What Makes A Voter Decide To Support One Candidate Over Another-- If The Candidate Backs Medicare-For-ALL Or If The Candidate Is Listed First On The Ballot?

Earlier today, we looked at a New York Magazine, piece by Eric Levitz, Voters Are Turning Against Trump In Places Hit Hard By COVID-19 as an introduction to a new study by political scientists Lynn Vavreck, Christopher Warshaw and Ryan Baxter-King who looked into the political consequences of COVID-19 fatalities for Trump and other Republican candidates. But there was more to Levitz's report than the study. He also talked about the failures of democracy and without using the f-word, the rise-- electorally-- of populist fascism.

"In recent years," he wrote, "the rise of anti-intellectual, plutocratic 'populism' throughout the Western world has tested progressives’ faith in actually existing democracy. When a pack of wellborn drunkards complicit in ruinous austerity wins the hearts and minds of working-class Britons-- by mendaciously championing a policy that will make them poorer-- it can be hard to summon warm feelings for popular sovereignty. And when the GOP can prioritize tax cuts for the rich at a time of record-high corporate profits, opioid overdoses, and income inequality-- and maintain its support among nonaffluent voters-- a liberal might be forgiven for wondering if rational self-government isn’t another God that failed." ... In Democracy for Realists, the political scientists Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen argue that voters largely cast their ballots on the basis of their acquired social identities, not informed policy preferences (of which most have few). The authors maintain, however, that democracy functions as a constraint on misrule, as voters tend to punish incumbents for major losses suffered on their watch." Ergo: survivors of the pandemic even in red areas, turning against Trump and the Republican Party that enabled him.





The Democrats count on "waves" like the anti-Trump/anti-Republican wave of 2018 and what looks like an even bigger one this year. Why? Because their tent is so big that they can no longer run on a shared policy vision. Whatever was left of a national Democratic Party that kind organize credibly around the interests of the working class was killed off by Bill Clinton's absolute and unflinching embrace of neoliberalism and corporatism. Obama did little to turn that around and Biden will be far worse than Clinton on his worst day. Sooooo... all we really have left of a national party on the left is a coalition of identity politics.

I know-- we've played this before, but let me urge you to listen to Biden's words about how he sees human nature. "Lobbyists aren't bad people"-- his whole family are a bunch of lobbyists, so he may be just a bit prejudiced. "People who accept money from them aren't bad people-- he does and has for decades and decades so, again... a bit prejudiced. "It's human nature." It's a defense of bribery and corruption. Yeah, yeah... I know, Trump is worse... the classic greater of two evils.





Thank God I don't live in a swing state and don't have to wrestle with the idea of holding my nose and voting for Biden, the lesser evil. I used to say that Biden is so horrible that even if I lived in the most swingy state-- say Florida-- I would never lower myself to vote for the vomit in front of me just because there is also a pile of stinking diarrhea also in front of me. Now I'm less certain about that, although there is no way to ever know what I would actually do if I had to face that conundrum. Medias Touch has no hesitate: The rule of law or... Trump:





I read some academic papers that I want to share about what motives people to vote for one candidate or another. Although I feel that Bartels and Achen are correct that many people decide who to vote for irrespective of policy agendas. This paper, Why People Vote makes the point that "Rather than voting based on political ideologies, political parties, or candidates, sometimes voters cast votes based on specific policy preferences. In 'issue voting,' voters cast their vote based primarily on specific political issues. In the context of an election, issues include 'any questions of public policy which have been or are a matter of controversy and are sources of disagreement between political parties.' According to the theory of issue voting, voters vote based on policy preferences; they compare the candidates’ respective principles against their own in order to decide who to vote for."

In other words, is one candidate supporting Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal and the other candidate opposing both or not very interested in either? That is usually enough for most Blue America members, but Blue America members aren't like most voters. The paper goes on:

A voter does not need to have an in-depth understanding of every issue or know how a candidate stands on every issue, rather a voter should have a sense of which candidate he or she agrees with the most. Voters use many different tactics to rationalize their view on a particular issue. Some people look at what has happened in the past and predict how they think a particular issue will affect them in the future.

Issue voting is often contrasted with party voting. A 2010 University of California, Davis study found that voters switch between issue voting and party voting depending on how much information is available to them about a given candidate. Low-information elections, such as those for congressional candidates, would thus be determined by party voting, whereas presidential elections, which tend to give voters much more information about each candidate, have the potential to be issue-driven.

A voter’s understanding of parties’ principles is strengthened and developed over time as a person gains experience with more political events. In order for an issue to create the foundation for party choice, a voter must first be concerned about a particular issue and have some knowledge about that issue.

In order for a person to be an issue voter, they must be able to recognize that there is more than one opinion about a particular issue, have formed a solid opinion about it, and be able to connect their opinion to a specific political party. According to some studies, only 40 to 60 percent of the informed population even perceives party differences, and can thus partake in party voting. This would suggest that it is quite common for individuals to develop opinions of issues without the aid of a political party.

Here's an outline of the author's assertion of why people do vote:

Socioeconomic Factors

• Wealthier people are more likely to vote, as they generally possess the resources and time to be active in politics.
• Of all the socioeconomic factors impacting voter turnout, education has the greatest impact. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote, as they have a better understanding of how the system works, how to influence the system, and why participation is important.
• A person is more or less likely to vote depending on their occupation. Managerial or professional workers are more likely to vote, and the unemployed are the least likely group to vote.

Gender, Age, Religion, Race and Ethnicity

• Traditionally people ages 30 to 65 are most likely to vote, but recently young people have been coming out to the polls more frequently, in part due to mobilization via social media.
• Since the 1980s, women have voted as much or more than men, removing the idea that there is a gender gap in certain types of political participation like voting.
• Different ethnic groups also have unique voting trends. African-American voters vote as much as other voters of the same socioeconomic status, and Asian voters have lower voter turnout rates. Latinos tend to vote less than other groups, but their vote has been rising in importance.
• People may vote due to religious convictions or socially conservative viewpoints, such as those voters who identify with the Christian right. Voters identifying with the Christian right have high turnout rates and vote frequently.

Party Identification

• Since the 1960's more people have chosen to be independents rather than identify with either Republicans or Democrats, which means that less and less people vote based on their identification with a specific party.
• Some argue that a person’s party identity is a relatively fixed social identity, formed by personal experiences, family beliefs, or social environment. Others claim that party identity is flexible, and that people change their party identity according to their experiences and rational choice.
• Party identification is not just an individual identity; it can also be important for groups. Social, economic, racial, and other similar groups can become aligned to certain parties, and then vote according to that party identification.
• When people identify very strongly with one party, they tend to vote for that party consistently. This can lead to straight-ticket voting.

Political Ideology

• Voters typically agree with one of the main political ideologies ( liberalism, conservatism or moderates) and they vote according to the beliefs of that particular ideology.
• Libertarians are less organized and well-known than conservatives, liberals or moderates, but are a significant minority ideology. They believe in social liberties, but conservative economic policies.
• Moderates fall somewhere in between liberalism and conservatism on the spectrum of political ideologies.
Approximately 35% of Americans identified as moderates in 2010, and these voters tend to vote either Republican, Democrat, or neither.
• Liberals believe in progressive social policies and more government provision of positive rights, such as healthcare or education. Liberals tend to vote Democrat, and in 2010, roughly 25% of Americans identified as liberals.
• Conservatives prefer to maintain the status quo and believe in socially conservative policies, as well as limited government intervention in the economy. This is a prominent ideology in US politics, as roughly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives.

The Candidates

• While party loyalty, political ideologies, and specific policy issues are important to voters, candidates ‘ personal popularity may also be a crucial factor for voters.
• In recent years, more and more voters are identifying as independents. This partisan dealignment means that more and more people do not base their votes on party identification, and may be more likely to vote based on short-term criteria like the likeability of a specific candidate.
• Campaigns attempt to create an image for their candidate. By presenting a candidate in the right way, campaigns hope to make their candidate look like a more attractive and desirable choice than the opponent.

The next paper, The Psychology of Voting by Jon Krosnick, asserts that "One thing voters sometimes do is vote for the first name they read on the ballot, just to get the decision over with. As a result, candidates get about 2.3% more votes on average when their names are listed first on a ballot than when they’re listed later. And that’s the average gain-- in about half of races, the fist-listed candidate gets even more votes, as much as 6% or 7% sometimes." How horrible is that for a candidate who spends so much time in developing a message and so much money on getting it out?

Krosnick came to the conclusion that "the single most powerful predictor of a person’s vote choice is his or her political party identification, as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or a member of another party. Usually, a person affiliates with a party because that party shares his or her preferences on the handful of policy issues that he or she cares most deeply about. So voting based on party is an easy way to vote for the candidate who will push government to do what you want it to do most. Second, research has shown that voters’ perceptions of candidates’ personalities (their intelligence, their knowledge, their trustworthiness, and their ability to be strong leaders) also predict some people’s votes very well. And people’s assessments of the health of the country predict other people’s votes."

[T]he single most powerful predictor of a person’s vote choice is his or her political party identification, as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or a member of another party. Usually, a person affiliates with a party because that party shares his or her preferences on the handful of policy issues that he or she cares most deeply about. So voting based on party is an easy way to vote for the candidate who will push government to do what you want it to do most.

Second, research has shown that voters’ perceptions of candidates’ personalities (their intelligence, their knowledge, their trustworthiness, and their ability to be strong leaders) also predict some people’s votes very well. And people’s assessments of the health of the country predict other people’s votes. So it looks like most Americans vote according to the principles of representative democracy, but guardianship democracy and performance appraisal are approaches alive and well, too.

Recent psychological research has turned up some interesting quirks in the ways people evaluate presidential candidates, many of which are surprises to political consultants and campaign advisors. For example, most campaigns save their advertising money for the end of the campaign, so they can put ads on television during the final weeks or days of the campaign. This approach is based on the assumption that voters are most influenced by what they learn most recently. But it turns out that in politics as in all other areas of life, first impressions are very powerful and inertial. Once you form an impression of a person, it colors how you interpret new information about the person. So candidates would get more bang for a buck spent on advertising if they spent it early in a campaign rather than late.

Another popular assumption among political observers is that most Americans are pretty cynical about politicians and expect the worst from them. But instead, political psychologists have found that when Americans begin to learn about a new politician, they approach him or her optimistically, hoping for a “white knight” to appear who will be competent, trustworthy, and effective. That means that new politicians coming onto the national scene for the first time aren’t fighting quite the uphill battle many observers think they will.

Another interesting finding from political psychological research is that people don’t treat good and bad information about a candidate equally. If a little creature is to survive in the forest, it must optimistically look everywhere and anywhere for food, but it must also be hyper vigilant for any signs of danger, so it can make a quick escape when necessary. In a similar way, voters are especially attuned to unfavorable information about political candidates. Learning one bad thing about a candidate does much more damage to the candidate’s image than learning one good thing helps. So it is no surprise that we see so much negative advertising: a dollar spent criticizing your opponent will help you more than a dollar spent spreading the word of your good qualities.