Negative Partisanship

From a statistical view, negative motivations are stronger than positive motivations. We act out of fear and loathing. This increasingly applies to voting: we vote against, not for, a person or group.

We make a lot of choices to avoid negative consequences. Fear is a powerful motivator that gets me to the gym, changed my diet, and has me taking various medications. We act to avoid loss more often than we act for a potential gain. Sometimes, even when the “riskier” choice is statistically more beneficial, we choose to prevent loss. 

Will fear of the unknown or fear and loathing of Donald Trump decide the 2020 election? 

My own biases are easy for me to analyze. Like many, I dislike the president. That means any good enough alternative might get my vote. But, that means a “bland” option is better than someone I might find objectionable.

Research suggests swing voters are not persuaded to vote for an option, but are given a way to oppose what they dislike.

Trump stokes fear because his base is not voting for him, but they are voting against concepts and groups they fear and distrust. Trump voters fear a long list of “others” that represent change. Trump emphasizes these fears and suggests the United States is fragile. He’s the strong leader who will guard against those scary changes. 

Data matter. My biases aren’t data. However, I am human. I make most choices to avoid or control for negatives. That’s neuropsychological — we evolved to avoid what appears to be risky or undesirable.

Democrats had best keep research in mind and realize the anti-Trump voters are going to vote against him if there is any alternative that seems okay. The Democratic Party needs a candidate who will earn just five to ten percent more of the vote in six to eight states. There aren’t that many states in play, and only a few might be the deciding states. 

Loyal Democrats are going to vote for (almost) any Democratic candidate for President. It’s likely 84 percent of Republicans are solidly behind Donald Trump, no matter what. Many of the 26 percent of GOP voters not “strongly” behind Trump are still likely to support him. 

Most “independents” lean one way or the other in our two-party system. Studies of their voting patterns suggest most independents are just unwilling to join the party for which they most often vote. 

Democrats, to win you need to capture people in the middle. You are unlikely to lose the progressives or the liberals. You need moderates. I know that’s not exciting and it might demoralize the passionate base, but reality is you need to motivate the anti-Trump base and encourage a small, small percentage of persuadable voters to choose a Democrat.

There are not many swing voters. In fact, the most informed, most engaged voters tend to be the least likely to split their ballots. We also know campaigning doesn’t actually change many votes; it serves to get out the vote, and even then all the money spent has minimal effect. (For all the talk about “money in politics” the real influence is lobbying for legislation, not election victories. Yes, more money is being spent, but it isn’t changing voter’s minds. It changes the laws politicians support.) 

Will the Democrats focus intensely on the persuadable voters or will they invest a lot of money on exciting a liberal base? The choice might determine this election. 

Trump is betting on turning out his base. If both parties do this, we might see record low voter turnout. 

In theory, Democrats should retain the House, make one or two gains in the Senate, and the White House is a toss-up. That’s what models suggest of this moment. The gains in the House were made largely in moderate districts. That should inform presidential campaigns, but it might not.