caging and inconveniences such as short polling hours (Democrats accuse Republicans of this).
Equivalently, Republican affiliation is more common in sectors of the population that are more likely to vote — e.g. the retired elderly.
while Democrats could run pretty much the same campaign in the primaries as well as the general election.
Democrats in fact differ between the primary and the general election. Off the top of my head, consider Obama’s shift on FISA from 2007 (voted against) to post-primary 2008 (voted for telecom immunity).
Am I wrong, or is the Democratic party just larger than the Republican party and therefore more mainstream?
I’m not sure that’s supported by the evidence. Gallup polls show Republican party as smaller than the Democratic party (23% v 28% in 2013), but that difference is made almost entirely of ‘leaners’. Other polls that track solely identification rather than lean don’t show this disparity, and the Gallup numbers have little predictive power over primary turnout trends.
It seems to me that people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would have to get called flip-flops if they were to run for presidency in 2016 while Hillary Clinton would be able to run just one campaign.
Is it that Hillary Clinton is less likely to be considered a ‘flip-flop’ than Ted Cruz, or that voters likely to vote for Hillary Clinton are less likely to care if someone calls her a ‘flip-flop’? Conservatives are not likely to wait before pointing out her positions on the gas tax, on gay marriage, on several health care related matters, on several foreign policy matters, et all. Progressives are unlikely to do so, but progressives also have historically found it useful to portray Republican Presidential candidates as far-right stalwarts as possible. The specific complaints and criticisms are going to reflect the values of the folk professing them, and different political affiliations often have different values.
To some extent, weathervaning is just a natural result of any system that includes primary elections. You’ve got more tools to excuse it when it’s your side, but that’s doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Depends what you mean by “mainstream”. The Democrats are “mainstream” in that the institutions that tend to define mainstream, e.g., most newspaper, the universities, Hollywood, etc., are heavily Democratic.
On the other hand polls consistently show more people willing to define themselves as “conservative” than “liberal”.
On the other hand, polls that ask about, say, health-care reform without mentioning partisan affiliation tend to show that most American citizens support fairly social-democratic positions on many issues.
In other words, partisan self-identification has detached itself from actual policy preferences.
On the other hand, polls that ask about, say, health-care reform without mentioning partisan affiliation tend to show that most American citizens support fairly social-democratic positions on many issues.
In other words, partisan self-identification has detached itself from actual policy preferences.
I’d caution that this can be a misleading data point. Polls on universal coverage requirements or single-payer score higher than actual implementations of universal coverage or single-payer or the advocates of either position, but actual implementations or advocates are actually and meaningfully different. They’re attached to things like insurance purchase mandates (which poll terribly) or drastically change the insurance market and almost all policies on it now (which poll even worse).
Other polls can be misleading because people will voice, but not vote, on a topic. The political polls on a number of matters related to gun control overwhelmingly support certain ideas(1). But the majority of the populace doesn’t care about—and in many cases, doesn’t even understand—what they’re aiming to require or prohibit. It won’t actually drive votes for any specific politician, and excepting where the topic can be covered by a clear ballot initiative at a time where voter turnout, won’t even drive votes for a specific regulation.
(1) the exact number is usually overstated due to polling methodology, but exists.
Could you separate the difference between polling and voting on specific issues from the difference between polling on specific issues and turning out for party politicians? It sounds like there probably is a real difference, but it may be smaller than you’re saying after we account for the dysfunction of the current American electoral system in specific.
Could you separate the difference between polling and voting on specific issues from the difference between polling on specific issues and turning out for party politicians?
I’m not sure it’s possible to do so entirely, if only because the party a politician joins can itself be information about the sort of matters they’ll be able to put forward. You can almost always find better proxies than the first reported by media sources, though. Simple averaging together the various individual components of health care reform is a really stupid and obviously inaccurate tool—people don’t value individual components equally—but it shows a far more interesting picture of the full system.
If you start with an assumption of massive electoral dysfunction, that can explain a pretty large number of things—but it seems to have explanatory power, rather than predictive power.
Allow me to correct myself in a way that renders us both correct, in-context:
The American populace generally seems to be further to the left on economic issues but further to the right on cultural/social issues than the government they elect. The simplest explanation has already been given: a unitary government over extremely heterogeneous regions.
The American populace generally seems to be further to the left on economic issues but further to the right on cultural/social issues than the government they elect.
The phenomenon I describe isn’t limited to social issues, most notably it applies to tax rates.
I’m not American, so I could be wrong about this. But at first glance it seems to me that Republicans have to run two vastly different campaigns, one in the primaries and the other in the general election, while Democrats could run pretty much the same campaign in the primaries as well as the general election. It seems to me that people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would have to get called flip-flops if they were to run for presidency in 2016 while Hillary Clinton would be able to run just one campaign.
Am I wrong, or is the Democratic party just larger than the Republican party and therefore more mainstream?
Generalizing over the whole nation, the higher the voter turnout, the better the Democrats do. This is part of why the two parties like to accuse each other of tolerating voter fraud or illegal voting (Republicans accuse Democrats of this) and of suppressing voter turnout through tricks such as voter caging and inconveniences such as short polling hours (Democrats accuse Republicans of this).
Equivalently, Republican affiliation is more common in sectors of the population that are more likely to vote — e.g. the retired elderly.
Democrats in fact differ between the primary and the general election. Off the top of my head, consider Obama’s shift on FISA from 2007 (voted against) to post-primary 2008 (voted for telecom immunity).
I’m not sure that’s supported by the evidence. Gallup polls show Republican party as smaller than the Democratic party (23% v 28% in 2013), but that difference is made almost entirely of ‘leaners’. Other polls that track solely identification rather than lean don’t show this disparity, and the Gallup numbers have little predictive power over primary turnout trends.
Is it that Hillary Clinton is less likely to be considered a ‘flip-flop’ than Ted Cruz, or that voters likely to vote for Hillary Clinton are less likely to care if someone calls her a ‘flip-flop’? Conservatives are not likely to wait before pointing out her positions on the gas tax, on gay marriage, on several health care related matters, on several foreign policy matters, et all. Progressives are unlikely to do so, but progressives also have historically found it useful to portray Republican Presidential candidates as far-right stalwarts as possible. The specific complaints and criticisms are going to reflect the values of the folk professing them, and different political affiliations often have different values.
To some extent, weathervaning is just a natural result of any system that includes primary elections. You’ve got more tools to excuse it when it’s your side, but that’s doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Depends what you mean by “mainstream”. The Democrats are “mainstream” in that the institutions that tend to define mainstream, e.g., most newspaper, the universities, Hollywood, etc., are heavily Democratic.
On the other hand polls consistently show more people willing to define themselves as “conservative” than “liberal”.
On the other hand, polls that ask about, say, health-care reform without mentioning partisan affiliation tend to show that most American citizens support fairly social-democratic positions on many issues.
In other words, partisan self-identification has detached itself from actual policy preferences.
I’d caution that this can be a misleading data point. Polls on universal coverage requirements or single-payer score higher than actual implementations of universal coverage or single-payer or the advocates of either position, but actual implementations or advocates are actually and meaningfully different. They’re attached to things like insurance purchase mandates (which poll terribly) or drastically change the insurance market and almost all policies on it now (which poll even worse).
Other polls can be misleading because people will voice, but not vote, on a topic. The political polls on a number of matters related to gun control overwhelmingly support certain ideas(1). But the majority of the populace doesn’t care about—and in many cases, doesn’t even understand—what they’re aiming to require or prohibit. It won’t actually drive votes for any specific politician, and excepting where the topic can be covered by a clear ballot initiative at a time where voter turnout, won’t even drive votes for a specific regulation.
(1) the exact number is usually overstated due to polling methodology, but exists.
Could you separate the difference between polling and voting on specific issues from the difference between polling on specific issues and turning out for party politicians? It sounds like there probably is a real difference, but it may be smaller than you’re saying after we account for the dysfunction of the current American electoral system in specific.
I’m not sure it’s possible to do so entirely, if only because the party a politician joins can itself be information about the sort of matters they’ll be able to put forward. You can almost always find better proxies than the first reported by media sources, though. Simple averaging together the various individual components of health care reform is a really stupid and obviously inaccurate tool—people don’t value individual components equally—but it shows a far more interesting picture of the full system.
And you probably have other complicated variables to deal with. People don’t generally know the details of any specific law. Again, using health-care reform since has some of the best research, there’s pretty clear evidence that one in four people have never been aware of even the most popular parts of the law.
If you start with an assumption of massive electoral dysfunction, that can explain a pretty large number of things—but it seems to have explanatory power, rather than predictive power.
The again, in states that have them ballot initiatives frequently produce results to the right of what the legislature is willing to pass.
Allow me to correct myself in a way that renders us both correct, in-context:
The American populace generally seems to be further to the left on economic issues but further to the right on cultural/social issues than the government they elect. The simplest explanation has already been given: a unitary government over extremely heterogeneous regions.
The phenomenon I describe isn’t limited to social issues, most notably it applies to tax rates.