Rachel Bitecofer & "Negative Partisanship" (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I've referenced her research previously -- where she predicted 40+ House seats for Dems in 2018 months in advance, when most polls had it close.  Here's a big article unpacking the overall gist of "negative partisanship" and what she thinks it means for 2020.

Even though we commonly assume that independents make up roughly a third of the electorate, the pool of persuadable independents is actually quite small, just 7 percent of the total electorate, according to the Pew Research Center’s most recent analysis. This is because most independents admit to being “leaners”—bringing them into fairly reliable affiliation with the Republicans or the Democrats. Research shows these leaners think like, feel like—and, most important, vote like—“soft partisans.” In fact, many leaners are what political scientists Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov call “embarrassed” partisans—people too ashamed to admit their partisan dispositions even to themselves.

I lean towards the idea that she's got the right of it, but it'll be interesting to see how this thesis plays out going forward.  One thing Trump is a master at is using the power of the bully pulpit to keep anti-Dem sentiment high in-between elections.  It could be that blunts some of the underlying forces she's describing.

Also, the link in the article to another on the history of Immigration and how the 1965 act plays into today's electoral events is good background.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When preferences among this voting group swing wildly between the parties between cycles, some of that movement is the product of turnout surge and decline. In other words, when their votes swing, this shift is not at all static; it is caused by different independents expressing different preferences. And independents are also very sensitive to negative partisanship.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Her stuff has been discussed a bit in here. It’s appealing to me just on a contrarian level. For whatever reason, I like theories that fly in the face of conventional wisdom, especially when presented with such confidence.  That said, her constant aggressive self promotion does take the shine off a bit, and there could be some truth to the idea that she’s built her entire persona on the back of one lucky prediction in 2018.  I’ve read a couple articles she’s written, and written about her, and I’m not sure her “model” necessarily adds up.  If she’s right, nearly 100% of the debate and discussion in here regarding the dem primary is irrelevant.  (In retrospect, that’s probably true either way.)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That said, her constant aggressive self promotion does take the shine off a bit, and there could be some truth to the idea that she’s built her entire persona on the back of one lucky prediction in 2018. 

If she’s right, nearly 100% of the debate and discussion in here regarding the dem primary is irrelevant.  (In retrospect, that’s probably true either way.)

Yes.  She's conscientiously and aggressively confrontational.  It's off-putting.  (I think she's right about some of the reasons why she's making that part of her brand, but... it's still off-putting.)

And yes (that's her argument).

Her 2020 predictions drop fairly soon I believe.  Will post them here for tracking.

 

[zftcg]

 nearly 100% of the debate and discussion in here regarding the dem primary every topic under the sun is irrelevant. 

FTFY

 

[caustic]

We saw such a perfect example of negative partisanship with  Beto—when running against Ted Cruz, he was the next Dem wunderkind. Viral speeches! Endorsements from LeBron and Beyonce! Earth-shattering fundraising numbers! Then he tried to run against other Democrats and nobody gave a ####. It’s a funny thing.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Bitecofer on the Maher show this week, with The Mooch! 
 

https://youtu.be/N_k9k9k61CY

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

>>To hear many Democratic leaders tell it, ignoring Trump was the secret to their success in 2018, but the voter file data suggests otherwise. Democratic gains, strong though they were, may actually have been handicapped by a strategy that failed to exploit the party’s best asset: the electorate’s angst about Trump. What’s more, the turnout of the Republican base was just as strong in these districts as in districts where candidates were more liberal and did talk about Trump. So the strategy of not rousing any partisan blowback in the general election doesn’t appear to have yielded the advantage of a suppressed opposition vote. 

However, one party did frame 2018 as a referendum on Trump—and it wasn’t the Democrats. Again disregarding every traditional piece of conventional wisdom for presidential conduct in a midterm, Trump leaned into the referendum effect. While Democrats all but disowned Obama in 2010 and 2014, Republicans hugged Trump closely—in no small part, of course, because they were given little choice in the matter. Trump rallied for 36 GOP House and Senate candidates and tweeted about an “invasion” staged by caravans of immigrants approaching the country’s southern border, deep-state coups, and Russia witch hunts. He also exhorted his supporters to remember that hewas on the ballot.

This looked to be a recipe for disaster, and it should have been, according to traditional campaign models. But Republican turnout in 2018 actually improved over the party’s 2014 turnout, even though the GOP controlled all three branches of government. The punditocracy’s fable of a key corps of disaffected Republicans breaking for the Democrats in 2018 is wrong—in much the same way that Nancy Pelosi is mistaken in her narrative of health care pragmatism swelling the blue wave. Republicans delivered for Donald Trump, as Donald Trump instructed them to. They were simply outnumbered in certain places—and almost everywhere they were outnumbered, they lost because of the turnout surge within the Democratic voting coalition. <<

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Matt Grossmann @MattGrossmann

Across Super Tuesday states, exit polls of the Democratic primary electorate averaged 7 % points more moderate/conservative voters & 3 % points fewer "very liberal" voters compared to 2016; surprising because liberal identification rose nationally among Democrats in 2017 & 2018

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This seems more likely to be the result of turnout than voters changing their minds, i.e. center-left voters are turning out more than in 2016 while turnout on the left is flat. Still, seems clear that several D campaigns overestimated how liberal the electorate was.

This lines up with her theory pretty well.  Liberal turnout increased, but there's less room for it to increase than there is for the less-engaged "center".  So even though it increased in raw #s, it decreased as a percentage of the electorate.  Because a  lot more moderates, independents, persuadable Republicans and etc showed up as well.

 

[roadkill1292]

Bitecofer released her Senate predictions a few days ago and the edge still belongs to the GOP. But it's really close. Larry Sabato of Crystal Ball has since pretty much followed suit.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

New forecast out:

51-49 Dems in the Senate (splitting tossups)

239-196 Dems in the House (again splitting)

Only one incumbent Dem Senator is being challenged, Doug Jones in AL. 

She's got Arizona and Colorado as likely flips, Maine and North Carolina as better than 50/50 flips, Kansas and Montana(!) as tossups, and the Georgia special, South Carolina and Doug Jones as the lean Rs. 

IOW, eight of the nine seats in play are currently held by Republicans and Dems could pick up five seats without taking anything other than the seats where they're favored and the tossups.

 

[RCon]

51-49 Dems in the Senate (splitting tossups)

239-196 Dems in the House (again splitting)

Sorry, context?  Are you saying this is her latest projection?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sorry, context?  Are you saying this is her latest projection?

Was editing as you posted!

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Good. That, plus Biden, and hopefully we have a formula to navigate ourselves out of this absolute mess. Between the "wanting to keep the numbers down", the daily junkfest that became the task force briefings, and the disdain for science, experts and testing, hopefully we learned that competent actual leadership isn't something to be taken for granted. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Good. That, plus Biden, and hopefully we have a formula to navigate ourselves out of this absolute mess. Between the "wanting to keep the numbers down", the daily junkfest that became the task force briefings, and the disdain for science, experts and testing, hopefully we learned that competent actual leadership isn't something to be taken for granted. 

I expect it will be a big issue in the election.