What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.

When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.

[Oexmelin]

This is very true, and drives me crazy in an academic setting populated by people who've never approached a working class family in generations.

[Malthus]

A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.

When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.

This may be true in a general sense, but we are talking about poor people voting for Trump here.

Of course some are making a selfless ideological decision. However, what ideology are they supporting? Generally, an us vs them tribalism based on race. There is "agency" all right, but it is hard to see that as of equivalent worth or nobility as someone willingly giving up economic benefits to others.

Moreover, why are they making tribal decisions based on race? Certainly it is partly ingrained in the history, but in addition there are people who are deliberately stirring up racial animosity for their own gain.

[Malthus]

I fundamentally disagree all of the GOP is in a cult, because just like the Dems the GOP is a coalition party. I think attacks on the GOP help undermine the coalition, the GOP is barely able to hold on to any power at all and is aided in this by our too-minoritarian constitutional structure, if they lose much more of their coalition they are fucked in bad ways.

For example look at the segments of the GOP coalition that are likely vulnerable to messaging:

- The white middle class. The years 2017-2020 demonstrated that this voting bloc in fact is capable of changing its mind on Trump, as we saw Trump's support with them decline in the suburbs. White people with college degrees shifted away from Trump in a genuine change of opinion.

- The corporate class. There may not be a ton of "votes" of people who are upper level corporate managers or Wall Street types, but there's a hell of a lot of money and power. This group has been able to ignore a lot from the GOP in service of tax cuts and deregulation, but there's evidence that the actual men involved are getting tired of the GOP embrace of bigotry, and some are putting their money where their mouth is.

- Low propensity working class whites. People may not believe we can move these voters because they are part of a "cult", but they really aren't. Some of them did become part of a Trump cult, and some of them have been reliable anti-minority motivated voters for years. But the last 5 years saw a lot of these voters show up at the polls for two Presidential elections but not much else. The fact that they are low propensity means they frequently don't bother to vote, and that there is probably messaging that can get them back to not voting. Again, we don't have to turn them into Democrats, just getting them to stay home is a victory.

- Hispanic men. Trump lost Hispanics across the board, but improved a lot with Hispanic men, this improvement also likely swept several Republicans into House Seats and saved some Senate seats. But these men in my opinion are not as locked into party affiliation as white male conservatives. I think they were heavily influenced by the massive wave of far right messaging in Hispanic radio and media in 2020, and Biden's campaign didn't counter this at all. The charitable view is he felt that he wasn't going to win Texas / Florida anyways so didn't see the need to combat it, but the more likely view is it was just a blunder and they didn't get into the fight like they should have. Tons of surrogates in this group have really been critical of the Biden campaign basically doing nothing to counter conservative messaging at this group. I see no reason to conclude that "doing something" won't have more of an effect than "doing nothing" on these people.

- White Evangelicals. What? These are the most hardcore of all Republicans! But actually Obama built an outreach organization to them and over performed typical Democrats with them by 5 points in both of his elections. This is the kind of squeeze play Carville is talking about, you're not trying to turn them from being 80/20 Republicans into 50/50, but if you can get them to 76% GOP or 75% GOP, that's a lot of votes you have to find somewhere else if you're a Republican. And the evidence that they can be swayed is strong--they actually have been swayed in relatively recent history. If you follow the stuff around Christianity Today (the "smart" evangelical magazine), there's more reservations about Republicanism in the evangelical base than might be assumed. Like I said, you're never going to flip them, flipping them isn't the goal. Just peel a few percent off.

I don't think anyone is saying that all of the GOP voters are in a cult. Clearly, some are, and those will be difficult to shift; I think everyone agrees that if the non-cult GOP can be peeled away, the GOP will be finished as a party, and so the task is to target these non-cult GOP members. Just as you say, flip a few percent and the task is done.

The issue is how best to do that.

[Oexmelin]

Sheilbh's point is that selflessness is no less a "tribal marker" than the sense of self-identity that informs working class voting patterns.

[grumbler]

Sheilbh's point is that selflessness is no less a "tribal marker" than the sense of self-identity that informs working class voting patterns.

That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't ring true.  This kind of "selflessness" is a rational reaction; sacrificing short-term gain for long-term benefits (a more stable and prosperous society).  Racism is the opposite; it is ignoring what the rational part of your self thinks in order to feed the irrational part.

[Oexmelin]

That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't ring true.  This kind of "selflessness" is a rational reaction; sacrificing short-term gain for long-term benefits (a more stable and prosperous society).  Racism is the opposite; it is ignoring what the rational part of your self thinks in order to feed the irrational part.

But the point isn't that racism is irrational. It's that GOP working-class supporters vote against their material self-interest, and that such a choice is a unique marker of irrationality, whereas the other is a marker of nobility. Whether or not proponents of noble sacrifice are justified does not enter the equation: selflesness isn't a special marker of rationality. A selfless sacrifice may or may not be rational. And voting for the GOP because you think it is the best vehicle to support your racist views can be considered quite rational.

[crazy canuck]

A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.

When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.

The problem with characterizing a high income earner supporting higher taxes, funding public services etc. as noble is it necessarily adopts the notion that we are individual rational economic actors primarily motivated by our individual self interest.  The same goes for the analysis of how the poor vote.

Having been both poor and not, that model of analysis has never fit my decision making process.  There is plenty of research that suggests I am not alone in that.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.

That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.

[alfred russel]

Or that antiTrump candidate in Texas.  Little bit by little bit.

Seriously, the anti-Trump candidate in Texas is a sign that our media is a complete shitshow but that is about it. He got national press only because covering random special election primaries in Texas is boring and won't get many clicks, unless you can work Trump into the story somehow.

I checked this after your post: Michael Wood finished in 9th place with 3% of the vote. The person who got the most votes in the primary also got Trump's endorsement.

[DGuller]

A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.

When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.

I think there are a couple of reasons why that is so.  One reason is that the perception is that the working class is sacrificing its economic interest for reasons that are not in any way noble, and just the opposite in fact.  Another reason is that I'm not sure that the wealthy really are sacrificing their self-interest; I personally would rather be moderately wealthy in a developed country than very wealthy in a country where my house needs to have walls around it with electrified barbed wire on top.

[Razgovory]

I think it's condescending, and probably wrong to accuse people who disagree with you as voting against their interests.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.

That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.

Yes - and I think it's a thing the left focus on more. It's possibly a legacy of Marxism but there's been loads of left theory on why people don't vote in their self-interest to modern-ish political books like What's Wrong With Kansas? - or as Obama clumsily summarised it "clinging to guns and God". I also think theory can be quite nuanced but gets coarsened.

I think the danger is that left-wing voters become more middle class and wealthy (I don't necessarily mean the rich here), which seems to be happening around the democratic world - Piketty's Brahmin left - I think there's a risk they just self-congratulate more and more on their own nobility for supporting higher taxes etc and talk more and more among themselves.

[Valmy]

I think it's condescending, and probably wrong to accuse people who disagree with you as voting against their interests.

I agree and I think it is wise to listen to what they say. Sometimes they have important critiques that should be heeded and change policies. Other times it is wacky culture war shit which there is really nothing that can be done about. Right wing culture warriors are going to hate you no matter how much your policies benefit them.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.

That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.

Yes - and I think it's a thing the left focus on more. It's possibly a legacy of Marxism but there's been loads of left theory on why people don't vote in their self-interest to modern-ish political books like What's Wrong With Kansas? - or as Obama clumsily summarised it "clinging to guns and God". I also think theory can be quite nuanced but gets coarsened.

I think the danger is that left-wing voters become more middle class and wealthy (I don't necessarily mean the rich here), which seems to be happening around the democratic world - Piketty's Brahmin left - I think there's a risk they just self-congratulate more and more on their own nobility for supporting higher taxes etc and talk more and more among themselves.

I don't know why you choose to adopt a neo conservative view of the world when describing political motivations