The Volatility Of Party Identification (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx

Summary by me: 

The first quarter of 2021 had Democrats with a nine-point lead in party identification. By the IV quarter of 2021, Republicans held a five-point lead. That's a swing of fourteen points, and one I don't think I've seen in my time on this earth, though I could be mistaken. 

_______________________________________________

From Gallup: 

Bottom Line

The year 2021 was an eventful one in politics, after a similarly eventful 2020 that also saw major shifts in party preferences. In early 2021, Democratic strength reached levels not seen in nearly a decade. By the third quarter, those Democratic gains evaporated as Biden's job approval declined. The political winds continued to become more favorable to Republicans in the fourth quarter, giving the GOP an advantage over Democrats larger than any they had achieved in more than 25 years.

The final monthly survey of 2021 showed the parties at roughly even strength, although that still represents a departure from the historical norm of the Democratic Party's having at least a slight advantage in party affiliation.

With control of the House of Representatives and Senate at stake in this year's midterm elections, party preferences will be a key indicator of which party will be better positioned to gain majorities in the next session of Congress.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you think this says? About issues at the fore and legislative proposals? Interested to hear if anybody has any suggestions. How exactly have Democrats blown the momentum they had and how have Republicans reclaimed it from the debacle that was Jan. 6th? 

 

[Ruffrodys05]

In a nutshell the answer to both questions is: messaging.

eta: I apologize rock, I fully believe you are hoping for a more nuanced articulation of the answers you seek but, I'm just not really interested in getting into all the minutiae behind my reply. 

 

[rockaction]

In a nutshell the answer to both questions is: messaging.

eta: I apologize rock, I fully believe you are hoping for a more nuanced articulation of the answers you seek but, I'm just not really interested in getting into all the minutiae behind my reply. 

No sweat. I'm not the arbiter of what an appropriate answer is. Just thought it was an interesting way to post this information on my end. I'm sort of taken aback by the swing in popularity. I have my thoughts and probably should have expressed them in longer form to stimulate discussion. 

TL;DR No problem 

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I have my thoughts too, for sure. I'd likely get suspended if I post them.

Question for you: Do you think messaging has anything to do with the facts presented in your OP?

 

[djmich]

I think volatility is the right word.  With more extreme opinions on either side, magnified by all forms of media, you will get more volatility.

 

[rockaction]

I have my thoughts too, for sure. I'd likely get suspended if I post them.

Question for you: Do you think messaging has anything to do with the facts presented in your OP?

I think that the act of messaging and creating a message has a lot to do with it, but the policy or sociopolitical leanings of what is coming to the fore is helping the message have potency. 

For example, Democrats have long claimed -- at least in the mainstream media -- that the conservative bogeyman of identity politics is made up and won't come home to roost. The standard claim is that it's really academia and the far left that are being brought to the fore at the expense of more moderate proposals that are more in line with the Democratic Party. But, to wit: then you have the race-based preferences for monoclonal antibodies coming to light as a matter of actual policy. With the limited amount of antibodies, and Minnesota and New York State's passage of priority order based upon race, it's easy for the right to say that grievance or identity politics will affect you and that public health officials are lying and don't have your best interest at heart when those limited antibodies are being reserved by certain states for priority among blacks, with whites being left down on the list. 

That's an example of barely even needing a message; rather, all it takes is a reading of the policy to understand that grievance or identity politics is playing a large role in actual policy, unlike the Democratic and MSM claims to the contrary. 

So you take something that Democrats claim is a distraction -- something that doesn't really reflect policy choices by Dems -- and you make it tangible, diagnosable, and ever-apparent and traceable to the Democratic Party just by reading policy. One liberal commentator on Twitter (Matt Yglesias) had retweeted a post that was basically saying this was the biggest gift-wrapped policy you could give conservatives. Sure enough, about a day or two later, Trump was making it the centerpiece of his rally. So it's not fully messaging in my opinion -- it has to be based in policy actualities for the blow to hit home with respect to party identification. 

 

[rockaction]

I think volatility is the right word.  With more extreme opinions on either side, magnified by all forms of media, you will get more volatility.

"The right word." Ah, what I aim for. 

 

[Nugget]

Top three thoughts:

• Preference falsification - As we get further away from Jan 6th it is OK to be a Republican again
  
• Covid response - mandates/vaccines/distrust of govt
  
• Culture responses - woke/CRT/trans rights
  

 

[djmich]

The best republicans can hope for us to not get too big of a lead, because political hubris requires at that point they try to do some stupid #### like declare Texas a sovereign country and then volatility smacks them right back in the face.

 

[Boston]

I think that the act of messaging and creating a message has a lot to do with it, but the policy or sociopolitical leanings of what is coming to the fore is helping the message have potency. 

For example, Democrats have long claimed -- at least in the mainstream media -- that the conservative bogeyman of identity politics is made up and won't come home to roost. The standard claim is that it's really academia and the far left that are being brought to the fore at the expense of more moderate proposals that are more in line with the Democratic Party. But, to wit: then you have the race-based preferences for monoclonal antibodies coming to light as a matter of actual policy. With the limited amount of antibodies, and Minnesota and New York State's passage of priority order based upon race, it's easy for the right to say that grievance or identity politics will affect you and that public health officials are lying and don't have your best interest at heart when those limited antibodies are being reserved by certain states for priority among blacks, with whites being left down on the list. 

That's an example of barely even needing a message; rather, all it takes is a reading of the policy to understand that grievance or identity politics is playing a large role in actual policy, unlike the Democratic and MSM claims to the contrary. 

So you take something that Democrats claim is a distraction -- something that doesn't really reflect policy choices by Dems -- and you make it tangible, diagnosable, and ever-apparent and traceable to the Democratic Party just by reading policy. One liberal commentator on Twitter (Matt Yglesias) had retweeted a post that was basically saying this was the biggest gift-wrapped policy you could give conservatives. Sure enough, about a day or two later, Trump was making it the centerpiece of his rally. So it's not fully messaging in my opinion -- it has to be based in policy actualities for the blow to hit home with respect to party identification. 

Good post...I would piggyback this with education, specifically CRT/telling parents they should not have any influence in their kids' education (Michigan is latest example)...this issue is becoming bigger and it has a chance to really blow-up and have a direct influence on who people vote for as seen in Virginia.

 

[rockaction]

Interesting Twitter thread about this exact poll, started by Nate Silver. 

These choices are more about Party ID and its overall stability as a measurement. 

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1483091811107315718

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

• Preference falsification - As we get further away from Jan 6th it is OK to be a Republican again.
  

And less obviously good to be a Dem.

There's a very small mushy middle, but even most of those people have a preference.  What waxes and wanes is how much people are willing to admit it (and who shows up to vote).

Think of it this way... Clinton beat Trump by 2.1%, Obama beat Romney by 3.9% and Biden beat Trump by 4.4% -- a really tight range.  So in reality the partisan split is very close to 50/50 most of the time and Dems tend to have a small lead when lots of people vote.  You just don't see big swings very often.

And many of the Dems who won't own it today and who won't show up to vote in the midterms will come home again in 2024 once there's an actual Republican candidate with a name and a face.  But the polling and midterms are going to be a bloodbath until that happens.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I think that the act of messaging and creating a message has a lot to do with it, but the policy or sociopolitical leanings of what is coming to the fore is helping the message have potency. 

For example, Democrats have long claimed -- at least in the mainstream media -- that the conservative bogeyman of identity politics is made up and won't come home to roost. The standard claim is that it's really academia and the far left that are being brought to the fore at the expense of more moderate proposals that are more in line with the Democratic Party. But, to wit: then you have the race-based preferences for monoclonal antibodies coming to light as a matter of actual policy. With the limited amount of antibodies, and Minnesota and New York State's passage of priority order based upon race, it's easy for the right to say that grievance or identity politics will affect you and that public health officials are lying and don't have your best interest at heart when those limited antibodies are being reserved by certain states for priority among blacks, with whites being left down on the list. 

That's an example of barely even needing a message; rather, all it takes is a reading of the policy to understand that grievance or identity politics is playing a large role in actual policy, unlike the Democratic and MSM claims to the contrary. 

So you take something that Democrats claim is a distraction -- something that doesn't really reflect policy choices by Dems -- and you make it tangible, diagnosable, and ever-apparent and traceable to the Democratic Party just by reading policy. One liberal commentator on Twitter (Matt Yglesias) had retweeted a post that was basically saying this was the biggest gift-wrapped policy you could give conservatives. Sure enough, about a day or two later, Trump was making it the centerpiece of his rally. So it's not fully messaging in my opinion -- it has to be based in policy actualities for the blow to hit home with respect to party identification. 

I'd agree with this take.

Messaging is the vehicle and policy choices/goals are it's occupants. 

 

[Van Dyman]

Could it also be GOP-leaning folks coming back home after being repulsed by 4-years of Trump? Sorry if someone already said that.

 

[rockaction]

Could it also be GOP-leaning folks coming back home after being repulsed by 4-years of Trump? Sorry if someone already said that.

I don't know. I think that's a possibility, but not an overriding one. The embarrassment of January 6th and its immediate impact of dissuading Republican-leaning voters from identifying has possibly worn off, allowing voters to consider a move back to the Republican Party. It could be they assume Trump is gone and that he won't be running again.

But that doesn't quite answer a host of questions. For instance, wouldn't one ask why hasn't the party moved away from Trump then? How about all the House representatives from the Republican Party that oppose Trump getting drummed out of the party? It would seem that if you look at it, Trump is still front and center in people's minds when it comes to the Republican Party, so why would they identify with Republicans again so soon, and while his influence was still so strong? 

Silver's question opened up a whole new realm of possibilities about the swing, but I think that Twitter feed pointed out that the swing was somewhat historic. 

I was just looking to see if anybody else had any ideas. 

 

[ekbeats]

For the most part I think it’s a function of the people in the White House then and now.  Both sucked, so some people switched sides.  And then there’s the bad results we are seeing after 1 year of Democratic rule - things that affect peoples’ day to day lives - inflation, empty shelves, Covid tests in short supply, high energy costs, illegal immigration out of control, subpar public schools that feel parents shouldn’t have a voice in their child’s education, too many people who don’t want to work, and crime running rampant.  It’s going to be a bloodbath for Dems in the midterms.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Could it also be GOP-leaning folks coming back home after being repulsed by 4-years of Trump? Sorry if someone already said that.

There is something to this.  Easier to come back now when he isn’t in office and there isn’t any obvious, daily reminder of his behavioral issues.

In tandem, we have daily reminders of how abysmal Biden is.  We knew it during the election — he’s one of the worst candidates (and presidents, clearly) of the modern era.

Lastly, the Dems haven’t found a way to define themselves that resonates with voters.  For the entirety of Trump’s term, the Dems were defined as anti-Trump.  And that message was just barely enough to win in 2020.  But it isn’t enough for the 2022 midterms and probably isn’t sufficient for a 2024 Biden re-election either.

 

[Van Dyman]

There is something to this.  Easier to come back now when he isn’t in office and there isn’t any obvious, daily reminder of his behavioral issues.

In tandem, we have daily reminders of how abysmal Biden is.  We knew it during the election — he’s one of the worst candidates (and presidents, clearly) of the modern era.

Lastly, the Dems haven’t found a way to define themselves that resonates with voters.  For the entirety of Trump’s term, the Dems were defined as anti-Trump.  And that message was just barely enough to win in 2020.  But it isn’t enough for the 2022 midterms and probably isn’t sufficient for a 2024 Biden re-election either.

It also crossed my mind that people answering the poll might not actually be identifying differently, party-wise, but a poll is about the only way to send a message between elections. If Biden's unpopular, some number of respondents could be doing that to express dissatisfaction with how it's going so far. Probably not enough to be the major driver of the % change, but could be a factor. Then again, for all I know, pollsters might already take that into account and adjust their results accordingly.