My take: Gas prices are less a reason for people to vote red than an excuse.
They vote red because they have complaints. Life is not fair or perfect, and they feel they were promised both. Therefore, etc.
Gas prices, to use a pun, are like gasoline on a fire of discontent. With prices going down as they seem to be doing, the fire still rages.
Democrats will do quite well compared to how they were expected to do. But they will probably lose both houses of Congress, and we will all be dealing with autocratic thugs in positions of electoral authority in key states, nevertheless.
Good piece. Are you aware of any good studies on the Latino vote in rural America, especially in the non-border state South? I'm sure that the Latino vote in TX, AZ, NM, CA is complicated and nuanced because of hundreds of years of immigration and settlement patterns in these areas. But what about the rural Latino vote in TN? NC? SC? KY? Etc. It seems to me that these populations would be pre-disposed to support moderate Dems who reach out to them with respect and actually deliver on issues they care about.
I think the role of political consultants is part of the picture. I suppose there is a "technology" which consultants are expert in using of messaging "likely" voters and donors so that sway candidates do. I don't think there is a "technology" for appealing to the median voter.
Claiming that there is an increase in voting in accordance with individual opinions compared to broad identity considerations requires much more evidence. My gut feeling is that group identity is just as important as ever, although perhaps some of those groups are more fluid.
You missed the 600 lb elephant in the room: BLM. Latinos are quickly coming to the realization that the the extreme left (not necessarily black, mostly woke whites) is diametrically at odds with their interests. I have had many side conversations with latino moms in poor black neighborhoods constantly complaining about how bad the crime rate has gotten and how over the Democratic party they are. One block in South Central Los Angeles told me half her family switched to GOP/Trump fans over it. Many in my family as well, also from the very liberal Los Angeles area. I can only imagine the ripple affect in other areas.
Wokeism is driving the latinos away more rapidly than anything else, IMHO. The whole defund the police was stupid to the core and the weakness of many Democrats to say so explicitly, when its mostly latinos who unjustly feel the brunt of this was not lost on the general populace.
Politically moderate Black people think the Republican Party is racist and that Democrats care about them, and they vote overwhelmingly for Democratic Party candidates.
So Democrats put a lot of effort into defining Republicans as racist and themselves as pro-Black This helps them get Black votes. But there is a price to be paid with White moderates. It seems like there is also a price to be paid with Hispanics. Democrats try to lure Hispanics by allowing them into the POC group (as a junior member) but many Hispanics just aren’t interested and culturally feel more comfortable with their white friends and neighbors moving toward Republicans.
Fundamental to identity politics is prioritizing identities. Democrats clearly prioritize certain groups. One could say Republicans do to. Neither party puts Hispanics at the top of the list. Maybe be that explains their split vote?
One small thing that people in deep blue cities and states can do to help is to choose local officials on their midterm ballot who are more likely to help than hinder the party's image. This is especially true for offices related to crime and policing, as Republicans are already perceived among swing voters as stronger on crime, Democrats can ill-afford to make things worse, and Republicans have made examples of numerous progressive prosecutors in their attack ads for unrelated races.
It has always been the case that liberal Republicans are low hanging fruit for Democrats and conservative Democrats are low-hanging fruit for Republicans.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the "liberal Republican" fruit has pretty much already been picked. But, Republicans still have lots of upside remaining among conservative Democrats, who are mostly nonwhite (the low-hanging fruit for Republicans of converting conservative *white* Democrats has also, largely been already picked).
"By contrast, as Eric Michael Garcia says, “there is no such thing as the Latino vote. There are Latino votes.”"
I'd take this a step further and say there is no such thing as Latino, just votes. There is no Latino identity. If you meet someone of Cuban, Puerto Rican or Colombian descent they'll think of themselves in that manner. We don't even approve of the labels (let's not even get into Latinx...). It has been said better by others, for example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/3/24/dont-call-me-latino-pbdbont-call/
I understand the US has an unhealthy obsession with labeling people, but if the people of Latin-American descent can't even agree on a way to collectively refer to themselves, then maybe the US should stop treating us as a group? You don't see the US media obsessing over the "Asian", "Middle-eastern" or "European" vote, Latin-americans should get the same treatment.
"But Abrams has the misfortunate of needing to run against a pretty strong opponent. . . "
It was not misfortune; it was a choice. Abrams could have run for Senate in 2020 (and many begged her to do so) but refused and instead chose to run against a fairly strong Republican incumbent for governor in a year where history screamed that Democrats would be at a disadvantage. So she will lose and will deservedly become a footnote in Democratic politics. She could have been a contender but refused to do so.
I like her; she's very smart; and from most accounts has done a great job with voter registration and mobilization. But the bottom line in politics is winning elections and there, for whatever reason, she dropped the ball.
Back when I was a communist and hung out with lots of radicals there was this view that anti-Black racism was distinctive and unique and much worse than racism against other groups in that Black culture was seen a thing to be wiped out and destroyed and 'good' Black people were the ones who were basically not culturally Black. I think that probably left the lefty conversation as generic anti-racist politics started its rise. I did not like this view at the time, but I have come around to it. Black voters have supported Democrats for so long not because of specific policy issues that benefit Black voters, nor because Black voters think Democrats aren't racist (many Black dems think white dems ARE racist), but because the Democrats have been allies of Black self-empowerment and institutional development. This relies on the variety of Black institutions you mention, which are now sadly weakening. The Democrats and Black institutions had a mutually beneficial relationship where the unique character of Black civil society was preserved and assimilation was *not* the objective. Anti-black racism required this strategy, because mainstream institutions could not be trusted.
When Dems tried to set up parallel political institutions to cater to Hispanic voters they just recreated white institutions that are built around the narrow values of affluent college-educated whites and handed a bunch of power to young Hispanic people who are the most similar to young white people. You could critique this and say well, they should have made more Catholic institutions or etc. But the reality is, the goal for Hispanic voters is (mostly, obviously this isn't monolithic) to gain representation and power within the white-dominated mainstream civil society, not to construct a parallel one, because they don't really need a parallel one.
I'm Hispanic and I know how conservative Hispanic voters can be. I think part of the problem progressives had was that the same percentage of Hispanic voters would continue to support Dems. Not an overwhelming percentage like Hispanics but a very large majority.
There are several reasons why this is wrong but there are two reasons that stand out for me.
Hispanic voters vote based on the economy. In a way this is what you would want voters to do, to make decisions on objective material conditions.
Back in 1984 when the US economy was doing well Ronald Reagan did well among Hispanics. Same thing happened in 2004 with W. Trump benefited from an economic recovery that started under Obama. On top of that the economic stimulus that was signed into law in 2020 because of COVID disproportionately benefited low income voters. It shouldn't have been surprising that more Hispanic voters would vote for Trump.
The second factor is that the percentage of Hispanic voters who are Evangelical Christians is increasing over time and those voters are much more likely to vote for the GOP.
Hispanic voters responding to economic conditions means that the percentage of the vote will go up and down but the second means that the percentage who vote vote GOP will increase in spite of economic conditions.
Very simply - if the Republicans managed to be conservative without overdoing it on fiscal austerity and/or racism, they'd wipe the floor with Democrats.
I know conservatives always complain liberals have the easy pitch. We want to give people free money! But I maintain people don't actually want free money and most people are small c conservative.
True progressives will always be a minority, though the fact we've seen the emergence of a progressive theocracy was not something I had anticipated...
I've written this before, but I find it fascinating that a political party dominated by rich, professional class, secular people wants millions of poor, working class, Catholics and Evangelicals to join their party, and assumes that these millions of people will vote for their same professional class, progressive priorities. Seems like the pinnacle of naivite.
Also, the 2008 and 2014 elections horribly scrambled the parties' brains. After 2008 both parties bought the "demographics is destiny" canard and after 2014 both parties bought the "Republicans can only win in low turnout elections" canard. So since then Democrats have been complacent, waiting for their ascension to eternal power, and Republicans have doing everything they can to keep turnout low. In reality 2008 was just a really bad year for incumbents (Republicans) because of the financial crisis and Democrats had an incredible politician that the media and Hollywood collectively orgasmed over, which gave Democrats large coattails. And in 2014, turnout was low, but it was also a really bad Senate map for Democrats. All those senators who were elected in the Obama blowout of 08 had to face re-election under much worse political conditions.
It seems to me that you could take your first paragraph, substitute the word "conservative" for "progressive" and it would apply equally well to the Republican as the Democratic party.
I know that most Latinos don't prioritize those two issues as much as many progressives think they do (or should!) but to the extent that Democrats highlight them, is that an actual negative for party support among Latinos?
It's certainly a negative among recent legal immigrants, but I doubt their numbers are large enough to make a major impact overall. The biggest negative impact is just the general vibes that working class, religious people feel from being looked down upon by the professional class and simultaneously being expected to vote for people who publically disapprove of their lifestyle.
The immigration thing is probably the most complicated and it breaks down over intra-Hispanic/Latino divisions. Like, Latino voters of Mexican origin are all usually for amnesty for well-established (10+ years in country) undocumented immigrants because of a perception that these people are Mexican (which, to be fair, they mostly are), but actively oppose liberalizing the asylum regime for new arrivals from Central and South America. (Source: Conversations with my future in-laws, who are of Mexican origin.)
This isn't the point of the article, but this piece has sort of getting a rant that's sort of built up inside of me for 2 years. How in God's name are there not more think pieces about the fact that GOP is not doing enough to get more votes?! For two years (heck for 6 years) I've seen multiple pieces from Matt, Josh Barro, David Shorr and countless other commentators about how Democrats need to recalibrate their messaging, become more moderate and just general criticisms of their vote getting strategy. However, an incumbent GOP President just lost an election...which basically shouldn't happen. Trump almost certainly had 4-5% fewer votes in 2016 than a generic GOP candidate and won by hitting the equivalent of an inside straight on the river and we're supposed to believe he has his pulse on the heart of America.
Yes, I suspect some of this disconnect is the "hack gap". Even the supposedly "good" conservatives who write at National Review see their role as electing conservatives and Republicans first (with the occasional mild criticism of Trump so they can continue to be "friends" with mainstream media) and "honest" commentators second (the lack of introspection about what GOP should do get educated suburban women to vote GOP is...telling). But I honestly think part of the story is that even left of center writers like Matt have internalized the conservative talking point about "real America". Yes it's partly the fact that rural voters have waaaaay more power than city voters, but I honestly think there's is a real bias that has bled into political analysis of even non right wing writers into believing GOP just "gets" real Americans.
Sorry rant over. This was as good a place as any to get off my chest that actually GOP has more problems than Democrats in blowing winnable races and losing voters they shouldn't. The most likely outcome to me of the midterms is GOP slightly gaining in the House enough to take the chamber and a 50/50 senate. Given underlying circumstances (inflation, party out of power, Presidential approval rating), GOP should be looking at getting 53 or 54 senators (I know I know, polls may be off, I'm assuming polls and 538 is at least somewhat accurate).
Neither party has shown much interest in seizing the empty, and very winnable, center. Poor Anthony Downs must be spinning in his grave. (He's dead, right?)
I think a lot of it is that because of the nature of the two parties. Since Democrats do well among college educated people, especially the college educated that follow policy closely, their internal debates tend to be external debates.
So an argument like "what to do about the GOP's candidate quality problem" would play out behind closed doors in a strategy meeting somewhere. Moreover, an article about the topic probably wouldn't get much engagement, just due to mismatches in who consumes that kind of media.
"How in God's name are there not more think pieces about the fact that GOP is not doing enough to get more votes?!"
Primarily because the distribution of people pre-disposed to vote Republican and the structure of US federal political institutions is such that Republicans can accomplish most of their concrete policy agenda (cut taxes, cut social spending, spend more on the military) even while failing to win a majority of the popularity vote. I mean keep in mind that after 2012 the GOP produced a report on what it needed to do to win more votes. The party then almost completely ignored the advice in the report and went on to win control of the House, Senate, and presidency over the next four years. Then, over the subsequent four years they lost that, but by a narrow enough margin that they will almost certainly take back at least one house of Congress in 2022 and potentially both, and if Biden is reelected in 2024, they'll probably keep control of Congress through at least 2030, maybe even 2034-36 depending on how large a majority they build up in the 2022 / 2026 / 2030 mid-terms.
I mean sort of my point. The thing is, I actually agree with a lot of this analysis from Matt. But I think it's sort of inarguable to me that GOP is doing WAY less to try to appeal to the median voter than Democrats. Yes there are exceptions of course (Kemp in GA, Youngkin in 2021. Although even there it's remarkable the extent he's actually governing as a pretty right wing Republican in a state that at it's heart a D+5 (or more) state). But see Doug Mastriano in PA, Herschal Walker in GA or basically Massachusetts in general (GOP had the most popular governor in the country in arguably the most famously blue state and their move was to...veer far to the right).
The lack of hand wringing about what GOP is doing wrong is...actually disturbing. Because it says to me that the GOP believes it doesn't actually have to appeal to median voters because they likely believe they can either A) make sure what happened in Wisconsin is how the entire country is governed or B) count on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the independent state legislature doctrine.
"basically Massachusetts in general (GOP had the most popular governor in the country in arguably the most famously blue state and their move was to...veer far to the right)."
This is my point below because this is almost exactly what happened with Manchin over the last year. His refusal to give the Progressive base what they wanted led to a huge outcry against him and lots of threats to primary him. The rebuttals that Democrats were incredibly fortunate to have him at all from W. Virginia was typically scoffed at. Elites in the party know that he essentially irreplaceable, but the broader base of the party doesn't care when he is blocking things they want.
Both parties' base want very unpopular things and the elites in the party strive to use the passion to fund, but throttle it enough to win. (See McConnell discussing candidate quality).
Well yes, whichever party stops trying to lose and starts trying to actually win will probably pull it off. I think what Matt and others are doing is trying to get Democrats to do that first...
"Donald Trump won more votes in 2016 than any other GOP presidential candidate ever did (narrowly beating Bush's 2004 total)."
This has more to do with population growth and turnout then anything special about Trump. He narrowly beat Bush from 2004 when the country added close to 40 million people between 2004 (293 million) and 2020 (330 million).
Joe Biden won more votes than any Democratic nominee ever - crushing Obama in 2008 (81 million to Obama's 65 million). Do you really think Joe Biden was more popular in 2020 than Obama was in 2008?
" It's insane to argue any other GOP candidate would have improved on his performance in terms of votes."
I think after 8 years of Obama, the advantages of incumbency after being in office for 4 years, with the economy having started finally really expanding and the rally around the flag from Covid, almost no other Republican would have lost in 2020.
If "none" is perhaps too strong, I really think I'm on strong ground here to say there is much much more hand wringing about what Democrats are doing wrong to win the vote of median voters than the GOP, when the GOP is clearly leaving votes on the table.
My take: Gas prices are less a reason for people to vote red than an excuse.
They vote red because they have complaints. Life is not fair or perfect, and they feel they were promised both. Therefore, etc.
Gas prices, to use a pun, are like gasoline on a fire of discontent. With prices going down as they seem to be doing, the fire still rages.
Democrats will do quite well compared to how they were expected to do. But they will probably lose both houses of Congress, and we will all be dealing with autocratic thugs in positions of electoral authority in key states, nevertheless.
Sucks. :(
Good piece. Are you aware of any good studies on the Latino vote in rural America, especially in the non-border state South? I'm sure that the Latino vote in TX, AZ, NM, CA is complicated and nuanced because of hundreds of years of immigration and settlement patterns in these areas. But what about the rural Latino vote in TN? NC? SC? KY? Etc. It seems to me that these populations would be pre-disposed to support moderate Dems who reach out to them with respect and actually deliver on issues they care about.
I think the role of political consultants is part of the picture. I suppose there is a "technology" which consultants are expert in using of messaging "likely" voters and donors so that sway candidates do. I don't think there is a "technology" for appealing to the median voter.
Claiming that there is an increase in voting in accordance with individual opinions compared to broad identity considerations requires much more evidence. My gut feeling is that group identity is just as important as ever, although perhaps some of those groups are more fluid.
You missed the 600 lb elephant in the room: BLM. Latinos are quickly coming to the realization that the the extreme left (not necessarily black, mostly woke whites) is diametrically at odds with their interests. I have had many side conversations with latino moms in poor black neighborhoods constantly complaining about how bad the crime rate has gotten and how over the Democratic party they are. One block in South Central Los Angeles told me half her family switched to GOP/Trump fans over it. Many in my family as well, also from the very liberal Los Angeles area. I can only imagine the ripple affect in other areas.
Wokeism is driving the latinos away more rapidly than anything else, IMHO. The whole defund the police was stupid to the core and the weakness of many Democrats to say so explicitly, when its mostly latinos who unjustly feel the brunt of this was not lost on the general populace.
Oh and dont get me started on the stupid latinx term.
This statement is interesting:
Politically moderate Black people think the Republican Party is racist and that Democrats care about them, and they vote overwhelmingly for Democratic Party candidates.
So Democrats put a lot of effort into defining Republicans as racist and themselves as pro-Black This helps them get Black votes. But there is a price to be paid with White moderates. It seems like there is also a price to be paid with Hispanics. Democrats try to lure Hispanics by allowing them into the POC group (as a junior member) but many Hispanics just aren’t interested and culturally feel more comfortable with their white friends and neighbors moving toward Republicans.
Fundamental to identity politics is prioritizing identities. Democrats clearly prioritize certain groups. One could say Republicans do to. Neither party puts Hispanics at the top of the list. Maybe be that explains their split vote?
One small thing that people in deep blue cities and states can do to help is to choose local officials on their midterm ballot who are more likely to help than hinder the party's image. This is especially true for offices related to crime and policing, as Republicans are already perceived among swing voters as stronger on crime, Democrats can ill-afford to make things worse, and Republicans have made examples of numerous progressive prosecutors in their attack ads for unrelated races.
It has always been the case that liberal Republicans are low hanging fruit for Democrats and conservative Democrats are low-hanging fruit for Republicans.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the "liberal Republican" fruit has pretty much already been picked. But, Republicans still have lots of upside remaining among conservative Democrats, who are mostly nonwhite (the low-hanging fruit for Republicans of converting conservative *white* Democrats has also, largely been already picked).
"By contrast, as Eric Michael Garcia says, “there is no such thing as the Latino vote. There are Latino votes.”"
I'd take this a step further and say there is no such thing as Latino, just votes. There is no Latino identity. If you meet someone of Cuban, Puerto Rican or Colombian descent they'll think of themselves in that manner. We don't even approve of the labels (let's not even get into Latinx...). It has been said better by others, for example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/3/24/dont-call-me-latino-pbdbont-call/
I understand the US has an unhealthy obsession with labeling people, but if the people of Latin-American descent can't even agree on a way to collectively refer to themselves, then maybe the US should stop treating us as a group? You don't see the US media obsessing over the "Asian", "Middle-eastern" or "European" vote, Latin-americans should get the same treatment.
"But Abrams has the misfortunate of needing to run against a pretty strong opponent. . . "
It was not misfortune; it was a choice. Abrams could have run for Senate in 2020 (and many begged her to do so) but refused and instead chose to run against a fairly strong Republican incumbent for governor in a year where history screamed that Democrats would be at a disadvantage. So she will lose and will deservedly become a footnote in Democratic politics. She could have been a contender but refused to do so.
I like her; she's very smart; and from most accounts has done a great job with voter registration and mobilization. But the bottom line in politics is winning elections and there, for whatever reason, she dropped the ball.
Back when I was a communist and hung out with lots of radicals there was this view that anti-Black racism was distinctive and unique and much worse than racism against other groups in that Black culture was seen a thing to be wiped out and destroyed and 'good' Black people were the ones who were basically not culturally Black. I think that probably left the lefty conversation as generic anti-racist politics started its rise. I did not like this view at the time, but I have come around to it. Black voters have supported Democrats for so long not because of specific policy issues that benefit Black voters, nor because Black voters think Democrats aren't racist (many Black dems think white dems ARE racist), but because the Democrats have been allies of Black self-empowerment and institutional development. This relies on the variety of Black institutions you mention, which are now sadly weakening. The Democrats and Black institutions had a mutually beneficial relationship where the unique character of Black civil society was preserved and assimilation was *not* the objective. Anti-black racism required this strategy, because mainstream institutions could not be trusted.
When Dems tried to set up parallel political institutions to cater to Hispanic voters they just recreated white institutions that are built around the narrow values of affluent college-educated whites and handed a bunch of power to young Hispanic people who are the most similar to young white people. You could critique this and say well, they should have made more Catholic institutions or etc. But the reality is, the goal for Hispanic voters is (mostly, obviously this isn't monolithic) to gain representation and power within the white-dominated mainstream civil society, not to construct a parallel one, because they don't really need a parallel one.
I'm Hispanic and I know how conservative Hispanic voters can be. I think part of the problem progressives had was that the same percentage of Hispanic voters would continue to support Dems. Not an overwhelming percentage like Hispanics but a very large majority.
There are several reasons why this is wrong but there are two reasons that stand out for me.
Hispanic voters vote based on the economy. In a way this is what you would want voters to do, to make decisions on objective material conditions.
Back in 1984 when the US economy was doing well Ronald Reagan did well among Hispanics. Same thing happened in 2004 with W. Trump benefited from an economic recovery that started under Obama. On top of that the economic stimulus that was signed into law in 2020 because of COVID disproportionately benefited low income voters. It shouldn't have been surprising that more Hispanic voters would vote for Trump.
The second factor is that the percentage of Hispanic voters who are Evangelical Christians is increasing over time and those voters are much more likely to vote for the GOP.
Hispanic voters responding to economic conditions means that the percentage of the vote will go up and down but the second means that the percentage who vote vote GOP will increase in spite of economic conditions.
Very simply - if the Republicans managed to be conservative without overdoing it on fiscal austerity and/or racism, they'd wipe the floor with Democrats.
I know conservatives always complain liberals have the easy pitch. We want to give people free money! But I maintain people don't actually want free money and most people are small c conservative.
True progressives will always be a minority, though the fact we've seen the emergence of a progressive theocracy was not something I had anticipated...
When was the last time you read a whole article about Hispanics that didn’t use Latinx?
Refreshing.
Ruben Gallego is doing everyone a favor by explicitly telling people to reject such usage.
I've written this before, but I find it fascinating that a political party dominated by rich, professional class, secular people wants millions of poor, working class, Catholics and Evangelicals to join their party, and assumes that these millions of people will vote for their same professional class, progressive priorities. Seems like the pinnacle of naivite.
Also, the 2008 and 2014 elections horribly scrambled the parties' brains. After 2008 both parties bought the "demographics is destiny" canard and after 2014 both parties bought the "Republicans can only win in low turnout elections" canard. So since then Democrats have been complacent, waiting for their ascension to eternal power, and Republicans have doing everything they can to keep turnout low. In reality 2008 was just a really bad year for incumbents (Republicans) because of the financial crisis and Democrats had an incredible politician that the media and Hollywood collectively orgasmed over, which gave Democrats large coattails. And in 2014, turnout was low, but it was also a really bad Senate map for Democrats. All those senators who were elected in the Obama blowout of 08 had to face re-election under much worse political conditions.
It seems to me that you could take your first paragraph, substitute the word "conservative" for "progressive" and it would apply equally well to the Republican as the Democratic party.
That's true, but Republicans aren't the ones clamoring for mass Hispanic immigration and a mass amnesty of illegal immigrants.
I have not noticed any Democrats "clamoring" for that, either."
I know that most Latinos don't prioritize those two issues as much as many progressives think they do (or should!) but to the extent that Democrats highlight them, is that an actual negative for party support among Latinos?
It's certainly a negative among recent legal immigrants, but I doubt their numbers are large enough to make a major impact overall. The biggest negative impact is just the general vibes that working class, religious people feel from being looked down upon by the professional class and simultaneously being expected to vote for people who publically disapprove of their lifestyle.
10% true and 90% Fox hype.
This is not to say that 10% is 100% too much.
The immigration thing is probably the most complicated and it breaks down over intra-Hispanic/Latino divisions. Like, Latino voters of Mexican origin are all usually for amnesty for well-established (10+ years in country) undocumented immigrants because of a perception that these people are Mexican (which, to be fair, they mostly are), but actively oppose liberalizing the asylum regime for new arrivals from Central and South America. (Source: Conversations with my future in-laws, who are of Mexican origin.)
Do these defecting voters see Republicans as *not* looking down on their ethnic lifestyle or is merely a negative vote?
More of the former. The Republican Party contains a lot of people with similar lifestyles.
This isn't the point of the article, but this piece has sort of getting a rant that's sort of built up inside of me for 2 years. How in God's name are there not more think pieces about the fact that GOP is not doing enough to get more votes?! For two years (heck for 6 years) I've seen multiple pieces from Matt, Josh Barro, David Shorr and countless other commentators about how Democrats need to recalibrate their messaging, become more moderate and just general criticisms of their vote getting strategy. However, an incumbent GOP President just lost an election...which basically shouldn't happen. Trump almost certainly had 4-5% fewer votes in 2016 than a generic GOP candidate and won by hitting the equivalent of an inside straight on the river and we're supposed to believe he has his pulse on the heart of America.
Yes, I suspect some of this disconnect is the "hack gap". Even the supposedly "good" conservatives who write at National Review see their role as electing conservatives and Republicans first (with the occasional mild criticism of Trump so they can continue to be "friends" with mainstream media) and "honest" commentators second (the lack of introspection about what GOP should do get educated suburban women to vote GOP is...telling). But I honestly think part of the story is that even left of center writers like Matt have internalized the conservative talking point about "real America". Yes it's partly the fact that rural voters have waaaaay more power than city voters, but I honestly think there's is a real bias that has bled into political analysis of even non right wing writers into believing GOP just "gets" real Americans.
Sorry rant over. This was as good a place as any to get off my chest that actually GOP has more problems than Democrats in blowing winnable races and losing voters they shouldn't. The most likely outcome to me of the midterms is GOP slightly gaining in the House enough to take the chamber and a 50/50 senate. Given underlying circumstances (inflation, party out of power, Presidential approval rating), GOP should be looking at getting 53 or 54 senators (I know I know, polls may be off, I'm assuming polls and 538 is at least somewhat accurate).
Apparently left-wing individuals may have a "tendency towards neurosis, negativity and anxiety", which could explain the gap you're describing:
https://twitter.com/xenocryptsite/status/1583208215881584641
Neither party has shown much interest in seizing the empty, and very winnable, center. Poor Anthony Downs must be spinning in his grave. (He's dead, right?)
Died October 2, 2021 according to Google.
Matt, Josh Barro, and David Shor are all Democrats. Why would you expect them to write pieces advocating the GOP do more to win?
I think a lot of it is that because of the nature of the two parties. Since Democrats do well among college educated people, especially the college educated that follow policy closely, their internal debates tend to be external debates.
So an argument like "what to do about the GOP's candidate quality problem" would play out behind closed doors in a strategy meeting somewhere. Moreover, an article about the topic probably wouldn't get much engagement, just due to mismatches in who consumes that kind of media.
This actually seems like it has tome truth to it.
"How in God's name are there not more think pieces about the fact that GOP is not doing enough to get more votes?!"
Primarily because the distribution of people pre-disposed to vote Republican and the structure of US federal political institutions is such that Republicans can accomplish most of their concrete policy agenda (cut taxes, cut social spending, spend more on the military) even while failing to win a majority of the popularity vote. I mean keep in mind that after 2012 the GOP produced a report on what it needed to do to win more votes. The party then almost completely ignored the advice in the report and went on to win control of the House, Senate, and presidency over the next four years. Then, over the subsequent four years they lost that, but by a narrow enough margin that they will almost certainly take back at least one house of Congress in 2022 and potentially both, and if Biden is reelected in 2024, they'll probably keep control of Congress through at least 2030, maybe even 2034-36 depending on how large a majority they build up in the 2022 / 2026 / 2030 mid-terms.
Well, as far as most Republicans know, this isn't happening. Democrats don't win elections, they steal them.
I mean sort of my point. The thing is, I actually agree with a lot of this analysis from Matt. But I think it's sort of inarguable to me that GOP is doing WAY less to try to appeal to the median voter than Democrats. Yes there are exceptions of course (Kemp in GA, Youngkin in 2021. Although even there it's remarkable the extent he's actually governing as a pretty right wing Republican in a state that at it's heart a D+5 (or more) state). But see Doug Mastriano in PA, Herschal Walker in GA or basically Massachusetts in general (GOP had the most popular governor in the country in arguably the most famously blue state and their move was to...veer far to the right).
The lack of hand wringing about what GOP is doing wrong is...actually disturbing. Because it says to me that the GOP believes it doesn't actually have to appeal to median voters because they likely believe they can either A) make sure what happened in Wisconsin is how the entire country is governed or B) count on SCOTUS ruling in favor of the independent state legislature doctrine.
"basically Massachusetts in general (GOP had the most popular governor in the country in arguably the most famously blue state and their move was to...veer far to the right)."
This is my point below because this is almost exactly what happened with Manchin over the last year. His refusal to give the Progressive base what they wanted led to a huge outcry against him and lots of threats to primary him. The rebuttals that Democrats were incredibly fortunate to have him at all from W. Virginia was typically scoffed at. Elites in the party know that he essentially irreplaceable, but the broader base of the party doesn't care when he is blocking things they want.
Both parties' base want very unpopular things and the elites in the party strive to use the passion to fund, but throttle it enough to win. (See McConnell discussing candidate quality).
Well yes, whichever party stops trying to lose and starts trying to actually win will probably pull it off. I think what Matt and others are doing is trying to get Democrats to do that first...
"Donald Trump won more votes in 2016 than any other GOP presidential candidate ever did (narrowly beating Bush's 2004 total)."
This has more to do with population growth and turnout then anything special about Trump. He narrowly beat Bush from 2004 when the country added close to 40 million people between 2004 (293 million) and 2020 (330 million).
Joe Biden won more votes than any Democratic nominee ever - crushing Obama in 2008 (81 million to Obama's 65 million). Do you really think Joe Biden was more popular in 2020 than Obama was in 2008?
" It's insane to argue any other GOP candidate would have improved on his performance in terms of votes."
I think after 8 years of Obama, the advantages of incumbency after being in office for 4 years, with the economy having started finally really expanding and the rally around the flag from Covid, almost no other Republican would have lost in 2020.
If "none" is perhaps too strong, I really think I'm on strong ground here to say there is much much more hand wringing about what Democrats are doing wrong to win the vote of median voters than the GOP, when the GOP is clearly leaving votes on the table.