Yesterday I wrote a short blog post with the title “a little
arithmetic.” That post had a very limited and quite specific purpose which, perhaps with excessive optimism, I thought would be obvious to my readers. The post
attracted no fewer than 29 comments, dominated by several very long comments
from a new contributor to this blog, Tom Hickey. The discussion in those
comments was interesting, although it covered ground that has been extensively
tilled on this blog. But what I was most struck by was the odd fact that not a
single one of the comments had anything at all to do with what I had posted.
At the risk of appearing simpleminded, let me explain in
elementary terms what I was trying to accomplish by means of that imaginary
arithmetic example. There is endless discussion in the blogosphere and on cable
news about “turnout,” and everybody understands that turnout is important. But
no one ever runs through numerical examples designed to explain precisely why a
political campaign plan that focuses on “turning out the base” can be a
rational way of trying to win an election. I thought that if I constructed a
numerical example, it would put some flesh on those bones. I did not feel it
necessary to repeat yet again that in the American political system presidents
are elected by the electoral college and not by the popular vote. Nor did I
think it necessary to remind the readers of this blog that in presidential
election years over the past 70 years or so turnout has been in the
neighborhood of 60%.
I think my numerical example clarified something that is
often not adequately understood by commentators on cable news, namely that in
certain circumstances it can be quite rational to focus all one’s efforts on
significantly increasing the turnout of one’s loyal supporters rather than on
attempting to win over those not already in the base.
In my example, a political campaign down 10 points in the
polls in a particular state could nonetheless win that state and hence that
state’s electoral votes by increasing the base turnout from 60 to 75%, a
difficult but not impossible goal under certain circumstances. My example also
showed that the candidate leading in the polls in that state by 10 percentage
points could protect his or her lead by a relatively small increase in turnout.
And that was it. Now a blog is not a classroom, a fact that
S. Wallerstein likes to remind me of. But I really would like to think that it has
the form of a genuine conversation and not just an unstructured free-for-all.
Well, so much for that. Later today or perhaps tomorrow I
will take a stab at answering my own question about what we ought to do in the
event that the Democrats actually sweep the table in the November elections.
19 comments:
That this was your point was obvious to me anyway.
whew! So I am not crazy. Well ...
I am afraid a lot of conversations are like that, Prof. People have something they burn to say, and they say it at the first opportunity regardless of what anyone else has said.
I well remember someone I used to work with whose entire conversational skillset consisted of repeating that one thing whenever it was his turn to say anything. It could become quite trying at times.
Cutting to the chase, the GOP has assiduously cultivated its base, whereas the Democrats have focused instead on capturing the center by drawing in disaffected Republican, assuming that the Democratic base comprised of unions, minorities, and progressives will just come along because there is no alternative.
Much of what Donald Trump does is directed at this end of cultivating the base. A lot of people focus on DJT personally, but he represents a large swath of the voters and he understands not only what they want but what the activists want. He remains in campaign mode while governing and governs with an eye to keeping his constituency, adding to it, and increasing its level of intensity. That why I say that if Trump would go the constituency would remain and find another champion willing to cater to them.
Scott Adams, a cartoonist and creator of Dilbert™, a rather brilliant social commentary using humor, is also a student of persuasion. He predicted early that DJT would win in 2016 and why. DJT understands persuasion. In fact, Adams calls him "a master of persuasion." In contrast, the Democrats don't so far, even through they have been duly warned by cognitive scientist George Lakoff, who has also provided guidance in strategy and tactics of persuasion — feeling trumps reason in politics. Intensity arises from feeling and intensity determines activism level.
I think that analysts that view intensity as as factor as important as general support for the candidate are correct and that this has to be taken into account in the arithmetic. But polling support is relatively easy, although the last election showed how tenuous that can be. Putting numbers on intensity is much more difficult to do than estimating support through polling.
The GOP learned the hard way that taking the base for granted and throwing it some crumbs now and then will eventually lead to lower turnout and perhaps more importantly, less enthusiasm and political activism. It's not only turnout but also the "intensity" of the party "regulars" that act to mobilize the party to get out and vote.
The result after the GSB administration was rising dissatisfaction of the GOP base, eventually culminating in "populist" insurrection. Now the reorganized party has an activist base that is enthusiastic, and DJT throws it red meat daily.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in the midst of an insurrection by a disgruntled base, and in the last election it may have made a difference. Is the Democratic Party doing what it takes to use the activist base to turn out voters?
Instead of addressing the actual issues within the party along with the issues the party as whole faces in elections vis-à-vis the opponent, The Democratic establishment chose to focus on creating a "resistance" that was chiefly not-Trump, attacking DJT rather than developing a counter position based on issues and vision. In addition the establishment marginalize those addressing the issue and providing a new vision for America.
Will such a negative approach be sufficient to reignite the activist base in the current election and energize the general supporters of the party that say that they would vote for the candidate? This is what the (highly paid) political strategists are grappling with now.
The conversation in yesterday's blog was not an "unstructured free for all". And I'd even say that it was a "genuine conversation", unless you mean something very different by that than most people do.
You made some comments about campaign strategy given normal low voter turnout in an electoral college system with reference to the 2020 presidential election. All the comments below had to do with the 2020 presidential election: no one brought in the world series or their favorite pop star.
Now you were educated in a system of extreme rigorousness, that of analytical philosophy in the 1950's and maybe there anyone who strayed from the central point of a conversation had committed a mortal sin. I was educated about a decade later in English literature and I can assure that if a professor began a class commenting on the role of the fool in Lear and the conversation had drifted towards the role of the fool in Renaissance literature, no professor would have intervened to steer the conversation back to its central point.
Conversations, which are not free-for-all-'s", drift from one point to another and that's how most human beings converse.
To continue, the traditional political strategy is to energize the base early on and then to tack to the center to pick up broader support. This requires moving away from the base a bit, at least in appearance. But if the base is sufficiently energized, it understands this maneuver and stays energized without feeling abandoned.
Trump's strategy is chiefly relying on an energized base and more or less forgetting about the center, figuring that it's really the base that delivers. But he still has time to pivot to the center later in the campaign. It's early yet.
The Democratic strategy has also been to energize the base using the Resistance while also cultivating the center to draw disaffected Republicans and energize them enough to buck their party. But the establishment has had to fend off an attack on their entrenched power by the progressive wing. So far it's been more or less successful in retaining power, but at what cost politically.
Trump can rely on his highly energized base as long as the pandemic doesn't unwind the intensity, which may be happening. But has he sufficient support in the center. Maybe and maybe not.
The Democrats have energized the party and also some Republicans with the not-Trump strategy. But in opposing progressives and trying to contend with an insurgency in the progressive portion of the base, they may have affected base intensity, especially to the degree that it appears the establishment is chiefly motivated by clinging to power beyond its expiration date. The good news is that the establishment is trying to create an appearance of power sharing. What would it take to convince the insurgency that this is real and not a campaign fake.
@ s. wallerstein
Well taken.
Actually, I was trained in analytic philosophy — dissertation on Wittgenstein.
I read the comments yesterday as mostly on target and elaborating the subtlety of the meaning of "arithmetic."
Yes, it is about "the arithmetic." But that involves a lot more may appear on the surface when one analyzes the context of its use relative to politics, elections and the coming election in particular.
If one reads the first two comments on the thread in question, one will see that they respond directly to some remarks that Prof. Wolff included at the end of the post on voters' "negative" motivations.
Tom Hickey,
Wittgenstein 1 or Wittgenstein 2?
(No, this is not a diabolical attempt to hijack the conversation, but simply normal human curiosity about another person).
@
Off topic but here is an off the cuff answer.
My thesis broadly speaking was that there the gap between W1 and W2 had been greatly exaggerated.
In my view, WI is about articulating the logic of description. It was a solid analysis and remains so, and it was a step forward at the time, building on Frege and Russell. LW was trained as an engineer (aeronautical) and the TLP should be understood in terms of Hertz's preface and introduction to the Principles of Mechanics as a major influence in LW. Broadly speaking he was workin in the area not only of philosophy of logic but also philosophy of science. I studied LW under George L. Farre, who was a physicist turned philosopher and adopted his understanding.
If there was a mistake it involved W1 presenting the propositional calculus as developed in the TLP as the logic of language rather than only descriptive language.
After interacting with fellow Cambridge don, Piero Sraffa, W2 aimed at correcting that "mistake" by expanding his articulation of the logic of language use. This was not a repudiation of the logic of description as presented in the TLP.
My dissertation focused on On Certainty as an articulation of the logic of justification. No one had written on this previously other an Von Wright, and he very graciously sent me a copy of his then unpublished paper. So this was an ideal dissertation topic at the time.
That was back in the Seventies. Subsequently my interest turned to philosophy of spirituality.
Two of the great thinkers of the last century focused on the same problem, what can be said and what can only be pointed to.
Tom Hickey,
Thanks.
RPW wrote: "I think my numerical example clarified something that is often not adequately understood by commentators on cable news, namely that in certain circumstances it can be quite rational to focus all one’s efforts on significantly increasing the turnout of one’s loyal supporters rather than on attempting to win over those not already in the base."
My question is who is this addressed to? The participants here. The general public. The commentators mentioned? The political strategists" The candidates? The parties in general.
I would assume that all politically savvy people know that the last step is an activated based that canvasses for the vote. Certainly political professional do and have for a long time. They are now refining their methods for doing to gain maximal advantage.
Until the very last days of the campaign there is a need to convince the undecided and to increase the intensity of interest and commitment. At the end, when voting begins, including mail-in voting where permitted, this becomes the focus.
No, that was not my point. Never mind.
There are certain factors in this campaign that don't exist in a period of 'normal politics.' This is a realignment election and the political situation is more ideologically divided than in any time in my life, and the issues are life or death, economic survival, and profoundly immediate. There are no swing voters, at best a statistical hadfull of independents, and both bases share a high degree of intensity.
In 2018, the GOP turned out in 5 million more voters for GOP House candidates than they did in 2016, but it did them little good. The Republican base is smaller than the Democratic base. Assuming both sides pull more voters in from the non-voter pool, keep in mind the democrats have a 55- 41 advantage among non-voters.
For pollsters, the important question is who do you poll? What will the composition of the electorate be like on Nov.3rd? Remember that Romney's pollster got that wrong in 2012, leading some republican commentators to simply not believe what they were seeing as the votes came in. Romney was losing precincts they were sure he was going to win.
As Dr. Bitecofer has pointed out, the only election which parallels the 2020 race is the 1860 election. Then, as we know, the parties were sharply divided, and the main issues were white supremacy and nativism, just as they are today. I have had occasion to read up on the nativist Know Nothings vs.Irish Catholic riots in the 1850's. One thing is sure, Richard Hofstadter was right about the paranoid right and anti-intellectualism in America.
The democrats have to invest in a 50 state organizing and GOTV plan. Obama had the best field organization in modern history, and Clinton's mortal sin was not replicating it. It will be critical to turnout millenial and gen-x voters, black , hispanic and Asian voters at levels equal to or exceeding 2018 levels. As I write this, Biden is up by 9.5 point in national polls, 5 pts. in Fl, 7.5 in Michigan, 6.5 in PA and WI, 3.5 in AZ, and anywhere from 5-15 in MN.
As to Mr. Hickey's point above (7/8 @3:09), the first step is to deploy a field organization, canvass precincts and update voter/supporter lists. There are no "undecideds' or swing voters in this election. The candidates job is to unify the various factions in the party so they turnout and vote. Intensity is high now, and I doubt it can go higher. It is not going to wane, Trump will make sure of that.
Dr. Wolff's point is that the focus should not be on persuadable voters, but on bringing voters in who haven't been participating, thereby shifting the normal composition of the electorate to the Democrat's advantage. If I read Dr. Wolff's point correctly, I agree with him. I can't count the number of times I have uttered something like "This clown is a freakin' idiot" when hearing a news commentator (including Maddow) talk about needing to capture swing votes. I think folks continue to think in those terms because they don't grasp the reality were are in now, which is certainly not the normal politics of the last 40 years.
I think Christopher M's comment is well taken. There must be very few genuinely undecided voters who are also likely voters in November. So the Dems indeed have to turnout their supporters, energize their "base", ensure that it gets to the polls. Much of that is, as is well known, a matter of technique and good ground organization.
And that supports Pr. Wolff's original point.
One of the unknowns is how the logistical challenges of mail-in voting (in terms of counting ballots promptly etc), which will presumably be higher than usual, will affect things.
Hi, Teacher. I’m from Brazil and sorry, my comment there is nothing to do with the subject as well. I just came here to thank you for the Kant classes on youtube. I am watching and re-watching and learning a lots. Those are so rich, and clear... I will carry those lessons forever. Thx!
Ops, I forgot to post my question. Here we go. According to the first analogy, could I say that Kant suggest that there is a kind of numenal world beneath the pheanomenas world? I mean , phenomena would be just a puppet being manipulated by phenomena? That’s it. Sorry for my poor English.
Correnting: *being manipulated by numeno?
If yes, so Kant told us positive knowledge about numeno.
Post a Comment