The era of close elections

Do we have a new paradigm on our hands or just a coincidence?

It isn’t new, but my recommendation this week is a podcast (complete with transcript) that Matt Grossman did with Stuart Soroka and Christopher Wlezien back in 2022. In the interview, the researchers explain, for a popular audience, their earlier work on what they call “thermostatic public opinion.”

That’s a funny description, and I find the thermostat metaphor to be slightly confusing. But the basic point is that when you have a Republican president, public opinion tends to swing to the left. When you have a Democratic president, it tends to swing to the right. This is especially true when big policy changes are happening, or at least are seen to be happening. There are noteworthy exceptions — public opinion became increasingly favorable to gay marriage during Obama’s term. But it’s also noteworthy that Obama didn’t champion the cause of gay marriage until after it had already become popular. The year that he flip-flopped was actually a very rare year when it became less popular.

I bring this up because I think it’s an important calming point in the run-up to an election.

If Trump wins, there will be triumphalist interpretations of the great dawn of a New Right Era in American politics. But realistically, we know that during Trump’s previous presidency, opinion shifted hard to the left specifically on his signature issues, only to slam hard into reverse under Biden. If he wins again, I’m not sure exactly what he’ll do in office, but whatever it is will generate opposition and counter-mobilization of public opinion. Conversely, if Harris wins, I would expect tough-on-crime views and skepticism of DEI initiatives to keep growing. The system has strong tendencies toward equilibrium.

Some further recommendations:

• Alice Evans on the counter-reformation.

• Noah Smith on the economics Nobel Prize.

• Scott Alexander on the failed California push to regulate AI.

---

This week’s good news includes declining levels of mercury pollution, an injunction in Georgia to block some election fuckery, Amazon making the most important investment in new nuclear of any major company, and the approval of a huge geothermal project in Utah while new housing supply continues to keep rents contained.

Our comment of the week from David is, I think, a little bit overstated but broadly correct, and I just want to note that I tried to warn the Biden administration about this way back in March 2021!

If Kamala loses this election, we'll look back at their immigration policy as the major unforced error that sank them.

The important points on immigration:

• The public is 60-70% against Biden/Kamala's (old) position hanging your position after 3 1/2 years, just before the election, brings you basically zero creditability

• When Biden/Kamala switched their positions a few months ago, there was barely a squeak from the left.

• Did they lose any votes over it?

This means Biden was holding a position for 3 1/2 that was generating burning rage across a large slice of the country, mild rage across swing voters, and not really getting anything in return.

Straight up political malpractice.

They were blinded by the desire to do the opposite of what Trump would do and couldn't see how voters really felt.

---

For this week’s reader column, Joseph asks: In an era where landslides on the scale of '64, '72, '80, '84, and '88 will never EVER happen, what can possibly jolt a party (either party) into accepting that it must either adapt or die? Or are we just stuck in a doom loop where every 4 years, we're going to have this exact campaign?

I want to push back a little on this “eras” analysis.