Americans, including swing voters, see the Republican Party as 20 points more extreme than Democrats — and the Democrats as weak and ineffective. So why would the *Democrats* moderate?
Which Democrats are seen as the most weak; & which Democrats are viewed as strong? And, are there any empathetic Dems also viewed as strong? We need names in order to get your discovery put into action!
Wonderful analysis and answered some questions I had following the 2024 presidential campaign. In my post-mortem analysis of that campaign, I was struck by a Gallup poll (registered voters, fielded Sep 16-24, 2024) titled “U.S. Voters’ Impressions of Presidential Candidates’ Personal Qualities.” It indicated that, versus Trump, voters believed that Harris was the candidate who was more likeable (net 22), had strong moral character (net 13), and was honest and trustworthy (net 8), but lost her advantage to Trump when evaluated as a strong and decisive leader (net -11) and can get things done (net -12). Also, respondents indicated that Harris would handle healthcare, abortion, and climate change better than Trump, but Trump would handle the economy, immigration, and foreign affairs better than Harris. A Pew poll (fielded Aug 26-Sep 2, 2024) confirmed that the economy was the top voter issue. Harris' perceived issue strength addressed three of the top four issues for all voters, not including the economy; Trump's issue strength reflected the three top issues for his base, including the economy.
Is there a backstory on the basis of the adjectives you are using here? E.g. social psychology or polisci research, PCA analysis, etc.? There are clear gaps even between related concepts, which suggests that respondents are conceptualizing them more distinctly than I expected.
Al Green was a lot more impressive with his sign at SOTU, than was Hakeem Jeffries and 'decorum.' Too bad more Democrats didn't use that messaging opportunity to be tough. How about they had continued to hold up signs about Epstein files, prices, military strikes, ICE murders, etc.? Politics as usual makes little sense when it's a fascist takeover underway.
Clear insight here backed up by evidence. Ain't that a nice thing to see? How do we tell voters that the challenge is to reclaim authority that has been seized from them or unwittingly ceded to corporations and illegitimate government entities? Authority is strong but can also be nurturing. Letting those of us in the Democratic party know that our elected reps are committed to recalining authorty for us is a powerful message, but telling people to sit silently while a madman rants is not that message. And as explicated below, Richard Sennett foretold this in his 1980 book Authority. https://tjelliott.substack.com/p/testing-assumptions-our-problems-with-authority-part-ii
"And second, that messages to moderate are often coded as being weak."
This is the key insight. There is a difference between "being moderate" and "moderating". If one can strongly advocate for a moderate position, or for a number of positions that don't all neatly fit on one side of the political spectrum, that can win in certain places.
However, if a given politician were to "moderate" their positions, i.e. alters what they advocate for, that is not a formula for success. This is why "flip-flopping" can be perceived as weakness, even if new circumstances suggests that changing ones position makes sense.
Great summary of the problem and also the indicated actions. I particularly like "Maybe that means holding up nominees, forcing procedural votes, shutting down the government, or even showing up at protests." Absolutely we should be endorsing that, realizing it's the only way to break up the bullies in a playground fight. And it's good, good optics. Thanks for that.
Dems should adopt a "SHEEPDOG" brand: those who protect peoples' civil rights and economic opportunities, and also fight corruption! I wondered where all the sheepdogs had gone, then we met Alex Pretti.
What is the best way to get this in front of the people actually making these decisions about party direction?? R. Eliot Morris, have you been trying to do that?
Weakness is decided by who wins power or not. Strength is determined by number of seats in the House and Senate. If the Democratic party were stripped away only to the 100 House members and 20 Senate members with the "strongest" most extreme rhetoric, they would be in actuality far far weaker than they are today, and would likely be rated as such.
Rhetoric cannot substitute for peoples' eyes and ears. They can literally observe that the Democratic party has less seats than Republicans and thus cannot pass policy and is thus weaker.
The only real answer to overcoming weakness is winning back seats. Full stop. That means studying and learning from the people who have actually flipped Republican seats or held seats in otherwise Republican districts.
My take on this analysis is that you cannot affect perceptions of strong/weak without winning seats, whereas the party can actually change policy platforms and reject the unpopular extreme parts. So if your back of the envelop math shows that moderation gives the same benefit as "looking strong" then let's do the thing that is actually possible.
Completely agree. Platner looks ready to take on the opposition. And he uses great analogies like "We've fought two wars since the last increase in the minimum wage." (actually paraphrasing what he said).
The lesson people seem to have taken from the tattoo and the Reddit posts is — “wow, he’s still standing and still fighting after all that; he keeps showing up and speaking out.” And they like it more than they dislike the tattoo/reddit posts. Just a guess.
Economic issues are the ones people really care about. Here in CA, we have Gov. Newsom fighting against the billionaires tax that would help fund health care for working people and the lower classes in general. But much of the Democratic establishment is firmly in the pocket of the wealthy, and many are wealthy themselves.
Real strength would come from implementing policies that the public, according to Mr. Elliott's polling, already support. Income redistribution, by whatever means, beats violence, which is where society may end up if present trends continue unchecked.
Real strength comes from winning elections (so you can implement policies that the public support). Not from rhetoric.
The largest input into the perception of strength is actual strength. That's what's missing from this analysis. You can't just talk your way into being stronger without having the seats and votes to back it up.
And then why are people not flocking to the Democratic banner? I think incompetence in campaigning is part of it, and the general decline in thinking skills, but not much changes for a lot of people, no matter who's president.
Which Democrats are seen as the most weak; & which Democrats are viewed as strong? And, are there any empathetic Dems also viewed as strong? We need names in order to get your discovery put into action!
Wonderful analysis and answered some questions I had following the 2024 presidential campaign. In my post-mortem analysis of that campaign, I was struck by a Gallup poll (registered voters, fielded Sep 16-24, 2024) titled “U.S. Voters’ Impressions of Presidential Candidates’ Personal Qualities.” It indicated that, versus Trump, voters believed that Harris was the candidate who was more likeable (net 22), had strong moral character (net 13), and was honest and trustworthy (net 8), but lost her advantage to Trump when evaluated as a strong and decisive leader (net -11) and can get things done (net -12). Also, respondents indicated that Harris would handle healthcare, abortion, and climate change better than Trump, but Trump would handle the economy, immigration, and foreign affairs better than Harris. A Pew poll (fielded Aug 26-Sep 2, 2024) confirmed that the economy was the top voter issue. Harris' perceived issue strength addressed three of the top four issues for all voters, not including the economy; Trump's issue strength reflected the three top issues for his base, including the economy.
Great analysis. Thx.
So... Elliott, whaddya think about the Harris endorsement of Crockett in the D. Texas Senate primary? (You know Texas.)
Is there a backstory on the basis of the adjectives you are using here? E.g. social psychology or polisci research, PCA analysis, etc.? There are clear gaps even between related concepts, which suggests that respondents are conceptualizing them more distinctly than I expected.
Al Green was a lot more impressive with his sign at SOTU, than was Hakeem Jeffries and 'decorum.' Too bad more Democrats didn't use that messaging opportunity to be tough. How about they had continued to hold up signs about Epstein files, prices, military strikes, ICE murders, etc.? Politics as usual makes little sense when it's a fascist takeover underway.
Outstanding article, thanks.
Agreed.
Clear insight here backed up by evidence. Ain't that a nice thing to see? How do we tell voters that the challenge is to reclaim authority that has been seized from them or unwittingly ceded to corporations and illegitimate government entities? Authority is strong but can also be nurturing. Letting those of us in the Democratic party know that our elected reps are committed to recalining authorty for us is a powerful message, but telling people to sit silently while a madman rants is not that message. And as explicated below, Richard Sennett foretold this in his 1980 book Authority. https://tjelliott.substack.com/p/testing-assumptions-our-problems-with-authority-part-ii
"And second, that messages to moderate are often coded as being weak."
This is the key insight. There is a difference between "being moderate" and "moderating". If one can strongly advocate for a moderate position, or for a number of positions that don't all neatly fit on one side of the political spectrum, that can win in certain places.
However, if a given politician were to "moderate" their positions, i.e. alters what they advocate for, that is not a formula for success. This is why "flip-flopping" can be perceived as weakness, even if new circumstances suggests that changing ones position makes sense.
Great summary of the problem and also the indicated actions. I particularly like "Maybe that means holding up nominees, forcing procedural votes, shutting down the government, or even showing up at protests." Absolutely we should be endorsing that, realizing it's the only way to break up the bullies in a playground fight. And it's good, good optics. Thanks for that.
Exactamundo, Elliott.
Dems should adopt a "SHEEPDOG" brand: those who protect peoples' civil rights and economic opportunities, and also fight corruption! I wondered where all the sheepdogs had gone, then we met Alex Pretti.
Good analogy, especially when it's the very formidable Great Pyrenees protecting against the predators.
What is the best way to get this in front of the people actually making these decisions about party direction?? R. Eliot Morris, have you been trying to do that?
Weakness is decided by who wins power or not. Strength is determined by number of seats in the House and Senate. If the Democratic party were stripped away only to the 100 House members and 20 Senate members with the "strongest" most extreme rhetoric, they would be in actuality far far weaker than they are today, and would likely be rated as such.
Rhetoric cannot substitute for peoples' eyes and ears. They can literally observe that the Democratic party has less seats than Republicans and thus cannot pass policy and is thus weaker.
The only real answer to overcoming weakness is winning back seats. Full stop. That means studying and learning from the people who have actually flipped Republican seats or held seats in otherwise Republican districts.
My take on this analysis is that you cannot affect perceptions of strong/weak without winning seats, whereas the party can actually change policy platforms and reject the unpopular extreme parts. So if your back of the envelop math shows that moderation gives the same benefit as "looking strong" then let's do the thing that is actually possible.
This feels very informative as to what’s happening in the Maine-Sen primary.
Corporate $$$ is also a factor.
Completely agree. Platner looks ready to take on the opposition. And he uses great analogies like "We've fought two wars since the last increase in the minimum wage." (actually paraphrasing what he said).
The lesson people seem to have taken from the tattoo and the Reddit posts is — “wow, he’s still standing and still fighting after all that; he keeps showing up and speaking out.” And they like it more than they dislike the tattoo/reddit posts. Just a guess.
He also apologized. In today’s politics, that’s pretty rare.
In an interview with the New Yorker he said that people make mistakes, learn from their mistakes, and change their views…we learn.
Economic issues are the ones people really care about. Here in CA, we have Gov. Newsom fighting against the billionaires tax that would help fund health care for working people and the lower classes in general. But much of the Democratic establishment is firmly in the pocket of the wealthy, and many are wealthy themselves.
Real strength would come from implementing policies that the public, according to Mr. Elliott's polling, already support. Income redistribution, by whatever means, beats violence, which is where society may end up if present trends continue unchecked.
Real strength comes from winning elections (so you can implement policies that the public support). Not from rhetoric.
The largest input into the perception of strength is actual strength. That's what's missing from this analysis. You can't just talk your way into being stronger without having the seats and votes to back it up.
And then why are people not flocking to the Democratic banner? I think incompetence in campaigning is part of it, and the general decline in thinking skills, but not much changes for a lot of people, no matter who's president.
"Out of touch? Effete? Moi?!" -- Sen. Schumer
"Warning: the rest of this section is pretty wonky!"
Suggest that positive reframing is warranted, what about:
"Icing on the cake!"
Invaluable.