The New Pew Political Typology and the Presidential Election

Could have gone in either of two threads but I decided to create a third. For those of you who haven’t seen it, the Pew Political Typology is the Pew Research Institute’s effort at dividing the American public into nine groups based on differences in ideology, personality and political engagement. One of them, the Tuned-Out Middle, is defined by not voting much and being evenly divided when they do, so for practical purposes there are eight, three for each party and two swing groups.

The two groups of swing voters are very different; the Polite Right are economic conservatives/social moderates who strongly dislike politicians using rude or inflammatory language. They lean Republican but obviously aren’t big Trump fans. The Left-Out Left are cynical, disengaged progressives. They’ll always vote Democratic if they bother to vote at all, but need a highly charismatic candidate to keep them engaged.

The Democratic groups are basically Progressives, Liberals and Moderates (aka the “Order and Opportunity Left”. Note that there’s an interesting dichotomy here, in that both of the swing groups are potentially available to Democrats, but only one to Republicans. That suggests that the Democrats have two potential strategies available: nominating a moderate to try to peel off the Polite Right, or a progressive to appeal to the Left-Out Left. Ideally, they could hedge their bets with the other swing group by nominating a moderate with an edgy “outsider” persona (too bad Fetterman went crazy) or a dignified, no-nonsense progressive (too bad Bernie got old). Somewhat paradoxically, their worst option might be to nominate someone from the Liberal wing, who would be most broadly acceptable to their base but wouldn’t appeal to either swing group. So they’ll probably go with Harris-Newsom and blow it.

AOC seems like the obvious choice from the progressive wing. For the moderates, Josh Shapiro is appealing, but I think his extreme pro-Israel stance is a deal-breaker for Democratic primary voters. Maybe Beshear or Buttigieg, but they both lack any hint of edginess.

For the Republicans, what strikes me is that JD Vance just has no constituency. He’s too linked to Trump to appeal to the moderate Republicans, and the Republican base are all racists and/or Evangelicals, so a Catholic with an Asian wife isn’t going to thrill them. It seems like there should be a lane for a moderate “let’s go back to just doing tax cuts without the fascism” GOP candidate, but Trump has pretty effectively purged all their officeholders who could fill that role.* So maybe it will just be Vance and nobody really likes him and he loses by a landslide. Or somebody more linked to the evangelical base might challenge him (DeSantis? Tucker Carlson?)

*This could be just the break the Romney campaign has been waiting for!

One does have cause to wonder whether the predilection of the US political class to shoehorn circa 250 million voting eligible Americans into 9 or whatever neat boxes is a contributing factor to the prevailing malaise of discontent.

Even the Zodiac has 12 groups to divide everyone into. Might be a better way to decide who you are.

IMO, this is the single biggest group of gettable voters and it’s a mistake to ignore them. Basically, these are the people who are young and not really paying attention – and who will, if nothing happens to them, turn into older people, who are much more likely to pay attention. Just because someone’s partisan affiliations have not been activated or set in stone yet doesn’t mean they won’t be, and the formative political experiences you have when you first start paying attention influence how you vote for the rest of your life.

I would be amazed if Harris gets the nomination again. She wouldn’t have gotten it in 2024 if they’d gone through the primaries without Biden. While she has more of a constituency than Vance, it’s no where near large enough to get her the nomination.

Biden was the inside track. No way was the party going to tolerate an insurgency from Harris or anyone else. Then it became abundantly obvious Biden was losing his marbles (his wife suggested he had a minor stroke during that disastrous debate with Trump). Then the party simply had to get someone else. Biden demonstrated he was not up to the task. Not his fault, just old.

I’d much prefer a Prtizker-Harris ticket. Newsom is all corporate democrat. He’d be the same mistake dems seem to constantly make and never learn. Trump went populist, ran three times, won two and the one time he lost he got the second most votes in US history.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Something the dems seem incapable of learning.

I said “primaries without Biden”. It wouldn’t be an insurgency if Biden had decided not to run back in winter of 23-24).

I really doubt Harris running for VP again. Someone running for VP for two different presidents just doesn’t happen these days. It happened about 200 years ago, but that was a very different era (Calhoun was VP for two different Presidents, and even then he quit about halfway through the second term).

If Biden bowed out and chose not to run for a second term then I can’t see how Harris would not be the obvious front runner.

He was not “losing his marbles” nor did he have a stroke. He was suffering from jet lag and a cold, and took OTC cold medicine.

Newsom would win. I like Pritzker’s (note spelling) politics, but he can only win if the Gaza issue is behind us.

Me too. I believe it’s never happened that a sitting VP who wanted the nomination failed to get it. It was pretty rare for that sitting VP to win in the general, though.

How many times have they lost, recently? Harris, Humphrey, Gore. (and sorta Ford)
Winners- Nixon, Biden, LBJ, George H.W. Bush.

So, the Veep wins about as often loses.

Note the word “sitting” in what Ponderoid said. Of those in the Winners list, only GHWB was actually a sitting VP when winning. Nixon, in fact, lost as a sitting VP, but came back 8 years later to win.

The year Nixon won, he was running against another VP. Humphrey was sitting. Nixon was eight years out.

Why do you think she would have been the first sitting VP to fail to win their party’s primary since the primary system was revamped in 1972? You have to go all the way back to the backroom dealing days to find a sitting VP who failed to get their party’s nomination. That would be Alben Barkley in 1952, who failed to get it due to age, as I understand it.

(yep, my earlier statement was incorrect, but I did some research.)

The dilemma is that taking the VP slot puts you in great position to be the nominee when your boss gets term-limited. But it’s very hard for a party to win three Presidential elections in a row, so once you finally get your shot, you start off with the odds stacked against you.

So actually, given that voters generally get tired of a President after eight years, it’s probably not great strategy for a party to nominate the one candidate most closely linked to the outgoing President!

I told you in the text you quoted: she doesn’t have a big enough constituency.

Except … the one party to break the “no more than eight years” curse in the last seventy years did it with a sitting VP (GHWB in 1988), and the Democrats came so close in 2000, also with a sitting VP, that the end result was essentially a coin flip.