2022 Midterm Election thread

[Matches]

Was there any ever evidence to suggest this put Trump over the top for winning the nomination? Seems like the number of people voting with this tactic would have to be pretty large to make any difference to the eventual outcome.

Doubtful - he dominated the GOP primary that year. Didn’t help, though, and diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere.

[Ultrarunner]

While I can understand your point of view, I find the policies of the two parties to be so diametrically opposed at this point on many issues (and in some cases such a massive shift from our current world) that I have trouble wrapping my head around someone who's sole intent in casting a ballot is to "throw them all out!"

Are you saying you would vote against an incumbent Democrat for House and and at the same time against an incumbent GOP senator? I find that tough to understand unless you don't really care very much about the policies backed by either party. I'd love to understand this better.

Jason, I'll be doing almost exactly that - offices/parties are reversed but otherwise the same scenario. I consider one incumbent dumber than a bucket of rocks and the other corrupted. Heck, both might be corrupted. I'll be voting against both. In one case, I'll have to vote 3rd party if I can find one not (to me) nuts, otherwise I'll write in.

I think it is important to note that, while voters such as myself may be passionate about policies, many pay attention when only lip-service is paid and won't vote in lockstep. If a given pol does not follow their rhetoric with appropriate actions, then they, imho, do not deserve my vote.

[Lord Ash]

Just saying, when I saw this post, I rubbed my eyes and blinked, to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

I'll enjoy reading what everyone has to post!

[Phredd3]

If I know anything, Democrats trying to tip the scales in favor of the candidate they want to run against because they think that candidate would be easier to beat (on account of them being so unimaginable to vote for) is dumb.

Just to continue this line of thought, I personally think it is worse than merely "dumb". It's a strategy that in effect says that the party can't win hearts and minds on their own. They need to face a sub-optimal opposition in order to win. Instead of re-thinking things like messaging, structure, and most importantly (gasp) policy within their own party, they instead have to try to manipulate opposition candidates.

It's back to the case of politicians standing fast and trying to choose voters (as happens with gerrymandering), instead of voters telling parties what they want and getting their leaders to adjust to their wishes. Winning for your team becomes more important than responding to the popular will, so problems people want solved don't happen because politicians feel that they can't cross tribal boundaries lest they be labeled as heretics.

It's tragic.

[bundabergdevil]

Big polling update from NYT/Sienna. Lots of polling bits


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/u...rump-poll.html

[OldPhiKap]

To state it politely, it seems a tad disingenuous to promote election deniers for one’s personal benefit while simultaneously decrying them as an existential threat to Democracy.

[Bluedog]

I agree. And from an optics perspective, it is a no win situation. If the Democrats win all of these seats, who is to say that it is because of this strategy or if they would have won the seats anyway? They can do all the polling they want but they won't know for sure (I will say for the first of many times in this thread that I think that most polls are totally useless and I am glad they have largely been discredited). And if they lose any of these seats, they end up with some major egg on their faces. As much as it seems like politicians have unlimited funds, they don't, so resources have to be allocated wisely - not sure if this was the best use of resources.

Well, in my example, Pritzker DOES have unlimited funds as he's a multi-billionaire! So, $35M of his personal funds for the Republican primary is a drop in the bucket and I'd argue was probably a more efficient use of that $35M than it would have been in the general election. But yeah, I agree with you that it's generally NOT the case and the adage "be careful what you wish for" as predictions/polling are erratic. So the strategy is far from foolproof and could backfire in certain situations, but also I believe could be effective in others. The problem is knowing what are the right situations for the Dems. But in IL, I'd be shocked if Bailey wins the election whereas I think it would have been a toss-up with Irvin. It's worth noting, however, that the primary wasn't even close...and Bailey dominated so one could argue that Pritzker's contributions likely didn't do much anyways.

The Daily podcast on it: Why Democrats are Bankrolling Far Right Candidates
The Republican Ticket Is Being Helped by the Last People You’d Expect

[ClemmonsDevil]

Was there any ever evidence to suggest this put Trump over the top for winning the nomination? Seems like the number of people voting with this tactic would have to be pretty large to make any difference to the eventual outcome.

No. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that running ads to support a more desired opponent has any effect. It's the correlation/causation conundrum. Dems were basically running ads tying the moderate to other unpopular Republicans like McConnell. There is 0% evidence that the Republican base didn't just desire the more extreme candidate and the moderate would have lost anyway. My prior is to think the Dems wasted money with this ploy and could achieved the outcome they "wanted" spending no money whatsoever. There is no evidence their ploy had any effect. And plenty of evidence that the Republican base wants more ideologically pure candidates.

[PackMan97]

Just to continue this line of thought, I personally think it is worse than merely "dumb". It's a strategy that in effect says that the party can't win hearts and minds on their own. They need to face a sub-optimal opposition in order to win. Instead of re-thinking things like messaging, structure, and most importantly (gasp) policy within their own party, they instead have to try to manipulate opposition candidates.

It's back to the case of politicians standing fast and trying to choose voters (as happens with gerrymandering), instead of voters telling parties what they want and getting their leaders to adjust to their wishes. Winning for your team becomes more important than responding to the popular will, so problems people want solved don't happen because politicians feel that they can't cross tribal boundaries lest they be labeled as heretics.

It's tragic.

In my opinion, it's a disqualifying act and makes a person unfit for office.

What it tells me about a candidate is that they put their own gain over the good of the country. They would rather risk a worse candidate winning the general election than face a higher chance of losing the election themself. Anyone with that mindset should never be allowed to hold office.

[Skydog]

In my opinion, it's a disqualifying act and makes a person unfit for office.

What it tells me about a candidate is that they put their own gain over the good of the country. They would rather risk a worse candidate winning the general election than face a higher chance of losing the election themself. Anyone with that mindset should never be allowed to hold office.

In many cases the crossover funding is driven by party strategy rather than individual politician ambition. Dems feel they have to hold the Senate to keep control of judicial appointments and their chances of doing so has improved every time a far right election denier GOP candidate won a primary. Those candidates do great with the GOP base but they don’t resonate as well with the independent voters who decide US elections in this day and age.

[ClemmonsDevil]

In my opinion, it's a disqualifying act and makes a person unfit for office.

What it tells me about a candidate is that they put their own gain over the good of the country. They would rather risk a worse candidate winning the general election than face a higher chance of losing the election themself. Anyone with that mindset should never be allowed to hold office.

Another way to look at this issue is why does one party have any responsibility to help the opposing party with their more extreme wing? Politics is a zero sum game, whether we like that or not. Yes there are real world consequences, but voters are choosing this. Not to be reductive, but if I'm a coach and I get to put a player on the line in a tight game, I want a worse shooter shooting for them. Not the better ahooter because it's better for the game. I recognize politics ain't sports. But it is zero sum game. If you lose, you lose the ability to enact policy. The other side gains that ability. So if you legitimately believe your policy is better then you try to win. And I say that as someone who thinks ads targeting the more moderate candidate had no effect.

[mkirsh]

In my opinion, it's a disqualifying act and makes a person unfit for office.

What it tells me about a candidate is that they put their own gain over the good of the country. They would rather risk a worse candidate winning the general election than face a higher chance of losing the election themself. Anyone with that mindset should never be allowed to hold office.

'Winning elections' and 'governing' require two different skill sets, that unfortunately don't seem to overlap as much as I'd like.

[ClemmonsDevil]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mocrats-again/

Great Nate Silver article looking at historical polling bias.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

'Winning elections' and 'governing' require two different skill sets, that unfortunately don't seem to overlap as much as I'd like.

If only the best candidates always won and we're excellent and governing!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

In my opinion, it's a disqualifying act and makes a person unfit for office.

What it tells me about a candidate is that they put their own gain over the good of the country. They would rather risk a worse candidate winning the general election than face a higher chance of losing the election themself. Anyone with that mindset should never be allowed to hold office.

I think that is very shortsighted. Though I don't love this, I don't think it is swinging my vote. First, as noted below, in many of these situations, the candidate is not involved in the ad buys. Secondly, there are some huge issues this country is facing and a lot of people have very strong opinions on many of them. As far as litmus test issues go, this is pretty far down the list.

Since this seemed to mostly be happening with Dems supporting extreme Republicans, in the spirit of Jason's excellent introduction to this thread, let's turn it around. Would you still be making this statement if Republicans in a relatively moderate district (or the national Republican party on their behalf) were supporting a Democrat to the left of AOC who was running in the primary against a very centrist Democrat? The left of AOC candidate wins the primary with the Republican backing. Would you pull the lever for them?

[PackMan97]

Politics is a zero sum game, whether we like that or not. Yes there are real world consequences, but voters are choosing this. Not to be reductive, but if I'm a coach and I get to put a player on the line in a tight game, I want a worse shooter shooting for them. Not the better ahooter because it's better for the game. I recognize politics ain't sports. But it is zero sum game. If you lose, you lose the ability to enact policy. The other side gains that ability. So if you legitimately believe your policy is better then you try to win. And I say that as someone who thinks ads targeting the more moderate candidate had no effect.

Winning elections is a zero sum game. If you believe politicians sole job is to win elections, i would agree with you. Doing whatever it takes to win is what is important. I disagree with that thought. The party out of power at least since I've been politically aware (the early 90s) has always been able to weild significant power. They may not be able to push their agenda, but they've certainly been able to stop the other side. So, it's not zero sum.

Parties should be aware that their loyalists will adopt their language, adopt their arguments, adopt their tactics and we get into a spiral of ever nastier politics until we reach today's absolutely toxic environment in which we find ourselves today. I think it's has gotten so toxic, we are now in a negative sum game. Both parties have made it that no matter who wins, we all lose. If a party legitamately believes it's their policies or doom times are ahead, they are showing zero empathy and understanding of those in the country that are on the other side.

Good politics is a positive sum game. There have been times when politicians and parties adapted to the changing world and the result was our country prospered like never before.

I think that is very shortsighted. Though I don't love this, I don't think it is swinging my vote. First, as noted below, in many of these situations, the candidate is not involved in the ad buys. Secondly, there are some huge issues this country is facing and a lot of people have very strong opinions on many of them. As far as litmus test issues go, this is pretty far down the list.

Since this seemed to mostly be happening with Dems supporting extreme Republicans, in the spirit of Jason's excellent introduction to this thread, let's turn it around. Would you still be making this statement if Republicans in a relatively moderate district (or the national Republican party on their behalf) were supporting a Democrat to the left of AOC who was running in the primary against a very centrist Democrat? The left of AOC candidate wins the primary with the Republican backing. Would you pull the lever for them?

I was definitely against it in 2016 when many Rs wanted Sanders and many Ds wanted Trump. I think anyone doing it or advocating is off their rocker. I understand why you might want it done, but I view as too dangerous.

I almost always vote for the candidate that I think will govern the best. The few times I have voted for a candidate because I thought their opponent needed to lose, I've always regreted it.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Winning elections is a zero sum game. If you believe politicians sole job is to win elections, i would agree with you. Doing whatever it takes to win is what is important. I disagree with that thought. The party out of power at least since I've been politically aware (the early 90s) has always been able to weild significant power. They may not be able to push their agenda, but they've certainly been able to stop the other side. So, it's not zero sum.

Parties should be aware that their loyalists will adopt their language, adopt their arguments, adopt their tactics and we get into a spiral of ever nastier politics until we reach today's absolutely toxic environment in which we find ourselves today. I think it's has gotten so toxic, we are now in a negative sum game. Both parties have made it that no matter who wins, we all lose. If a party legitamately believes it's their policies or doom times are ahead, they are showing zero empathy and understanding of those in the country that are on the other side.

Good post. To avoid issues I will ask it this way: Do you feel like those issues which led to polarization have been equally caused by the politicians of the 2 parties?

Just answer yes or no. I prefer we not overly tip the direction in which we lean for the sake of the thread.

[budwom]

No. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that running ads to support a more desired opponent has any effect. It's the correlation/causation conundrum. Dems were basically running ads tying the moderate to other unpopular Republicans like McConnell. There is 0% evidence that the Republican base didn't just desire the more extreme candidate and the moderate would have lost anyway. My prior is to think the Dems wasted money with this ploy and could achieved the outcome they "wanted" spending no money whatsoever. There is no evidence their ploy had any effect. And plenty of evidence that the Republican base wants more ideologically pure candidates.

But there are certainly exceptions where promoting a more desired opponent has worked...in Vermont we have the famous Fred Tuttle affair, an epic of modern day politics. Not only did the plan work, the desired GOP opponent promptly endorsed his Democrat opponent. Perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule.

[ClemmonsDevil]

But there are certainly exceptions where promoting a more desired opponent has worked...in Vermont we have the famous Fred Tuttle affair, an epic of modern day politics. Not only did the plan work, the desired GOP opponent promptly endorsed his Democrat opponent. Perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule.

I'm sorry. I meant in real states. Kidding Bud!!!!! I know you were CIA or something. Don't come after me.

[PackMan97]

Good post. To avoid issues I will ask it this way: Do you feel like those issues which led to polarization have been equally caused by the politicians of the 2 parties?

Just answer yes or no. I prefer we not overly tip the direction in which we lean for the sake of the thread.

No. I think the polarization had been caused 70% by one party and 80% by the other. Again, i don't see it as zero sum gane