Thursday, May 21, 2020

The Rise of the "No Malarkey" Trump-Biden Voters

Could vote-switching help Biden in the 2020 election? You bet! John Halpin and I detail how many of these voters there are and describe their economically progressive but somewhat socially conservative views in our new Monkey Cage piece on the Post website.
"After the 2016 election, analysts spilled tubs of ink arguing that “Obama-Trump” voters helped swing the election. Analysis by John Sides for the Voter Study Group (which both of us have worked with) found that 9 percent of Barack Obama voters from 2012 switched to Donald Trump in 2016, for about 6 million voters overall. Disproportionately white, non-college-educated and concentrated in electorally vital states from Florida to the Great Lakes, these Democratic defectors shifted enough votes to help Trump win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which gave him an electoral college win despite losing the national popular vote.
Will party switching influence the 2020 presidential election? Our analysis suggests that, yes, a significant number of Trump’s 2016 voters are ready to vote for the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Joe Biden.
We examined vote switching in the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape surveys since the start of the year, examining the answers of more than 85,000 nationally representative registered voters....Based on these data, we find that 9 percent of Trump 2016 voters are currently planning to vote for the former vice president. This group of Trump-Biden voters is twice as large as the percentage of Hillary Clinton voters from 2016 who this year say they plan to vote for Trump. That would give Biden a net advantage that could help decide the 2020 race."
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Nine percent of Trump's 2016 voters say they're planning to vote for Biden, our data suggest.

Biden Lead Nuggets

Two new high quality polls have Biden far ahead--Quinnipiac by 11 and Fox News by 8. I doubt if Biden is really ahead by 11 but the case for 8 made by Enten and others--based on the totality of polling including state results--seems reasonable.
A few things that caught my eye:
1. in the Fox poll, 2016 Trump voters give Biden 8 percent support while 2016 Clinton voters give Trump only 2 percent. This is is pretty similar to results from my Nationscape analysis, which some have argued must be an outlier. Maybe not.
2. Both the Q poll and the Fox poll give Trump only paltry leads among white voters, 4 points in the former and 7 points in the latter. If that's really all the lead Trump is running among white voters, he is indeed in very bad trouble.
3. I don't think I've ever see this before and I guess I don't really believe it, but it is amazing that a serious poll would show this. In the Q-poll (see below), Biden breaks 50 percent across four standard age groups (18-34, 35-49, 50-64 and 65+) and has a solid lead in each of them. Wow. With that kind of support, a bit of underperformance among young voters isn't really going to matter. Plus, I still think Biden may wind up doing about as well as Hillary anyway.

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Georgia??

Sure. why not? We now have a second recent poll with Biden slightly ahead in the state. The latest one is a Civqs poll, whose results are summarized in the post below by Markos of Daily Kos. I guess I am not quite as bullish as Markos on the state but I do find these results intriguing. Comparing the internals of this poll with States of Change data from the 2016 election, the poll implies that Biden is doing somewhat better than Clinton among both white and black voters and among young voters.
There are even some indications in the new poll that Democrats could be competitive for the two GA Senate seats. Wouldn't that be something?!
DAILYKOS.COM
I’ve been saying that there are seven presidential battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Six of the seven are obvious and long-standing battlegrounds. But … Georgia? Yes. Georgia. The...

Monday, May 18, 2020

How Far Ahead Is Biden?

Biden has been doing well in the polls, both national and state-level. Indeed the latter polls suggest Biden may be running even farther ahead nationally than we thought. That is Harry Enten's argument in his latest CNN column.
"One of the big questions when we look at national polls is whether or not they're an accurate representation of what is going on at the state level. One of the easiest ways to check is to compare state poll results to the past presidential vote in a given state. I did so for all telephone polls that called cell phones since the beginning of April.
When we average out these state polls, they suggest that Biden's running about 6 points ahead of Hillary Clinton's final margin.
In other words, the state level polls suggest that Biden has a national lead of around 8 points.
That's actually a little greater than the 6.6 points Biden has in the high quality national polling average taken during the same period....
Additionally, we can look at states we expect to be at least somewhat competitive (i.e. those where the margin was within 10 points last time) and those that we don't think will be close in 2020.
In the competitive states (where most of the state polling has been conducted), there has been an average swing of 6 points toward Biden compared to Clinton's 2016 result. The same is true in the non-competitive states....
At least from this state level data, it does not seem that either candidate is running up the score disproportionately in areas that were already friendly to him....
We can test our data, too, to see what would happen if the polls are underestimating Trump like they did in 2016.
What I found was Biden would still be ahead, even with a 2016 sized mishap.....Concentrating on just the competitive states, the polls undersold Trump by 2 points (RealClearPolitics) or 3 points (FiveThirtyEight). If the polls in the competitive states were off by as much as they were at the end in 2016, Biden would still be ahead in states like Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania."
The latter is a key point. At the moment Biden is running far enough ahead that even if the polls were off in a similar way to 2016, he would still win the electoral college.
I would also add the Enten's higher estimate of Biden's national lead is consistent with the lead we are seeing in the 85,000+ interview conducted by Nationscape since the beginning of the year.
CNN.COM
Poll of the week: A new Marquette Law School poll finds former Vice President Joe Biden with a 46% to 43% lead over President Donald Trump in Wisconsin.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

The Kids Are All Right: Gen Z Edition

For all the attention paid to the Millennials, Gen Z (born after 1996) is coming up fast. They too will have a big effect on politics. As I have noted before, early data on the first tranche of Gen Z'ers coming into the electorate suggests that they will be as liberal as the Millennials and possibly more so.
This is confirmed by a new release from Pew that details some of this generation's key views and preferences relative to older generations.
"One-in-ten eligible voters in the 2020 electorate will be part of a new generation of Americans – Generation Z. Born after 1996, most members of this generation are not yet old enough to vote, but as the oldest among them turn 23 this year, roughly 24 million will have the opportunity to cast a ballot in November. And their political clout will continue to grow steadily in the coming years, as more and more of them reach voting age....
Aside from the unique set of circumstances in which Gen Z is approaching adulthood, what do we know about this new generation? We know it’s different from previous generations in some important ways, but similar in many ways to the Millennial generation that came before it. Members of Gen Z are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation, and they are on track to be the most well-educated generation yet. They are also digital natives who have little or no memory of the world as it existed before smartphones.
Still, when it comes to their views on key social and policy issues, they look very much like Millennials. Pew Research Center surveys conducted in the fall of 2018 (more than a year before the coronavirus outbreak) among Americans ages 13 and older found that, similar to Millennials, Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations.1
A look at how Gen Z voters view the Trump presidency provides further insight into their political beliefs. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January of this year found that about a quarter of registered voters ages 18 to 23 (22%) approved of how Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while about three-quarters disapproved (77%). Millennial voters were only slightly more likely to approve of Trump (32%) while 42% of Gen X voters, 48% of Baby Boomers and 57% of those in the Silent Generation approved of the job he’s doing as president."
The Pew data on political preferences are supported by findings from the Nationscape survey. Nationscape data also show Gen Z'ers with even stronger pro-Biden and anti-Trump leanings than Millennials. This applies to both Gen Z as a whole and to the white subgroup of Gen Z, a fact of no small significance.

Friday, May 15, 2020

We Must Face the Truth: The Republicans Are Actually in Pretty Bad Shape

There's no way to sugar-coat this: the GOP is likely headed for a very bad election this November. I know, I know, don't jinx it, nothing's for certain, lockdown backlash plus anti-China fervor plus a modest economic rebound could reset the election....I get it. We're all nervous. But still....the data are the data and sober nonpartisan political analysts are duly processing it and informing us of what it implies. Like Josh Kraushaar of National Journal::
"The current political environment is reminiscent of 2008, two years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate under President George W. Bush. It’s mostly remembered for Barack Obama’s historic election, but the Democrats’ downballot dominance was just as remarkable. Riding deep dissatisfaction with GOP leadership, Democrats expanded their Senate majority to a near filibuster-proof margin and won House seats in some of the most reliably conservative territory in the country.
Like the political environment today, the 2008 election took place in the middle of a national crisis. Back then, the Republican presidential nominee insisted that the fundamentals of the country were strong during a deepening recession. Now a Republican president is publicly insisting he has “met the moment” and prevailed, despite rising death rates and massive unemployment from the coronavirus. Then, as now, a Democratic challenger used the GOP candidate’s own words in devastating attack ads."
Or Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report:
"Democrats retaining their House majority is practically a done deal. House Editor Dave Wasserman reports that now the chances are about the same of Republicans having a net loss of a few seats about the same as gaining a few.
Normally after a 40-seat loss, recapturing at least a few would seem almost inevitable, but as David’s May 6 overview points out, that is not necessarily the case this year.
Not long ago, GOP chances of maintaining their control of the Senate looked to be about two out of three, but Senate Editor Jessica Taylor's reporting since March shows that Republican Senate majority is getting more precarious and now control appears to be a 50-50 proposition. Now with popular Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock challenging GOP incumbent Steve Daines in Montana, newly-appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler mired in a horrific political situation and the possibility that Republicans could draw an exceedingly weak candidate in what should be a safe seat in Kansas (filing deadline June 1), among other problems adding to previous woes with incumbents Martha McSally in Arizona, Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis all in races that are, at best, toss ups.
Combine those two Congressional situations with a recession that has effectively eliminated any tailwind that President Trump had been enjoying from a strong economy and it is hard to see his re-election prospects looking anything but more dire by the week. Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous."
Or David Byler of The Washington Post:
"President Trump bungled the coronavirus crisis. Before the pandemic hit, his administration failed to purchase an adequate number of ventilators. Throughout the crisis, Trump’s public statements have ranged from revisionist and distracted to conspiratorial and outright dangerous (remember the supposed joke about injecting disinfectant?). And he’s pushing to reopen the economy, even though health experts have warned that relaxing restrictions too early could lead to unnecessary deaths.
It would be reasonable to expect Trump’s poll numbers to drop like a rock after this sort of mismanagement. But instead his approval rating is stable at around 44 percent — roughly where it was before the virus hit.
That’s because Trump is likely still in the middle of a grace period: Voters aren’t holding him fully accountable for the damage caused by the virus. If Trump can right the ship or simply elongate this reprieve, that might be enough for him to win reelection. But presidential history suggests that even a norm-defying president like Trump can’t escape the pull of basic political gravity. Voters might be willing to give a leader leeway in a crisis, but they won’t extend that credit indefinitely."
Obviously nothing should be taken for granted here (2016!) but perhaps it's time to start thinking big about November and its aftermath.
NATIONALJOURNAL.COM
The odds of a big blue wave sweeping Democrats to power are growing, with even red-state Republicans growing nervous about their political position.

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Revenge of the Normie Democrat

(This is a guest post from my friend and colleague Peter Juul. Juul argues that there are important lessons to be derived from Biden's march to the Democratic nomination, against the preferences of many, many progressive activists who felt they had the wind at their back. The center-left must learn these lessons, he argues, to fully engage the massive pool of normie Democrats and build an effective and unifying national coalition. I agree.)
To hear it from political pundits and commentators, in their 2020 presidential primaries the Democratic Party dodged the bullet that felled their Republican counterparts in 2016. Former Vice President Joe Biden emerged victorious amidst a crowded field, vindicating the Democratic establishment against insurgent populists like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. By contrast, horrified Republican elites could do little to stop their radicalized primary voters from handing their party’s presidential nomination to Donald Trump four years ago.
But this narrative both misleads and obscures: Biden’s sudden and swift political resurrection amounted to a revolt of the Democratic rank-and-file against a strident and loud progressive elite. In an inversion of the 2016 Republican primary, Democratic primary voters prevented a hostile takeover of their party by a well-heeled ideological vanguard class with whom they fundamentally disagreed on matters of both style and substance. Call it the revenge of the normie Democrats against the avant-garde progressive Twitterati.
It’s important to distinguish between a Democratic establishment still trusted by normie votes and a progressive elite that exerts influence in political discourse vastly disproportionate to their actual public support. The former consists of Democratic elected officials like former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in addition to the proverbial party hacks. More than anything else, these elected officials and party functionaries have to win competitive elections and manage fractious political coalitions in order to deliver practical results for their constituents and the public as a whole.
In contrast, the progressive elite consists of professional activists, opinion page writers, and influential academics and think-tankers – many of whom will populate a potential Democratic presidential administration. This elite also includes ideologically-driven elected officials like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who represent safe state or districts and probably won’t face competitive elections against Republican opponents any time soon. Backed by wealthy donors and philanthropic foundations, this network of progressive elites loudly dominated political discourse on social media as they sought to shift the Democratic Party toward the rarefied worldview prevalent within elite institutions outside the party – and all against the apparent will of regular Democratic voters.
Democratic candidates and center-left institutions that underestimate the centrality of normies to American politics do so at their own peril. Average voters with largely conventional social and political attitudes represent the core constituency for any center-left political coalition that hopes to win elections and govern in the United States. If the Democratic Party and the American center-left more broadly hope for future success, they must stop catering to noisy activists and funders who insist on receiving gestures that only undermine their political prospects. They must instead cultivate the quiet army of normie voters that powered Biden’s primary victory - and could lift Democrats to victory in November and beyond.
Unfortunately, many leading progressive lights have been captured by this loud, influential, but ultimately unrepresentative class of elite activists and wealthy donors. This class has pulled center-left politics apart from two directions: the identity politics of the “woke” left and the democratic socialism concentrated around the camp of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Highly-educated elite progressives ensconced in the upper echelons of the media, academia, and well-endowed foundations constitute the primary source of support for the woke left. Their influence could be seen quite clearly in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, which became an unwitting parody of woke politics over the course of the primary season. Other candidates like Sens. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kristen Gillibrand also believed a rhetorical embrace of woke identity politics would deliver them the nomination, only to all drop out of the race before the first primary votes could even be cast.
Likewise, Sanders’s surprisingly vigorous 2016 primary challenge and consistently strong polling ahead of the 2020 primaries led many progressives elites to overestimate the wider appeal of his vague brand of democratic socialism to average Democratic primary voters. Propounded by a number of veteran left-wing activists and fueled by the Sanders campaign, democratic socialists positioned themselves as the inevitable wave of the progressive political future. Thanks in no small part to the highly visible and clamorous contingent of dyspeptic professional activists in its ranks, however, democratic socialism never won over a majority -or even a strong enough plurality - of the Democratic primary electorate.
In short, neither of the most vocal ideological factions in contemporary progressive politics proved popular among actually existing Democratic voters. Former Vice President Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination largely thanks to the strength of his support among black voters, for instance, while Sanders failed to expand his own coalition in a meaningful way. Worse, they may likely be actively harmful to Democratic prospects in November by pressuring Biden to engage in costly political posturing that drives away normie voters. As commentator Josh Barro has pointed out, candidates and institutions have adopted “a wide variety of fundamentally non-policy positions on the culture that annoy the crap out of people” in order to placate internally powerful activist and donor classes.
The drawbacks of this approach are legion. It’s disastrous politically, alienating Democrats from their own voters and heavily circumscribing their attempts to build a wider political coalition. Moreover, it destroys the sense of common national purpose that the center-left must cultivate if it’s to achieve its policy goals. Allowing progressive politics to be dictated by these unrepresentative factions may serve the interests of professional activists and donors, but it does not serve the interests of the Democratic Party, its electoral coalition, or the nation as a whole. Above all, it’s left Democrats and the center-left bereft of compelling narratives of their own and estranged from their bedrock base of normie voters.
In the 2020 primaries, however, the normies struck back by propelling a somnolent Biden campaign to a string of decisive victories and the Democratic nomination. They also revealed just how unmoored progressive elites had become from their own voters over the past five years. Progressives not only badly misinterpreted the 2016 primary results, they stuck with this faulty interpretation in the face of evidence to the contrary. They ignored the normie revolt of the 2018 mid-term elections, where mainstream center-left candidates supported by the party establishment won highly contested races for Congress while those backed by progressive ideologues lost. An excessive focus by the political media on newly-crowned progressive stars like Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley crowded out sober analysis of the actual election results. As a consequence, many progressive elites and prospective presidential candidates alike failed to perceive the rise of an emerging normie majority in American politics.
Indeed, many 2020 Democratic presidential candidates assumed that pursuing the agendas set forth by the woke left and democratic socialists would win them the nomination. This assumption proved false, with Sanders cornering the market on the factional left-wing vote and campaigns that espoused woke rhetoric falling flat among their own supposed constituencies. By contrast, Biden won the support of moderate Democrats and black voters by significant margins, ran competitively with Sanders among Hispanics and Latinos in states like Arizona, and displayed strength in formerly Republican suburbs notwithstanding his strong center-left policy platform. He even managed to bring college-educated and non-college-educated white voters together in his coalition. Along with the 2018 mid-term results, the 2020 presidential primaries ought to put to bed any notions that elections can be won through appeals to woke identity politics or left-wing political purism.
Thanks in no small part to their own primary voters, then, Democrats possess a rare opportunity to build an enduring center-left coalition in 2020 - but only if they embrace the normie politics that animates many of their core supporters. The last several election cycles reveal much about the politics of the emerging normie majority.
Though they may be anathema to the woke left and democratic socialists alike, the politics of the emerging normie majority aren’t difficult to comprehend. To start, normies aren’t besotted with the avant-garde theories of race, gender, or other identity categories peddled by progressive activists and promoted by foundations. Their culturally moderate politics leads normies to accept gay marriage, for instance, while simultaneously holding deep reservations about the excesses of contemporary transgender activism. Normies remain open to ambitious economic programs like adding a public option to Obamacare and substantial investments in national infrastructure, but tend to view expansive progressive left proposals like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All as flights of political fancy. Ambivalent internationalists, normies don’t favor disengagement from global politics but remain cautious when it comes to foreign policy. Above all, normies seek a semblance of normalcy in national life that only a competent government and stable political leadership can deliver.
To fully take advantage of this golden opportunity to cement a coalition founded on this emerging normie majority, Democrats and the center-left need to stop being bullied by the demands of the progressive professional activist and some donor classes. Better yet, they should keep the political and electoral strength of these classes in perspective and embrace the normie politics of core Democratic constituencies. That starts with the recognition that activists and donors aim to advance their own points of view and preferred policies rather than build a broader center-left coalition that can win elections. It’s better to take heat from such groups for failing to send the proper signals than to drive away the normie voters that decided the 2018 mid-terms and 2020 primaries.
Make no mistake, Democrats must win over normie voters to defeat President Trump in the upcoming presidential election. White working-class voters, for instance, will still comprise around two-fifths of the national electorate - and even marginal shifts in favor of Democrats among these voters would doom Trump in critical states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Moreover, black and Hispanic voters tend to be more moderate in their political and social attitudes than the elite progressives who populate activist groups and philanthropic foundations. If there’s any lesson to be learned from the 2020 primary season, it’s that talk of “intersectionality,” “democratic socialism,” and other fashionable concepts failed to mobilize any voting bloc other than highly-educated progressives.
Despite their repeated failures, however, professional activists and donors will still retain the power and influence they have accumulated over the past several years. An emerging normie majority will only coalesce if the center-left stays in touch with political reality and turns back these corrosive and schismatic forces. Democrats must be willing to send positive signals to normies at the risk of bringing the wrath of activists down upon them. More than anything else, the center-left must recognize and accept the reality and electoral power of normie voters - and harness it for constructive ends.