« LOLCats r In ur magazine, taking ur column inches | Main | D'Oh! »
July 26, 2007
Voter Behaviors In Action
To make the earlier post on the three theories of voter behavior -- policy-oriented, projection, and persuasion -- a bit more concrete, my sense is that the Democratic primary, at least as it's playing out among high information voters, has actually broken down neatly into a demonstration of each.
Edwards has gained a lot of rather unexpected support from policy-oriented types -- voters who are surveying the range of candidates and seeing whose white papers conform most closely with their preferences. Want the most radical health care plan you can find? Edwards is your guy.
Hillary, by contrast, seems to trigger a lot of projection. I can't tell you how many of her supporters have tried to convince me that she's really much more liberal than she comes off, but has been forced into displaying a centrist, hawkish streak because of the demands of running as a woman in a traditionally masculine sphere. Her supporters seem to spend a lot of time convincing themselves that she's really very progressive, and appearances to the contrary are misleading.
And lastly, Obama's actually been a fairly persuasive candidate. His policies are close enough to progressive ideals that his supporters don't need to invent new ones for him, but they're just cautious enough to open him up to attack for the left. The result has been a lot of Obama folks arguing earnestly for the superiority of policies -- like a near-universal, but not actually compulsory, health care plan -- that I don't think, a few months ago, they would have considered the optimal approach.
Caveats abound here: Every one of the candidates has supporters engaging in all types of voter behavior, and I'm not suggesting any particular approach is better than the other. Policy-oriented voters aren't very good at winning elections. Projectors may well be right. The case Obama mounts may very well be persuasive. But I think this is, in general, correct, and it's an interesting demonstration of the various behaviors.
July 26, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Unfortunately, issues are not the only problem, there are those who believe in public deception, by use of smoke and mirrors. This, is what is happening here, in Hillary Rodham Clinton's case, there are those trying to shift our focus from the real issue, information on Iraq, provided to Congress' was false, and contrived. Information, being provided now, is not any better, is obvious, the Bush' administration insists on feeding Congress' the same bullshit, over and over again. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is desparately trying to point out to our American people, we really have no good idea, what is happening in Iraq, since all our information comes from the Bush' administration, or, media contrived stories.
If one pays attention, one will find, she is trying to point out, an investigation into this, unfortunate situation, is necessary, first, before we decide which course to take, next.
One, must not mistake toughness, for not being liberal enough, or American enough. A real issue here, is a pseudo-Christian, right-wing conpsiracy, Republican infested Congress', of which there is an effort being made, to brand all Democrats, other than American citizens, elected to offical American public office, by their American constituents. Until these people, see it fit, to call off their attack on America, wherein everyone who disagrees is branded anti-American, then one must realize, this abiltiy to see, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as working hard in congress, meaning having to take positions, supported by both parties, as smoke and mirrors tactics. She, must do the work of representing all Americans, now anyway, as there is no Republican congressional effort of which is legal, and is proving, already, she does so well.
Should not our congress, be bi-partisan, always, after an election, in the interst of the American people? Then this is what one should see, if one, by passes the smoke and mirrors, Hillary Rodham Clinton's, interst is in serving the American people.
If one rereads your comments, one will see immediately, what is the result of smoke and mirrors.
I repeat:
Only problem with this whole entire theory is: the Bush' administration. They continue to operate issueless, and it is clear the Republicans intend, by viewing their debates, to win again in 2008 by going, as did George W. Bush', completely issueless.
The only cnadidate with worthwhile information on the issues, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. No one else, Democrat, or Republican, after viewing the debates, so far, even appears to know what an issue is. And, those anti-issues, election's free of issues, issueless values, types like George W. Bush', even mock her, in public, for her attempts to move discussions to issues.
The real issue, I'm sold on with regards to Senator Clinton, is her representation of her New York state constituency. She, has proven, her fiasco in congress while first lady, pursuing her own dream of nationwide, healthcare for all, regardless of ability to pay, has been proven, not to occur when shes an elected candidate. There, she represents her constituency, even if their wishes are contrary to hers. That's right, she will put aside her own views, and serve the interests of her constituency.
Which is why she is the only candidate running, I consider can even be president, she will represent the American people, even if we all want, other than what she does. And, this means, her ability, to demonstrate knowledge of issues, and what the actual issues are, will allow her to inform us, the American people of what we really face, so she can then pursue the course for this country, most Americans choose.
I hope to see you after 2008, back in an America; we can again call a democratic republic, with a president named, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Repsectfully,
Mark Robert Gates
Please my blog:
http://www.benevolentlybeloved.com/MindMatters/
Posted by: Mark Robert Gates | Jul 26, 2007 3:02:45 PM
Don't repost comments from other threads in this thread. This blog is not a place for you to spam in favor of your candidate. This is your warning.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 26, 2007 3:04:09 PM
I don't exactly know why, but your response to the spam comments read as really sinister. I got kinda scared. :)
Off topic for this thread, but I asked you a question about your S-Chip article in the previous thread and was hoping you might be able to answer it.
Also, its great to see you paying attention to hard-core political scientists.
Posted by: Andrew | Jul 26, 2007 3:11:28 PM
That's a nice way to break it down, and I think it works.
I lean toward Obama precisely because he is persuasive. Substantive differences between the three are relatively trivial; Obama strikes me as the one most likely to persuade some non-trivial percentage of conservatives to vote Democratic in 2008.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 26, 2007 3:33:12 PM
vottypesers? It took me several minutes to figure out just what sort of typo that was.
Posted by: jhupp | Jul 26, 2007 3:49:36 PM
I agree that Obama supporters wouldn't have viewed a near-universal plan as ideal, but those people also certainly wouldn't view a "compulsory" plan as their dream solution either. When most people think of "universal health care", their first thought is not that they wish the government would force everyone to buy health insurance like they do with car insurance. People generally talk about car insurance as "compulsory" or "mandatory", not "universal".
Posted by: KCinDC | Jul 26, 2007 4:01:13 PM
Well, a single payer plan is usually not thought of as mandatory insurance, either, but it is.
Posted by: Clark | Jul 26, 2007 4:39:22 PM
In the same sense that being protected by the police is "mandatory security" and highways are "mandatory infrastructure".
Posted by: KCinDC | Jul 26, 2007 4:53:28 PM
While Edwards is now winning a lot of support from policy types, my support for him started in 2004 mostly as an electability thing, after looking at a bunch of polls. I imagine that a lot of people back him for that reason, even if they didn't spend as much time with the polling data as I did.
I like the underlying research here a lot. I'm not sure how well it applies to primaries, though, because general election voters don't have to think about electability while primary voters do. But then, primary voters aren't models of rationality in making electability calculations, so perhaps the theory will apply there somehow.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 26, 2007 5:22:20 PM
What KCinDC just said.
And yeah, it's rare that a candidate can win a party's nomination if his base is high-information voters. Candidates like Tsongas and Bradley almost invariably come in second.
Candidates like that are better at issues than at narrative, and the most convincing narrative is what wins. Somebody had a post a week or two back (at the Prospect, perhaps?) saying that each candidate had to sell a three-part narrative to the voters: what's wrong with the country, how to fix it, and why s/he's the right guy/gal to do it. The gist of the post was it's amazing how many otherwise good candidates can't encapsulate that for the voters they're trying to convince.
Edwards may have found his narrative at the debate the other night: the insurance companies, the oil companies, etc. are standing in the way of reform on health care, global warming, and so forth; we need to fight them head-on, rather than by triangulation; and he's the guy because unlike Hillary and Obama, he'll take it to them.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Jul 26, 2007 5:30:47 PM
"Edwards has gained a lot of rather unexpected support from policy-oriented types -- voters who are surveying the range of candidates and seeing whose white papers conform most closely with their preferences. Want the most radical health care plan you can find? Edwards is your guy."
I think Edwards has also gained a lot of support from politco-oriented types like me. He's likeliest to furthest advance the political cause of the left.
Want the largest gain in American political trench warfare for Democrats and progressives you can find? Edwards is your guy.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 26, 2007 5:35:24 PM
I support Edwards, because his views most closely align with my own. Hillary's views are hillary's views. A lot of her supporters are young women who want to vote for a woman, but like to deny that that's their entire reason for voting for Hillary. So they have to create this alternate reality wherein Hillary isn't REALLY responsible for the things she says or the policies she advances, because evil men made her do it. The problem with this is that Hillary really, truly, and fervently believes in neoconservatism and classical economics. She is steadfast in her beliefs, and nobody will change that. Her supporters can not accept that, so they lie to themselves and to others.
I'd rather vote for Mitt Romney personally. He is weak, and he is immensely vulnerable to public pressure. He will look at the situation in Iraq and his poll numbers, and at some point in his first term he will withdraw. Hillary will not. She will dig in her heels and she will refuse to leave Iraq all the way up to January of 2013 when she gets replaced by a Republican. If those are the two choices in 2008, as it looks like they may be, I will gladly support Mitt Romney and put on hold all of the other issues I care about for 4 years. Hillary wouldn't have done anything on them anyway, and Mitt is an ambitious flip-flopper who will do what's good for himself. In this case, it will also be what's good for his country.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 27, 2007 9:22:12 AM
"I can't tell you how many of her supporters have tried to convince me that she's really much more liberal than she comes off, but has been forced into displaying a centrist, hawkish streak because of the demands of running as a woman in a traditionally masculine sphere."
As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton is not trying to deceive the voters about what she would do if she were elected. If she displays a "centerist, hawkish streak" now, I expect she will do the same when in office.
I would add that Bill Clinton also had a "centerist, hawkish streak." In fact, I think he was at least as hawkish as our current president. He was his willing to attack North Korea to stop North Korea from producing plutonium. (War was averted when North Korea agreed to a deal brokered by Jimmy Carter.) He interveined in Kosovo. He attacked Iraq in 1998. True, he bombed Iraq rather than invading it, but that doesn't mean that Clinton wasn't a hawk. It just means he wasn't an idiot.
Posted by: Kenneth Almquist | Jul 27, 2007 11:45:22 PM
In fact, I think he was at least as hawkish as our current president.
Not even close. Where did you learn he was willing to attack North Korea? That would have been even more stupid that invading Iraq. You're right that he wasn't an idiot, which is only part of why he wasn't nearly as hawkish as Bush.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 28, 2007 12:23:23 AM
Posted by: fxzvk | Sep 28, 2007 7:42:17 AM
