Most voters want a party that emphasizes cost of living issues and makes the world a better place. Few Americans think in solidly ideologically terms. "Moderates" are mostly non-ideological.
Absolutely brilliant work, truly advances knowledge and understanding. Elliott, you have done a heroic job here. Many thanks. My one pellet in the punch bowl - nobody can have any of what they say they want unless we get the SuperPACs, dark money, out of politics, overturn Citizens United, restore some version of a Fair Political Practices Act. At present, the US is a captured state, not fit for purpose, at federal and state levels.
Thank you for this analysis! It is always commendable when people post new analyses that contradict some of their previously held stances.
I hope leaders in the Democratic party (honestly both parties) take a good look at this data. The best way to win a majority is to drop the many conflicting ideological priorities that bind the party today and prioritize improving peoples' lives above all else.
Pollsters have gotten so used to looking for "conflicts" and extremes that they ignore their own role in creating them. Excellent job at making the hidden but obvious obvious.
Man I love your 2x2 scatter plot charts which add dimensionality to the partisan monoliths.
Given your conclusion that voters care less about ideology and more about pragmatic legislation that is in our common interests, what are your views on bipartisanship and collaboration without compromising ideological positions? In particular, what is your take on activating non-partisans and independents by utilizing a mechanism like Bridge Grades which sort legislative pragmatists (from both parties) over ideological dogmatists who today engage in zero sum governance?
I now appreciate why you’ve been relatively quiet for the last few days.
Thank you so much for taking on this huge task and giving me the entry point to the more sophisticated side (otherwise known as the future) of data analysis in the realm most important to me.
I know this will inform how I look at and how I talk about all the political polls and analysis.
Very good political analysis, but I found the first chart in section 2 (note: it would be handy if you numbered your charts) very difficult to understand. You’re looking at two dimensions — left-right and social-economic policy — and it’s hard to tell what the dots mean. Were each person’s views given two ratings, one for left-right and one for focus on social vs. economic issues, and then plotted on the chart with one dot for each person? Or was each person given two ratings — one for the left-right focus of that person’s economic views and one for the left-right focus of the person’s social views, and then given two dots on the chart? I just couldn’t figure out what the two dimensions of the chart represented in terms of combining left-right and this (rather vague) economic-social dimension. Clearly most people fall into a lower-left to upper-right axis, but I couldn’t figure out what that meant.
Hi there Jack, your following interpretation of that chart is almost there:
"each person was given two ratings — one for the left-right focus of that person’s economic views and one for the left-right focus of the person’s social views"
but each person gets one dot, not two. for example, the dot in the upper left of the chart represents a single person with liberal economic views and conservative social views.
I really appreciate you getting at the crux of things as to the common things we all want from a party. Since a new, functioning government will have to be formed, and quickly, the people will immediately want the well-being and affordability first because this is being denied. Most of us are sick and exhausted with no brain power for ideology.
Voters clearly care a lot about the economy, especially affordability. I think the real question is how you get there. Public housing or zoning reform? Antitrust enforcement in healthcare or Medicare for all? What's politically feasible? What will actually yield results that voters will feel in time for the next election? And how do you address the problems that can't be tackled in that time frame?
This also underscores the problem in calling those affordability voters "non-ideological." They may not be explicitly committed to liberalism, conservatism, centrism, etc. But there are other kinds of ideologies, and those ideologies can pose barriers to addressing the issues they care about. The most obvious example is how ideas about race and gender have been used to hinder expansion of the welfare state.
If I'm understanding your conclusions, it's not "it's the economy, stupid", it's "it's *my* economy, stupid".
On another note, I have friends who describe Trump's obvious unattractive psychological morbidity in technical, clinical terms, i.e. *narcissistic personality disorder*.
I think, in terms of popular understanding, the better term is the vulgar, vernacular, *asshole*. He's not the guy you'd like to have a beer with and people grasp this via Kahneman's "thinking fast", it's the intuitive read.
These findings remind me a lot of what we have learned from More in Common’s polling as well - our partisan focus obscures there’s a lot that people are united around than we often realise.
"Responses like “Help the people” and “Represent the people” are frequent. In that sense, this group is best described as focused on material wellbeing, and not intensely interested in politics — or potentially even aware of the ideological lines of American politics."
This is good information, but somewhat simplistic.
We have all seen polls where overwhelming majorities support certain issues (e.g. background checks for gun purchases) but Congress NEVER PASSES any legislation to fulfill their constituents' requests.
So the next big question is "how do we get our representatives to pass laws that fulfill popular demands?"
If only the simple answer was "vote".
Alas, instead we have to descend into the chamber pot of Citizens United and the electoral college.
Absolutely brilliant work, truly advances knowledge and understanding. Elliott, you have done a heroic job here. Many thanks. My one pellet in the punch bowl - nobody can have any of what they say they want unless we get the SuperPACs, dark money, out of politics, overturn Citizens United, restore some version of a Fair Political Practices Act. At present, the US is a captured state, not fit for purpose, at federal and state levels.
Thank you for this analysis! It is always commendable when people post new analyses that contradict some of their previously held stances.
I hope leaders in the Democratic party (honestly both parties) take a good look at this data. The best way to win a majority is to drop the many conflicting ideological priorities that bind the party today and prioritize improving peoples' lives above all else.
Pollsters have gotten so used to looking for "conflicts" and extremes that they ignore their own role in creating them. Excellent job at making the hidden but obvious obvious.
Man I love your 2x2 scatter plot charts which add dimensionality to the partisan monoliths.
Given your conclusion that voters care less about ideology and more about pragmatic legislation that is in our common interests, what are your views on bipartisanship and collaboration without compromising ideological positions? In particular, what is your take on activating non-partisans and independents by utilizing a mechanism like Bridge Grades which sort legislative pragmatists (from both parties) over ideological dogmatists who today engage in zero sum governance?
I now appreciate why you’ve been relatively quiet for the last few days.
Thank you so much for taking on this huge task and giving me the entry point to the more sophisticated side (otherwise known as the future) of data analysis in the realm most important to me.
I know this will inform how I look at and how I talk about all the political polls and analysis.
Very good political analysis, but I found the first chart in section 2 (note: it would be handy if you numbered your charts) very difficult to understand. You’re looking at two dimensions — left-right and social-economic policy — and it’s hard to tell what the dots mean. Were each person’s views given two ratings, one for left-right and one for focus on social vs. economic issues, and then plotted on the chart with one dot for each person? Or was each person given two ratings — one for the left-right focus of that person’s economic views and one for the left-right focus of the person’s social views, and then given two dots on the chart? I just couldn’t figure out what the two dimensions of the chart represented in terms of combining left-right and this (rather vague) economic-social dimension. Clearly most people fall into a lower-left to upper-right axis, but I couldn’t figure out what that meant.
Hi there Jack, your following interpretation of that chart is almost there:
"each person was given two ratings — one for the left-right focus of that person’s economic views and one for the left-right focus of the person’s social views"
but each person gets one dot, not two. for example, the dot in the upper left of the chart represents a single person with liberal economic views and conservative social views.
good idea on numbering charts!
This is fantastic analysis. How to get this in front of the people having this debate for the dem party??
social media probably
Really interesting article. I confess to having difficulty grasping the charts and method descriptions at times, so welcomed the actual summaries.
I really appreciate you getting at the crux of things as to the common things we all want from a party. Since a new, functioning government will have to be formed, and quickly, the people will immediately want the well-being and affordability first because this is being denied. Most of us are sick and exhausted with no brain power for ideology.
Voters clearly care a lot about the economy, especially affordability. I think the real question is how you get there. Public housing or zoning reform? Antitrust enforcement in healthcare or Medicare for all? What's politically feasible? What will actually yield results that voters will feel in time for the next election? And how do you address the problems that can't be tackled in that time frame?
This also underscores the problem in calling those affordability voters "non-ideological." They may not be explicitly committed to liberalism, conservatism, centrism, etc. But there are other kinds of ideologies, and those ideologies can pose barriers to addressing the issues they care about. The most obvious example is how ideas about race and gender have been used to hinder expansion of the welfare state.
sure -- their ideology is a healthy economy and solid personal economic wellbeing
If I'm understanding your conclusions, it's not "it's the economy, stupid", it's "it's *my* economy, stupid".
On another note, I have friends who describe Trump's obvious unattractive psychological morbidity in technical, clinical terms, i.e. *narcissistic personality disorder*.
I think, in terms of popular understanding, the better term is the vulgar, vernacular, *asshole*. He's not the guy you'd like to have a beer with and people grasp this via Kahneman's "thinking fast", it's the intuitive read.
These findings remind me a lot of what we have learned from More in Common’s polling as well - our partisan focus obscures there’s a lot that people are united around than we often realise.
"Responses like “Help the people” and “Represent the people” are frequent. In that sense, this group is best described as focused on material wellbeing, and not intensely interested in politics — or potentially even aware of the ideological lines of American politics."
This is good information, but somewhat simplistic.
We have all seen polls where overwhelming majorities support certain issues (e.g. background checks for gun purchases) but Congress NEVER PASSES any legislation to fulfill their constituents' requests.
So the next big question is "how do we get our representatives to pass laws that fulfill popular demands?"
If only the simple answer was "vote".
Alas, instead we have to descend into the chamber pot of Citizens United and the electoral college.
Out of curiosity, around how long would you say people's responses were, on average? What was the longest?
Also, I think the first graph might be mislabeled. 38 percent isn't "most." In fact, it's less than the combined total of left- and right-identifiers.