"Brexit and Trump melted a lot of people’s brains, but one of the worst side effects is that defending the assumptions about voters that underpin democracy is now seen as (God forbid) ‘populist’ 😱😱😱"
Very interesting post, especially the last section.
“Pat Buchanan came into this coalition and said, “You know what? I have polled everybody in the room and 70 percent think there are too many immigrants; 70 percent are skeptics on free trade with China. I will run for President as a Republican; I will get 70 percent of the vote.” He didn't ask the second question … do you vote on that subject?”
In 2016 that changed.
«Just because someone agrees or disagrees with a policy doesn’t mean it will shape how they vote.»
“Spending's a problem because spending's not a primary vote-moving issue for anyone in the coalition. Everybody around the room wishes you'd spend less money. Don't raise my taxes; please spend less. Don't take my guns; please spend less. Leave my faith alone; please spend less.
If you keep everybody happy on their primary issue and disappoint on a secondary issue, everybody grumbles … no one walks out the door. So the temptation for a Republican is to let that one slide. And I don't have the answer as to how we fix that. But it does explain how could it possibly be that everyone in the room wants something and doesn't end up getting it because it's not a vote-moving issue. But on the vote-moving primary issue, everybody's got their foot in the center and they're not in conflict on anything.
The guy who wants to spend all day counting his money, the guy who wants to spend all day fondling his weaponry, and the guy who wants to go to church all day may look at each other and say, "That's pretty weird, that's not what I would do with my spare time, but that does not threaten my ability to go to church, have my guns, have my money, have my properties, run by my business, home-school my kids.”
Ha! Another nice, well exposed essay which is the fruit of much work, and with some reasonable analysis. I would like to add some points:
* Actually the main parties know very well that what matters critically to "Middle England" voters most is property prices. Most people who put 100% of their savings plus get in debt for 5 times their income to repay over 25-30 years do that because they expect large tax-free and work-free capital gains from that, and they do not forget about that at voting time. The only times in the past 40 years when a governing party were defeated were after a property price crash (1997, 2010) or stall (2024) when lots of "Middle England" voters abstained or made a protest vote.
* Also the main parties use other far less important issues to "signal" their alignment with specific interest groups. For example anti-immigration: given a choice between higher immigration and booming property prices and no immigration and property prices halving most "Middle England" voters would choose the former, but they like to hear hypocritical talk which is anti-immigration because it is a "signal" that those who talk anti-immigration are on their side.
"Brexit and Trump melted a lot of people’s brains, but one of the worst side effects is that defending the assumptions about voters that underpin democracy is now seen as (God forbid) ‘populist’ 😱😱😱"
Very interesting post, especially the last section.
«Surveys can show gaps between what voters want and what politicians do, but they don’t tell us if voters care enough about it to change their vote.»
Notorious USA political strategist Grover Norquist espressed this well in a very useful interview in 2006:
https://prospect.org/article/world-according-grover/
“Pat Buchanan came into this coalition and said, “You know what? I have polled everybody in the room and 70 percent think there are too many immigrants; 70 percent are skeptics on free trade with China. I will run for President as a Republican; I will get 70 percent of the vote.” He didn't ask the second question … do you vote on that subject?”
In 2016 that changed.
«Just because someone agrees or disagrees with a policy doesn’t mean it will shape how they vote.»
http://web01.prospect.org/article/world-according-grover
“Spending's a problem because spending's not a primary vote-moving issue for anyone in the coalition. Everybody around the room wishes you'd spend less money. Don't raise my taxes; please spend less. Don't take my guns; please spend less. Leave my faith alone; please spend less.
If you keep everybody happy on their primary issue and disappoint on a secondary issue, everybody grumbles … no one walks out the door. So the temptation for a Republican is to let that one slide. And I don't have the answer as to how we fix that. But it does explain how could it possibly be that everyone in the room wants something and doesn't end up getting it because it's not a vote-moving issue. But on the vote-moving primary issue, everybody's got their foot in the center and they're not in conflict on anything.
The guy who wants to spend all day counting his money, the guy who wants to spend all day fondling his weaponry, and the guy who wants to go to church all day may look at each other and say, "That's pretty weird, that's not what I would do with my spare time, but that does not threaten my ability to go to church, have my guns, have my money, have my properties, run by my business, home-school my kids.”
Ha! Another nice, well exposed essay which is the fruit of much work, and with some reasonable analysis. I would like to add some points:
* Actually the main parties know very well that what matters critically to "Middle England" voters most is property prices. Most people who put 100% of their savings plus get in debt for 5 times their income to repay over 25-30 years do that because they expect large tax-free and work-free capital gains from that, and they do not forget about that at voting time. The only times in the past 40 years when a governing party were defeated were after a property price crash (1997, 2010) or stall (2024) when lots of "Middle England" voters abstained or made a protest vote.
* Also the main parties use other far less important issues to "signal" their alignment with specific interest groups. For example anti-immigration: given a choice between higher immigration and booming property prices and no immigration and property prices halving most "Middle England" voters would choose the former, but they like to hear hypocritical talk which is anti-immigration because it is a "signal" that those who talk anti-immigration are on their side.