Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Is It Really A Battle For The Middle? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
There isn't a drawback from joining a party that I can see. Speaking personally, depending on the year, there are times I should probably be registered as a Republican and others where I should be registered as a Democrat. Closed primaries, in general, are a PITA. I don't get nearly as much junk mail though...which is odd. I'd think, I should be getting double the junk mail (mail from both sides trying to win me over) but that hasn't been the case thus far.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I think this is a fatguy statement, not mine.
I still can't quote nested quotes right, either.
The Commish
Footballguy
In the scenario, I didn't get a vote in the primary
You make no sense. I don't typically vote for people I don't want. That seems weird. I've written in votes more times than I can count in states where it's allowed. If neither is up to par of two options I don't vote for either one. Laugh away? I guess?
toshiba
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Actually, if you compare the betting odds to win the democratic nomination and the betting odds to win the presidency and you do the math...the odds tell a similar story regarding the relative strengths of the democratic candidates. They're all far worse than the polling would suggest, but Bloomberg is the strongest (looks relatively even with Trump head to head), the others are all about the same (roughly 60/40 underdogs) and Buttigieg is now the weakest head to head at something like 65/35.
Worth a read: There is no swing voter.
My own view based on empirical data in a few studies I’ve seen:
If we oversimplify and presume that there’s a left-right spectrum in the general election, by definition whoever wins the median voter along that spectrum will win the election.
But winning the median voter is not most effectively done by winning over undecideds in the middle. It is most effectively done by winning the turnout game.
Also, winning the turnout game is not most effectively done by energizing your own base. It is most effectively done by energizing your opponent’s base less than he energizes yours.
But the whole premise of a left-right spectrum is faulty. “Left-right” suggests policy positions. But while most people might think they cast their votes based primarily on policy considerations, most people are wrong about that.
So it’s all kind of complicated.
That said, there is pretty strong evidence that, controlling for other factors, more moderate candidates do better in general elections than more extreme candidates. Hence I voted “mostly agree.”
My own view based on empirical data in a few studies I’ve seen:
If we oversimplify and presume that there’s a left-right spectrum in the general election, by definition whoever wins the median voter along that spectrum will win the election.
But winning the median voter is not most effectively done by winning over undecideds in the middle. It is most effectively done by winning the turnout game.
Also, winning the turnout game is not most effectively done by energizing your own base. It is most effectively done by energizing your opponent’s base less than he energizes yours.
But the whole premise of a left-right spectrum is faulty. “Left-right” suggests policy positions. But while most people might think they cast their votes based primarily on policy considerations, most people are wrong about that.
So it’s all kind of complicated.
That said, there is pretty strong evidence that, controlling for other factors, more moderate candidates do better in general elections than more extreme candidates. Hence I voted “mostly agree.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I'm more on the fence. There is some value to the middle, but I think over-stated. There's not as much crossover for the Nixon "triangle" and Clinton/Blair "third way" as existed 20-40 years ago. Rockefeller Republicans and Boll Weevil Democrats are no longer out there. Battle lines are pretty well-drawn, with some scattered folks in no-mans land. Energizing the base to get out and join their trenches is about on par in importance with attracting those from the no-mans land to come over.
ETA: I think the ideal candidate is someone who can do both. I think Obama was able to do that, but it's tough to find. I think it was Van Jones who said the Democrats are like the Avengers right now with no one can do it alone against Trump's Thanos; right now, each of them just have the pieces to do so. (I only partially got that reference, but I kind of agreed with it.)
ETA: I think the ideal candidate is someone who can do both. I think Obama was able to do that, but it's tough to find. I think it was Van Jones who said the Democrats are like the Avengers right now with no one can do it alone against Trump's Thanos; right now, each of them just have the pieces to do so. (I only partially got that reference, but I kind of agreed with it.)
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
For nested quotes, click and drag to highlight everything you want to quote, then a little black bordered popup should appear saying "Quote Selection" -- took me awhile to find that myself.
Osaurus
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, danged if I didn't just see that popup for the first time. I blame Joe Bryant.
Thanks very much.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
the people dont want it to be a battle for the middle, they want it to be a battle for America. media, which wants ratings & stasis to exploit, wants it to be a battle for the middle because that's where the ultimate fearmongering which does not endanger their interests lies
Nipsey
Footballguy
We've been hearing "all the dems need to do is nominate a moderate/centrist for an easy win" for as long as I can remember. Look at recent history. In 2004 the dems nominate moderate John Kerry who goes on to lose to wildly unpopular GWB. In 2008 Barack Obama runs a progressive campaign (didn't turn out to be progressive) and wins in a landslide. In 2016 centrist Hillary Clinton loses what should have been the biggest slam dunk election in our lifetime. And here we are in 2020 and people are STILL saying the nominee needs to be a moderate and appeal to the middle in order to win. That archaic thinking has been proven wrong over and over and over. The nominee needs to be someone who fires up the masses, not someone who runs to the middle in the general in order to pick off the stragglers.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
There's a great Venn diagram out there that shows how little overlap there is between Independents, Undecideds and Persuadables. It's almost impossible to target them because they're different people.
She was quick to point out last night that primary turnout doesn't predict general turnout.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
This article covers a lot of these points and agrees -- and also uses examples from the GOP side as additional evidence.
Sounds like an internal party problem. If you are in the middle, then you are picking up independent votes. You should do better than with a far left candidate but apparently there are way more out in left field that just sit at home and sulk.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is pretty much it. There's a continued bastardization of the English language run amuck in politics where somehow people equate "moderate" with "independents" and "independents" with "the middle" as it pertains to policy positions. This simply isn't true and we can look at the evidence right here in the PSF where people holding incredibly conservative views have convinced themselves they are "in the middle" because they are "independents".
It's much more accurate to say what you've said here and include the caveat that the "independents" are made up of a range of voters from liberal leaning voters disgusted with the DNC to conservative leaning voters disgusted with the GOP.
Thanks GB. I'd like to think I do. But I also acknowledge I'm out of my element on this too.
Thanks. Would love to hear and see more on this if you can share what you're talking about.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Speaking practically from an anyone but Trump standpoint, I really think that Bernie is the only one that has a chance even though I don't really love him as a candidate.
I really think people are underestimating how much the moderate vote is already lost. A good economy is always going to win the moderates, and people are going to believe the good economy soundbites whether it's working great for them personally or not. I'm in Utah which was not a proud Trump state last time around, but it is now. People here are taking Trump's side over Mitt's. People that stayed home last time or held their noses and voted for Trump or McMullin are excited to get out and pull that Trump lever this time around.
Hillary didn't lose because she lost the moderates. Trump didn't even outperform Romney. Hillary lost because she couldn't get the democrats that showed up for Obama to show up for her.
The reality is that the Mayor Pete's and Bloomberg's of the world don't inspire anyone. They're just kind of there. The people that are going to vote for them are the people that are going to vote for anyone not named Trump. No one is going to drag themselves to the polls because they love those guys.
But plenty of the young Bernie crowd who are all amped up to feel the Bern would rather stay home or write his name in than vote for someone else, no matter how much Bernie pleads with them to go to the alternative if the time comes. They already did this last time and it's only worse this time with all the rhetoric out there that Bernie was and will once again be cheated out of the nomination. Many of these people hate the Pete's and Bloomberg's and Biden's as much as they hate Trump because they feel they are being stolen from by those guys.
The reality is that I am sadly pessimistic about the dems chances this time around either way, but if it's not Bernie I think there is almost no chance.
I really think people are underestimating how much the moderate vote is already lost. A good economy is always going to win the moderates, and people are going to believe the good economy soundbites whether it's working great for them personally or not. I'm in Utah which was not a proud Trump state last time around, but it is now. People here are taking Trump's side over Mitt's. People that stayed home last time or held their noses and voted for Trump or McMullin are excited to get out and pull that Trump lever this time around.
Hillary didn't lose because she lost the moderates. Trump didn't even outperform Romney. Hillary lost because she couldn't get the democrats that showed up for Obama to show up for her.
The reality is that the Mayor Pete's and Bloomberg's of the world don't inspire anyone. They're just kind of there. The people that are going to vote for them are the people that are going to vote for anyone not named Trump. No one is going to drag themselves to the polls because they love those guys.
But plenty of the young Bernie crowd who are all amped up to feel the Bern would rather stay home or write his name in than vote for someone else, no matter how much Bernie pleads with them to go to the alternative if the time comes. They already did this last time and it's only worse this time with all the rhetoric out there that Bernie was and will once again be cheated out of the nomination. Many of these people hate the Pete's and Bloomberg's and Biden's as much as they hate Trump because they feel they are being stolen from by those guys.
The reality is that I am sadly pessimistic about the dems chances this time around either way, but if it's not Bernie I think there is almost no chance.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I snuck it into a reply to Nipsey, but @Joe Bryant I'd recommend reading this article (Bernie the Electable) to see the perspective of someone like me on whether fighting for the middle is the right thing to be doing. It talks about the often failing history of both the DNC and GOP deciding to go for moderate "electable" candidates under a belief that they appealed to this almost mythical "middle" voter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
On phone, but found it. "The Moderate Middle is a Myth" at 538.com.
Also search for "Negative Partisanship" research by Rachel Bitecofer.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Kerry and Clinton lost because they're both bad at politics, not because they're centrists.
This is a good point. I don't know the technical definitions of those terms, but it's easy to come up with very different categories of people who are not already set on voting for a particular candidate.
"Man, Trump and Bernie both make some really great points, although neither is perfect. I'll have to think on it some more." This person seems independent, undecided, and persuadable -- the classic swing voter -- but also exceedingly rare.
"I'm definitely going to vote for whoever Rachel Maddow endorses, although I haven't yet heard who that is." This person is definitely not independent. He is currently undecided in the sense of not having a true preference. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to call him persuadable (he is persuadable only by Maddow, not by the candidates themselves), but he is definitely not a swing voter.
"There's no way I'll vote for Trump. If the Democratic nominee is Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar, I'll probably vote for them. If it's Sanders I'll sit out or vote third party." This person may or may not be independent. He is undecided in the sense that his vote is not yet determined. But he is not really persuadable in the sense of lacking a definite preference.
I think the most common type of "swing voter" is probably some variant of the third guy. And he's also a case where winning his vote is not a matter of persuading him that this candidate is better than that one, but is instead a matter of winning the turnout game.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Bookmarking for later, interested in the articles that statistically argue anything other than the middle is where elections are won.
Have always thought it was obvious who wins is the candidate that generates excitement in the non-voting block - and that those in the non-voting block are “the middle”.
Have always thought it was obvious who wins is the candidate that generates excitement in the non-voting block - and that those in the non-voting block are “the middle”.
Well thought out post.
This is definitely me. And I'm not alone. There are millions of us. Democrats can do the math on what voter preferences like ours mean vs. "going bigly to the left and exciting the base with voter turnout" come November.
Todem
Footballguy
I switched to Democrat for this years election. And the only reason I did was to vote in the Democratic Primary. Unfortunately through Iowa and now NH......they (the Democrats) are clueless on how to defeat Trump. I am that middle voter. I have always been a social Democrat and fiscal Republican. I have crossed party lines several times to vote for who I thought was best. (Bill Clinton, and Obama in 2008 not 2012).
It is early. But if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic Nomination.....say hello to 4 more years of Trump. Guaranteed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies
Footballguy
I voted "totally disagree" for the reasons @FreeBaGeL and @Maurile Tremblay are saying, but will try to articulate my thoughts.
The people in the "middle" are presumably independent and vote for either side. It's a major assumption to assume they are even voting, and if they do, it is unpredictable they will vote for your preferred side of the aisle. Why put energy into trying to persuade unpredictable people?
If I were a political strategist for either side I would want a charismatic candidate above all else. Someone who inspires their base to get out and vote. Think of the last handful of presidents: Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB, Obama, and now Trump. The only two that I view as lacking charisma are the two Bushes, but W had more. GHWB ran against Dukakis, who was utterly devoid of charisma, and is the only one-term president in the group, losing to Clinton. The two Dems that ran against GWB (Gore and Kerry) could suck the charisma out of the room.
I'm not going to argue that it's ideal, since this can lead to a charismatic figure like Trump getting elected, but inspiring people to get out and vote is the most important thing. The fact that people who were attracted to Bernie Sanders last election switched over to vote for Trump tells me that charisma matters more than policy. I try not to vote entirely based on this, but I do admit Obama really inspired me in 2008.
The worst candidates the Dems could run this election are Biden, Warren and Klobuchar
The people in the "middle" are presumably independent and vote for either side. It's a major assumption to assume they are even voting, and if they do, it is unpredictable they will vote for your preferred side of the aisle. Why put energy into trying to persuade unpredictable people?
If I were a political strategist for either side I would want a charismatic candidate above all else. Someone who inspires their base to get out and vote. Think of the last handful of presidents: Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB, Obama, and now Trump. The only two that I view as lacking charisma are the two Bushes, but W had more. GHWB ran against Dukakis, who was utterly devoid of charisma, and is the only one-term president in the group, losing to Clinton. The two Dems that ran against GWB (Gore and Kerry) could suck the charisma out of the room.
I'm not going to argue that it's ideal, since this can lead to a charismatic figure like Trump getting elected, but inspiring people to get out and vote is the most important thing. The fact that people who were attracted to Bernie Sanders last election switched over to vote for Trump tells me that charisma matters more than policy. I try not to vote entirely based on this, but I do admit Obama really inspired me in 2008.
The worst candidates the Dems could run this election are Biden, Warren and Klobuchar
I think there is some truth to this. There was a post above (Nipsey, i think) that said the nominee needs to be somebody that fires up the masses and not somebody that tries to pick off the middle. Anecdotally, listening to folks in my social circles from 2016, there were a lot of people that voted for Trump not because they were excited about him, but they were so anti-Hillary. Many of those same people really don't care for Trump now, but a candidate like Bernie or Warren is likely to fire them up and get those same people to vote Trump again. But I hear a lot of "meh" from those people about Amy, Pete, or Biden. I'm not trying to convince those people to vote for a Democrat because they never will. In other words, I'm not trying to pick off the people in the middle. I'm just trying to convince them that certain Democrats might not be so bad and that they could live with a Democrat as President even if it's not their preference. Those I know that consider themselves in the middle don't really want to vote for Trump, so they might just stay home unless they perceive the alternative as awful.Maurile Tremblay said:
Also, I wouldn't say that Bernie and Warren are really energizing the Democratic base. Bernie got like 25% in NH. Outside of the younger voters, who is he really energizing? But again, anecdotally, among people I know, he really seems to energize Republicans to vote against him.
Also, I think we have to distinguish between "energizing" in the sense of posting voluminously on Twitter versus "energizing" in the sense of getting people out to vote. Bernie's demographics seem slanted toward the first kind of energy.
Zow
Footballguy
This hits the nail on the head. In 2016 Trump got about the same number of votes as Romney did in 2012 (the demographics changed in a few areas but total was nearly identical). Hillary failed to turn out all the Obama voters. That's where the election was lost.Maurile Tremblay said:
I fear Bernie causes the same result (although Bernie likely gets more of the 18-35 age range than boring Hillary did).
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
You are really discounting how much Hillary was hated.Nipsey said:
The Commish
Footballguy
I guess we'll see. If it comes down to Bernie vs Donald, they both have their set of support locked in. All that constant, if we are to believe people, that's approx 33-34% for Trump and 36-37% for Bernie and the battles will be over Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn, Ohio (maybe?) and Florida. Bernie's message for the last 30+ years has been pretty much the same as what Trump peddled to those states in 2016. So what are the differences those people see today vs what they saw in 2016?Todem said:
1. It's not Hillary as the alternative to Trump.
2. Trump now has an established track record in those areas and it's not good.
Those are the primary things driving influence in those areas. If Bernie wanted to pile on, he could point to any number of industries that not only did Trump not bring back, he let further wilt on the vine. He could point to formally working industry that Trump screwed up with his tariff approach and say it's only a matter of time before he screws you too. He could talk about all the moral issues and defiance of the Constitution (but that'd be piling on....he should just stick to the real life impacts).
It may be closer in those areas than it should be...pride's a ##### and it's really tough to admit a mistake for some, but the realities are what they are. Guaranteed is a strong word to use here IMO.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
It's not possible that an out of closet gay person is a no brainer in the general election.Zow said:
It's the one reason I'm hesitant to support him in the primary. Not because I care but I do fear what the general public thinks.
The jury is still out on Klobuchar. Nobody really knows her yet and some of the things out there are not gonna help with a likeability factor.
Dickies
Footballguy
This still makes no sense to me at all. Given the alternative why is being gay a moral hurdle too high?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
It isn't but if we were healthy, it would, and should, be.
Zow
Footballguy
Openly gay versus a woman.
I do think those are the two no-brainer options given that Biden is super old and takes creepy pictures (not to mention Burisma) and the other two candidates are super far left (with Trump already doing a number on Warren).
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Zow
Footballguy
Especially within the white, middle to upper middle class female demographic. They ####### hated her which seems so counterintuitive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I partially agree with premise, but I'm not sure I agree with the examples.Nipsey said:
I think Hillary losing went a bit deeper than she was too centrist. There are a lot of things that her campaign could have done differently strategy-wise, and she took some states for granted that she ended up losing.
And I don't think Kerry's problem was that he was too moderate. Bush kept pointing to Kerry's liberal record, and that he was named the most liberal member of the Senate. Bush's strategy was pinned to Kerry being a Massachusetts liberal (and the swift boat thing). Did Kerry lose because a bunch of Dean-iacs stayed home because they thought Kerry was too moderate? (In before "Yeeahhh!") But I don't think I've heard that one before.
ETA: And on Obama/Clinton, Obama had an uncanny ability to be all things to all people, and make as many people as possible think that he was on their side (a skill that he demonstrated throughout his life, going back to law school). I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I thought Hillary was too liberal for me, and thought Obama positioned himself to the right of her. The major policy difference between the two during the 2008 primaries was that Obama opposed the individual mandate for health care, while Hillary supported one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think the most common type of swing voter are the ones that jump on the winner's bandwagon. Followed by those that blame or are bored by whichever party has been there a while.Maurile Tremblay said:
ETA: Which means I am unsure if I am nodding in agreement with you or shaking my head no.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Kerry's problem was that the GOP had anti Gay Marriage options on a whole bunch of states ballots that turned out the vote. (That and Diebold delivering Ohio
)
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If a candidate could really reliably get younger voters to turn out and vote for them it would be a game changer. (Assuming other typically stay at home non voters aren't energized in the process.)
Hey Folks. Just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I think when the board works well, this is what it looks like. 
Last edited by a moderator:
