Teixeira’s main points can be most easily understood by taking account of the two elephants dominating this election — negative partisanship and the biggest turnout since 1900.
The most accepted observation about our present state of polarization is that it has shifted voters into a state of negative partisanship. Can anyone doubt that th…
Teixeira’s main points can be most easily understood by taking account of the two elephants dominating this election — negative partisanship and the biggest turnout since 1900.
The most accepted observation about our present state of polarization is that it has shifted voters into a state of negative partisanship. Can anyone doubt that the main motivator for the huge Democratic turnout was hatred of Trump rather than love of Joe Biden?
According to data on negative partisanship, which is confirmed by Trump’s negative campaign strategy, the main reason for the huge Republican turnout would have been fear of and hatred of the Democrats. So what about the Democrats provoked fear and hatred intense enough to boost Republic turnout by about 20% — that’s truly enormous.
Well we know it wasn’t Joe Biden. Neither was it the moderate Democrats who espouse programs that are fairly bipartisan. Adopting the negative partisanship framework makes the title question trivially easy to answer … Yes, the woke did help Trump! “Woke” is a Democratic label that provokes Republicans enough to seriously boost their turnout.
There are a few other Democratic positions that hit hot buttons — open borders, socialism, etc. All of them are, of course, on the extreme left. Moderate positions just do not stir up enough negative partisanship to send turnout through the roof.
So this is why Teixeira’s main points are right (even though he did not mention either elephant). But he sometimes shifts to positive-partisanship issues, for example when discussing the Latino vote: “they feel that Trump is still a guy who can shake things up, make things work. And they don’t really get what the Democrats are going to do for them.”
These points ring true, but I would stick with the insistence of political scientists that negative partisanship is dominant. And I would look to the impact of Bernie’s socialism in Miami-Dade, and the impact of open borders — a hot button for those who came legally and don’t want a flood of competition in the labor market. And I’d wonder about the demand that people say only “Black lives matter” and never “all lives matter” — a demand that is blindly accepted by the entire Democratic Party.
Negative partisanship doesn’t provide all the answers, but we know it’s 90% of the story among Democrats. And forgetting to think about it when analyzing Republicans is surely a mistake.
Teixeira’s main points can be most easily understood by taking account of the two elephants dominating this election — negative partisanship and the biggest turnout since 1900.
The most accepted observation about our present state of polarization is that it has shifted voters into a state of negative partisanship. Can anyone doubt that the main motivator for the huge Democratic turnout was hatred of Trump rather than love of Joe Biden?
According to data on negative partisanship, which is confirmed by Trump’s negative campaign strategy, the main reason for the huge Republican turnout would have been fear of and hatred of the Democrats. So what about the Democrats provoked fear and hatred intense enough to boost Republic turnout by about 20% — that’s truly enormous.
Well we know it wasn’t Joe Biden. Neither was it the moderate Democrats who espouse programs that are fairly bipartisan. Adopting the negative partisanship framework makes the title question trivially easy to answer … Yes, the woke did help Trump! “Woke” is a Democratic label that provokes Republicans enough to seriously boost their turnout.
There are a few other Democratic positions that hit hot buttons — open borders, socialism, etc. All of them are, of course, on the extreme left. Moderate positions just do not stir up enough negative partisanship to send turnout through the roof.
So this is why Teixeira’s main points are right (even though he did not mention either elephant). But he sometimes shifts to positive-partisanship issues, for example when discussing the Latino vote: “they feel that Trump is still a guy who can shake things up, make things work. And they don’t really get what the Democrats are going to do for them.”
These points ring true, but I would stick with the insistence of political scientists that negative partisanship is dominant. And I would look to the impact of Bernie’s socialism in Miami-Dade, and the impact of open borders — a hot button for those who came legally and don’t want a flood of competition in the labor market. And I’d wonder about the demand that people say only “Black lives matter” and never “all lives matter” — a demand that is blindly accepted by the entire Democratic Party.
Negative partisanship doesn’t provide all the answers, but we know it’s 90% of the story among Democrats. And forgetting to think about it when analyzing Republicans is surely a mistake.