Democratic vs. Republican assumptions about voter behavior

[Superdude]

@fedman

Especially when your elitist candidate (who didn’t even campaign in some Midwest states) calls Trump voters " deplorables"! So much for reaching out to working class and farmers.

Actually, she said that half of his voters were deplorables. We strive for accuracy, here. Please do try to keep up.

[Crane]

@Velocity

"I think this comment pretty well illustrates one of the points made in this thread, though - that many Democrats/liberals operate from a baseline assumption/attitude that* “Our values are (or ought to be) universal or considered blatant common sense, and if some voters don’t see things the way we do, that means something must be wrong with them.”*

Well yes, but it’s an individual judgement - as a Dem I believe there is a set of desirable attributes that apply to all Presidential candidates. Among them are:

Sufficient education to meet the needs of the office

Experience in organizational management

A sophisticated demeanor

Dedicated to the principles defined by the preamble of our Constitution
Call me a snob, but I’d consider those who disagree with more than one item to be politically challenged.

[Jim_Peebles]

@Velocity

The Democratic assumption is that voters are motivated primarily by policies - that voters value substance over style, head over heart, and logic over feelings.

I hear Republicans say the same thing, but with the word “Republican” replacing “Democrat”.

Nancy Pelosi revealed her assumptions about voters as quoted here:

Pelosi: Glass of Water Could Win My District and AOC's

One assumption I interpret her making is that the Democrats can completely take for granted the votes of certain districts, like hers and AOC’s:

“When we won this election, it wasn’t in districts like mine or Alexandria’s. And she’s a wonderful member of Congress, I think all of our colleagues will attest,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told an audience Monday night at a London School of Economics event during a U.K. visit.

“But those are districts that are solidly Democratic. This glass of water would win with a D next to its name in those districts,” she said, picking up the water at her table.

For instance, Pelosi’s district has long had a problem with human poop on the streets, and in light of her comments, I guess it is because she thinks she can afford to stay “glass of water” on it:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/san-franciscos-sidewalk-poop-problem/566621/

She also seems to me to be saying that she thinks voters won’t notice she is hiding ideas that they would think “menace” them until after the Democrats get enough power:

She continued: "What we’re saying is to have a message that appeals to people that does not menace them, that really does address their concerns. When we win, and we have the White House, and we have that, then we can expand our exuberances to some other things.

Overall, I get the impression she sees voters as either “sure supporters” she doesn’t need to do anything for, or people she needs to fool long enough to get power.

[squeegee]

@Crane

Dedicated to the principles defined by the preamble of our Constitution

This is a nit, but I don’t see any principles at all in the preamble. It sets out why the document was created and its purpose. I mean, “welfare should be promoted, liberty should be secured, defense should be provided, the Union should be more perfect” are principles of a sort, I guess? Not particularly high minded, unlike the Declaration of Independence.

[tingbudong]

@Bijou_Drains

some religious voters will freely admit Trump has done a lot of bad stuff but they don’t care as long as he promotes what they want like right wing judges.

To me, that’s basically a main reason why the right keeps winning elections. They don’t demand and could care less about candidate purity. They just want to win.

The left more often than not, tears itself apart chasing purity

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

[Crane]

I agree - we need to abandon puritanism and go for bling, like Roque de la Fuente Guerra (except he switched to Republican so he could oppose Trump)

[Crane]

Squeegee,

The DOI is in the passive voice - “When in the course…”.

The Preamble establishes the goals of our system of law in the active voice - “In order to…”

The Preamble of the Constitution is the mission statement of the US.

[squeegee]

@Crane

Squeegee,

The DOI is in the passive voice - “When in the course…”.

The Preamble establishes the goals of our system of law in the active voice - “In order to…”

The Preamble of the Constitution is the mission statement of the US.

Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That’s a principle.

I’m struggling to find one in the Constitution, which seems like a purely mechanical document: here’s how the machinery of government works.

Anyway: end hijack.

[Crane]

That’s because it’s in the preamble.

Democrats vote for candidates who represent the principles laid out in the preamble of the Constitution.

More perfect union
Liberal Justice
Domestic Tranquility
Military for Defense
Promote the general Welfare
Responsible Citizenship

The calm of the Obama represents the Democratic ideal.

Republicans vote for candidates who represent nationalist/religious views.

States Rights
Limited Justice
Law and Order
Projected military power
Trickle down economics
Libertarian Citizenship

The chaos of the Trump administration represents the strangeness of the current Republican political ideal.

I agree with the OP that Dems vote for substance. But not against Republican “style”. Republican voters respond to candidates who share their own nationlist/religious views. The T shirt slogan “Family, Faith, Friends, Flag, Firearms” sums up the substance of Republican voter assumptions.