I agree with DSeid, except for the last line which I think is too strong.
Very interesting article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-third-party-votes-sunk-clinton-what-they-mean-for-trump/ar-AAF1Evx?ocid=spartanntp&fbclid=IwAR3mOiNnFwtnPuVMwGnyWTXWHQ-xxDK8eqWZJjs7tlvboVWqJzWzMquBNb0
*An astounding 7.8 million voters cast their presidential ballots for someone other than Trump or Hillary Clinton. The two biggest third-party vote getters were Libertarian Gary Johnson (almost 4.5 million votes) and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (1.5 million voters). But others received almost another 1.9 million votes, as well.
Libertarians and Greens may try to convince you that this reflects growing support for their parties. It doesn’t.
Their strong showing was due to the unpopularity of the two major party nominees…An astounding 7.8 million voters cast their presidential ballots for someone other than Trump or Hillary Clinton. The two biggest third-party vote getters were Libertarian Gary Johnson (almost 4.5 million votes) and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (1.5 million voters). But others received almost another 1.9 million votes, as well.
[Election assistance agency pleads for more money ahead of 2020]
Libertarians and Greens may try to convince you that this reflects growing support for their parties. It doesn’t.
Their strong showing was due to the unpopularity of the two major party nominees.*"
So if the Libertarians and Greens have learned their lesson about trump, this next elections should be a dem win.
Just a little blast from the recent (7/2) past.
With that in mind, today’s Quinnipiac, in the field July 25 - 28, Biden 34, Warren 15, Harris 12, and Sanders 11.
7/2 it was Biden 22, Harris 20 percent, Warren 14, and Sanders 13.
In short, Biden is a stronger candidate when people don’t actually see him. LOL
This primary race is turning into some kind of twisted game theory thought experiment. I have said before that of the top four or five I only see Harris as reasonably viable so I am nervously backing her. But if Warren and Biden are the top two, I am going to have to swallow hard and back Biden to stop Warren. And then white-knuckle it the whole rest of the way, wondering what acts of self-sabotage Joe will engage in next.
I like Harris just fine. But I think it’s kinda nuts to think she is a stronger general election candidate than Biden or Warren.
Quite possibly the most important electoral quality in this era is authenticity. It is a huge part of Trump’s appeal. People believe he says what he means (whether that is true or not). Biden and Warren are, for long-time politicians, relatively high on authenticity. Harris is extremely low. It is clear that she has no real ideological commitments and just floats upon the winds. She’s easily the worst on that measure of any of the major candidates–her incoherent student debt plan being just the latest example. I suspect that this lack of convictions is what makes her attractive to a very specific kind of news junkie who is fearful that ideological commitments damage electability. But it is exactly backwards. The lack of authenticity will be a huge liability if she is the nominee.
George McGovern was as authentic as they get. So was Barry Goldwater. So much for that theory. (For those not up on their political history, both were defeated in the worst blowouts in modern history, just eight years apart and from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.)
The latter of which ran almost 50 years ago. That might as well have been on another planet at this point.
Not arguing that authenticity *is *key, but to compare this present darkness to what happened in the 60s and 70s doesn’t make much sense.
That’s a myopic view of our political history. Look at the map of the 1860 election and tell me we are in a different world from 160 years ago, much less 47. For that matter, there is a great book I read about the debate over changing the Articles of Confederation to a stronger Constitution and how the “spirit of ‘76” was all about a small government and a limited one without much power to tax or build public works and so on. That political culture has survived, especially in certain states, for centuries now, even as the labels of political parties have changed.
Nor have you provided evidence that people support the more authentic candidate in recent elections. To claim that this is what Trump of all people is requires pretzel logic that I simply do not accept. The most you could possibly offer in service of that claim is that bigoted people are glad a candidate is openly saying bigoted things rather than using dogwhistles. That in no way transfers to an advantage for Elizabeth Warren.
It’s bizarre to say Trump won because he’s authentic. The guy literally brags about bullshitting.
All’s I’m saying is that voters don’t vote for the same thing and value the same things as they did 50 years ago.
To look at more-recent history: Bill Clinton oozed authenticity over Bush and Dole. W came across as more folksy and authentic than the two stiffs the Dems threw up against him. Obama in '08 captured lightning in a bottle with “Hope and Change,” and was much more authentic than Romney. Trump, for all his faults, won out the authenticity battle over Hillary, who had the reputation for taking a position based on the wind speed.
You think bullshit precludes a person from appearing authentic? Most of the bullshitters I’ve known over the years could have people eating out of their hands without breaking a sweat.
Authenticity has less to do with facts and “being right” and more to do with feelings and trust.
Lichtman, from your link:
So he did not predict it.
Then the question is, did his keys predict it? And that’s where you get into a ton of arguments, due to their subjective nature. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.
Did “[t]he incumbent administration effect major changes in national policy”? Well, the ACA took effect in 2014, during Obama’s second term. But he counts that as a ‘no’ because the law was passed during Obama’s first term. And was there “no significant third party or independent campaign”? There wasn’t, though I guess you could say they all added up to one. But he says that because Gary Johnson’s highest polls were in the 12-14% range, and his method is to divide the highest polls by 2 and count it as a significant campaign if that number’s still above 5% (not stated in the key itself), it counts.
To say there’s a lack of definitional precision in his keys is a huge understatement. And for his keys to call this one for Trump required both that the ACA not count as a major second-term change in national policy, and for Gary Johnson to count as a significant third party or independent campaign.
So did his keys predict a Trump win? Not with any more clarity than he did.
Well, maybe my memory is hazy but I seem to remember that in 2016, plenty of Trump supporters thought he was purposely being over the top, that a wall didn’t necessarily mean like a real wall and that he’d chill out/be more Presidential once he was actually president.
And those successful bullshitters you know probably weren’t going around bragging about how they bullshit all the time to people they are currently bullshitting.
If you’ve built your brand up for the past 40 years as a successful businessman, brash and bold and who oftentimes bullshits and brags, when he runs for president doing exactly that, he’s being authentic to himself. And for whatever reason, to the detriment of the world, enough voters in just the right states bought it.
Absofuckinglutely. The politics of today bear only incidental resemblance to those of 1968. Whole. Different. Fucking. Universe.
This too. Lord knows I can’t stand listening to Trump for very long, but I did so occasionally during the 2016 campaign, and yeah, he really connected with his audience, and I could understand why: he sounded and felt like he was talking from the heart.
Like you say, that’s how to be a convincing bullshitter, and no question, Trump is a bullshitter and con artist extraordinaire. But he’s got that rhetorical gift that gets people to feel he identifies with them, and gets them to trust him.
Just for the hell of it, here’s 538’s rankings of the “endorsement primary,” a regularly updated comparison of how the candidates are doing with respect to endorsements from other political figures.
Biden’s way out front, with Harris coming in at a solid second place so far. Cory Booker is third; Warren’s tied with Klobuchar for fourth; then Bernie, then everyone else.
It gets more interesting if you look at where and when their endorsements came. You’d hope they’d do well in home-state endorsements, but that they’d also get endorsements from politicians in other states as well. For the Biden/Harris/Warren/Sanders foursome, this is the case. But Klobuchar’s endorsements are all from Minnesotans, and other than one DNC member from SC, Booker’s are all from NJ.
Then you’d like to see your candidate continuing to pick up endorsements as the race goes along. Again, the Biden/Harris/Warren/Sanders group have all picked up a decent number of endorsements in the past four or five weeks. But Klobuchar’s only picked up one endorsement since February, and Booker’s picked up none since mid-April.
Pretty much tells you what you already know, since (other than those a candidate has lined up and ready to go the day s/he declares) endorsements are a trailing indicator. Hence the emphasis on “just for the hell of it.” The informational value is rather low.
That’s silly. Just the opposite is true IMO.
What you really seem to be saying is that voters choose the candidate they like better. Newsflash!
Any predictor who confidently predicted that Bush would definitely win in 2000 got it wrong. The correct prediction would have been that it was too close to call.
I defined authenticity in my post as saying what you really think. I also made clear that the question isn’t whether Trump actually does this, but whether voters (1) believe it; (2) find it important.
That is an empirical question, so if you’re answering based on your gut or your amateur history reading, then you’re doing it wrong. Empirically, the vast majority of Trump’s supporters in the Republican primary said they thought he “says what he means, not what he thinks people want to hear” and that this was important to their vote. There is similar empirical evidence for what kind of candidate people are looking for in the general election. Indeed, in focus groups, it is often what people first volunteer they want. And there is good evidence that they rate politicians differently on that spectrum.
So, again, I’m telling you, you overlook authenticity at your own peril if you are the kind of Democrat who thinks we should select a candidate based on our predictions about who will do well in a general election race. At this point, when polls are still relatively meaningless, the more meaningful thing to do is look at what actually motivates people. It ain’t policy positioning. If you think a promise of a middle class tax cut matters more than voter perception of authenticity, then you’ve got a lot of work to do to overcome the empirical evidence.
The people who advocate this POV always seem to be left wingers, even though the one time Dems gave their wing a chance, it was a 49-state wipeout. What about the kind of authenticity you see in a moderate like Bullock?