But it feels to me that the Groups have changed? I remember the gay marriage fight, and I remember them highlighting, I don’t know, cases like two elderly lesbian librarians living together instead of a couple of 30-something males wearing assless chaps and tank tops saying “Die Breeder!” on them. They seemed to know that the librarians were a much more sympathetic example to highlight. Am I misremembering this?
I haven’t finished reading this, because I need to stop at the very first question. You, Matt, say that “keep things the same” is the clear winner, when it’s actually the loser according to the data you provide. Could you explain what you mean?
I’m pretty much a moderate on just about every single controversial issue out there.
A few issues I fall to the left, a few to the right. But even on those issues, I still like the moderate message.
Well, I just want to talk about an observation I have about abortion.
I live in Boise, Idaho, which, as many of you know… Idaho has pretty much banned abortion . But Boise itself, it’s a pretty blue city. Home of Boise State, and all kinds of YIMBYs.
Oh, and through whatever quirk, I know quite a lot of young childbearing age women. Basically all of my daughters, and my nieces.
All of these young ladies are pretty much… Go out and have some fun types. Yesterday, I don’t know a single person that went to church.
Demographically, these are exactly the side of women that you would expect to be up in arms about abortion. But I’m here to tell you… It’s a big meh.
People are not leaving Idaho in droves.
And I know that some of your reading this are pretty passionate about the issue. But I think you guys are bigger outliers then it might feel to you.
Which leads me to the theory that people don’t really care about a lot of things, if the subject is about something like that happens very rarely.
I just wonder how much this phenomena that I am observing, has to do with the preference for moderate views.
On a completely unrelated issue. Has anyone else noticed how the antifa resistors from the Trump era have become the vocal pro Hamas from the river to the sea anti-Israel, and antisemites? It’s almost like antifa wasn’t actually anti-Nazi… And just pro. “Give me something to protest about anarchist”
On the second example you say Democrats like the moderate message more but that’s not what your data says. Democrats are +9 on Biden’s actual wall message but +0 on your moderate alternative.
I’m pretty sure it was your old colleague Ezra Klein who pointed out first that what issues get elevated in an election is more important than the actual policies being discussed. If 2024 is about immigration than Biden will lose even if he announces the building of a Maginot line at the southern border at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
In other words to the move to make is a quietly as possible try to make moves that improve the situation; try getting “e-verify” enforced, see if immigration courts can be expanded. Then basically not talk about it at all so that hopefully there is less footage of border crossings on people’s television. Biden himself elevating the issue, even if it’s to tout how “tough” he is on illegal immigration seems like a loser. He’s not convince swing voters he’s more cruel than Trump is on this issue.
So, is there a body of literature on "polling ethics"somewhere, that says that it is okay to lie to members of the public about what someone said, and leave them with the false belief that this person said X when they have never said X?
I mean, this looks like push-polling in the extreme.
Congressman Mike Johnson recently said, "I eat kittens with tabasco sauce." Do you approve or disapprove of Congressman Johnson's eating kittens?
It only recently occurred to me to keep the media’s role in mind on this topic. The only media from which Biden has any hope of positive coverage at all seems fully in thrall to the groups. Moderating might perversely generate negative coverage while failing to spread his message.
I think something similar may have occurred with Afghanistan. The relevant media (on the national security beat) is so aligned with the security state that Biden did a politically popular thing and got overwhelmingly negative coverage.
For the “personally opposed”/“safe, legal, and rare” messaging, I think one of the benefits is the voters can extrapolate it out a bit.
For people who are not religious fundamentalists or ideological libertarians or leftists or some other identification with a strict ideology hearing a politician say they are willing to go against their "beliefs" on an issue and follow what is "best" or the "will of the people" can seem pretty appealing.
>This reflects a broader set of messaging decisions that I find somewhat odd. My sense is that traditionally, politicians try to make themselves sound more moderate than they are....why not put forward the most moderate possible face?<
Why not indeed.
I think the answer is: much of the time, too many Democratic politicians—the President and (especially) the Vice President included—are stuck in a hard left intimidation bubble. Maybe that's simplistic, but it's the only explanation I can think of.
I’m going to repeat something here that I noted recently because it’s quite relevant. This idea that GOP as a whole is more malleable and willing to tack to the center than Democrats is a bizarre myth you’re repeatedly espousing.
You (correctly) noted previously that Trump running in 2016 against slashing Medicare and social security is an underrated reason he won. But what indication do you have that GOP as a whole has moderated on this issue? And as far as I can tell Trump’s “issue” is that he actually won in 2020 and to therefore remind voters of January 6th. Lastly, what about elevating Mike Johnson to speaker screams moderation to you on policy.
>I will be the first to admit that all this just confirms what I thought all along, so I’m genuinely interested to hear whether others find it persuasive<
I personally find it (the case for moderate Dem messaging on abortion) pretty intuitive. The GOP's policies in this area have become so shockingly extreme that it's hard to imagine many abortion-rights-first voters abandoning Democratic candidates because of insufficient zeal or ideological purity on the issue. They'd really prefer Donald Trump's court picks to Joe Biden's? They'd really prefer that a GOP Congress be in charge of national reproductive healthcare legislation?
But, via the use of strategic, appropriate messaging moderation, it's *not* hard to imagine Democrats bolstering their strength with the nontrivial number of voters who would be open to voting for Democrats save for their perception (justified or not) of the party's hard-left extremism on abortion.
A related question is whether there's a net benefit of publicly antagonizing the progressive wing. That is, punching left and being "aggressively moderate" vs. being "positively moderate." I don't see being "apologetically moderate" as a few of his statements winning an A/B/C test.
As the incumbent president, Biden won't have to fight through a primary so he can message how he wants to message. So I'm not sure why he's choosing the squishiest option.
Is it possible that the administration has a mental model similar to the “voter activation” thing and is convinced that there are large number of “unlikely voters” that do not appear in these surveys but will turn out if the administration takes a sufficiently progressive stance? Several of my more DSA-y friends had a similar response when I shared the earlier post about polling.
Isn't this 'strange' messaging really just a smart play given that people who pay more attention to politics also tend to have more extreme views.
If I'm Biden, I know that the moderates won't parse my press conference on the Willow project. They'll mostly react to the fact that my administration approved it. OTOH the more extreme green activists in the party will pay careful attention and this way I play to both groups.
(1) Great to see empirical results reporting on this!
(2) I think the chief issue with the "safe, legal, and rare" type messaging is that it's exactly what you'd say if you had no particular commitment to defending abortion rights and were willing to stay the course *until* you got a supermajority who shared your personal moral convictions and were wiling to ban it. This position is at best tolerable in contexts where the status quo is acceptable and the likelihood of shifting political demographics changing it is very remote. Many issues are like that (presumably the majority of issues, since the space of issues *not* campaigned on is basically arbitrarily large), but as a *relative* signal of allegiance and policy orientation to voters who rank the issue as high-salience, it's a net negative if you think that "don't rock the boat" isn't going to cut it.
That isn't to say that it isn't the correct message for a general election, just a note that it seems impossible in principle without additional information than the message itself to distinguish between "strategically moderate messaging in favor of policy positions I endorse" and "strategically moderate messaging because this isn't really something that I expect the candidate to fight for rather than merely begrudgingly tolerate."
But it feels to me that the Groups have changed? I remember the gay marriage fight, and I remember them highlighting, I don’t know, cases like two elderly lesbian librarians living together instead of a couple of 30-something males wearing assless chaps and tank tops saying “Die Breeder!” on them. They seemed to know that the librarians were a much more sympathetic example to highlight. Am I misremembering this?
I haven’t finished reading this, because I need to stop at the very first question. You, Matt, say that “keep things the same” is the clear winner, when it’s actually the loser according to the data you provide. Could you explain what you mean?
I’m pretty much a moderate on just about every single controversial issue out there.
A few issues I fall to the left, a few to the right. But even on those issues, I still like the moderate message.
Well, I just want to talk about an observation I have about abortion.
I live in Boise, Idaho, which, as many of you know… Idaho has pretty much banned abortion . But Boise itself, it’s a pretty blue city. Home of Boise State, and all kinds of YIMBYs.
Oh, and through whatever quirk, I know quite a lot of young childbearing age women. Basically all of my daughters, and my nieces.
All of these young ladies are pretty much… Go out and have some fun types. Yesterday, I don’t know a single person that went to church.
Demographically, these are exactly the side of women that you would expect to be up in arms about abortion. But I’m here to tell you… It’s a big meh.
People are not leaving Idaho in droves.
And I know that some of your reading this are pretty passionate about the issue. But I think you guys are bigger outliers then it might feel to you.
Which leads me to the theory that people don’t really care about a lot of things, if the subject is about something like that happens very rarely.
I just wonder how much this phenomena that I am observing, has to do with the preference for moderate views.
On a completely unrelated issue. Has anyone else noticed how the antifa resistors from the Trump era have become the vocal pro Hamas from the river to the sea anti-Israel, and antisemites? It’s almost like antifa wasn’t actually anti-Nazi… And just pro. “Give me something to protest about anarchist”
On the second example you say Democrats like the moderate message more but that’s not what your data says. Democrats are +9 on Biden’s actual wall message but +0 on your moderate alternative.
I’m pretty sure it was your old colleague Ezra Klein who pointed out first that what issues get elevated in an election is more important than the actual policies being discussed. If 2024 is about immigration than Biden will lose even if he announces the building of a Maginot line at the southern border at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
In other words to the move to make is a quietly as possible try to make moves that improve the situation; try getting “e-verify” enforced, see if immigration courts can be expanded. Then basically not talk about it at all so that hopefully there is less footage of border crossings on people’s television. Biden himself elevating the issue, even if it’s to tout how “tough” he is on illegal immigration seems like a loser. He’s not convince swing voters he’s more cruel than Trump is on this issue.
So, is there a body of literature on "polling ethics"somewhere, that says that it is okay to lie to members of the public about what someone said, and leave them with the false belief that this person said X when they have never said X?
I mean, this looks like push-polling in the extreme.
Congressman Mike Johnson recently said, "I eat kittens with tabasco sauce." Do you approve or disapprove of Congressman Johnson's eating kittens?
It only recently occurred to me to keep the media’s role in mind on this topic. The only media from which Biden has any hope of positive coverage at all seems fully in thrall to the groups. Moderating might perversely generate negative coverage while failing to spread his message.
I think something similar may have occurred with Afghanistan. The relevant media (on the national security beat) is so aligned with the security state that Biden did a politically popular thing and got overwhelmingly negative coverage.
For the “personally opposed”/“safe, legal, and rare” messaging, I think one of the benefits is the voters can extrapolate it out a bit.
For people who are not religious fundamentalists or ideological libertarians or leftists or some other identification with a strict ideology hearing a politician say they are willing to go against their "beliefs" on an issue and follow what is "best" or the "will of the people" can seem pretty appealing.
>This reflects a broader set of messaging decisions that I find somewhat odd. My sense is that traditionally, politicians try to make themselves sound more moderate than they are....why not put forward the most moderate possible face?<
Why not indeed.
I think the answer is: much of the time, too many Democratic politicians—the President and (especially) the Vice President included—are stuck in a hard left intimidation bubble. Maybe that's simplistic, but it's the only explanation I can think of.
I’m going to repeat something here that I noted recently because it’s quite relevant. This idea that GOP as a whole is more malleable and willing to tack to the center than Democrats is a bizarre myth you’re repeatedly espousing.
You (correctly) noted previously that Trump running in 2016 against slashing Medicare and social security is an underrated reason he won. But what indication do you have that GOP as a whole has moderated on this issue? And as far as I can tell Trump’s “issue” is that he actually won in 2020 and to therefore remind voters of January 6th. Lastly, what about elevating Mike Johnson to speaker screams moderation to you on policy.
>I will be the first to admit that all this just confirms what I thought all along, so I’m genuinely interested to hear whether others find it persuasive<
I personally find it (the case for moderate Dem messaging on abortion) pretty intuitive. The GOP's policies in this area have become so shockingly extreme that it's hard to imagine many abortion-rights-first voters abandoning Democratic candidates because of insufficient zeal or ideological purity on the issue. They'd really prefer Donald Trump's court picks to Joe Biden's? They'd really prefer that a GOP Congress be in charge of national reproductive healthcare legislation?
But, via the use of strategic, appropriate messaging moderation, it's *not* hard to imagine Democrats bolstering their strength with the nontrivial number of voters who would be open to voting for Democrats save for their perception (justified or not) of the party's hard-left extremism on abortion.
A related question is whether there's a net benefit of publicly antagonizing the progressive wing. That is, punching left and being "aggressively moderate" vs. being "positively moderate." I don't see being "apologetically moderate" as a few of his statements winning an A/B/C test.
As the incumbent president, Biden won't have to fight through a primary so he can message how he wants to message. So I'm not sure why he's choosing the squishiest option.
Adjusting my prior about abortion messaging accordingly.
Is it possible that the administration has a mental model similar to the “voter activation” thing and is convinced that there are large number of “unlikely voters” that do not appear in these surveys but will turn out if the administration takes a sufficiently progressive stance? Several of my more DSA-y friends had a similar response when I shared the earlier post about polling.
Isn't this 'strange' messaging really just a smart play given that people who pay more attention to politics also tend to have more extreme views.
If I'm Biden, I know that the moderates won't parse my press conference on the Willow project. They'll mostly react to the fact that my administration approved it. OTOH the more extreme green activists in the party will pay careful attention and this way I play to both groups.
(1) Great to see empirical results reporting on this!
(2) I think the chief issue with the "safe, legal, and rare" type messaging is that it's exactly what you'd say if you had no particular commitment to defending abortion rights and were willing to stay the course *until* you got a supermajority who shared your personal moral convictions and were wiling to ban it. This position is at best tolerable in contexts where the status quo is acceptable and the likelihood of shifting political demographics changing it is very remote. Many issues are like that (presumably the majority of issues, since the space of issues *not* campaigned on is basically arbitrarily large), but as a *relative* signal of allegiance and policy orientation to voters who rank the issue as high-salience, it's a net negative if you think that "don't rock the boat" isn't going to cut it.
That isn't to say that it isn't the correct message for a general election, just a note that it seems impossible in principle without additional information than the message itself to distinguish between "strategically moderate messaging in favor of policy positions I endorse" and "strategically moderate messaging because this isn't really something that I expect the candidate to fight for rather than merely begrudgingly tolerate."