Jag har begravt huvudet i sanden sedan valresultatet stod klart och inte orkat läsa om eländet varken här eller någon annanstans. Men idag skrev en av mina närmaste vänner och tillika amerikan, forskare och professor i statsvetenskap ett så bra och värdefullt inlägg på Facebook att jag valde att gräva upp huvudet ur sanden och ta till mig det. Jag delar det här också, jag vet att det är långt (så pass att jag får dela upp det på två inlägg) men det innehåller enligt mig många bra och till viss del hoppingivande poänger. Framförallt hans poänger om hur voter turnout påverkats, och de effekter det i sin tur har, är intressanta.
"Some political science musings during a dark hour.
Foremost, what happened in this election? According to the most recent updates from the AP, Trump received 72.6 millions votes and Harris just shy of 68 million. These numbers will both increase, and likely for Harris moreso, as a number of west coast states have not finished counting that are strongly in the democratic camp (only 55% of CA has been reported so far, 1pm GMT, in this figure by the AP). These numbers contrast with 2020 – Trump received over 74 million and Biden around 82. I don’t believe this is a ringing endorsement of how Trump’s campaign has improved so much as a question over how those that voted for Democrats in 2020 decided to stay home. Turnout is down from 2020 overall. These numbers are important for understanding the overall coverage about Trump increasing his support among certain groups such as young and African American men. I would say it says more about how Democrats were unable to convince people to get out and vote, rather than a swing in these groups towards the Republicans. Trump Republicans always vote -- their information bubbles are dense such that very little cuts through.
So, thinking of what drives voter turnout generally and for Democrats in particular I think is useful for understanding this election:
1) It’s the economy – although it is the clear strongest economy among OECD countries, many Americans feel that the cost of living has dramatically increased and it is blamed on Biden’s recovery bill (and strangely not the crazy deficit spending by Trump previously). The media has very strongly driven this one home as sort of the overarching narrative of the election. AP reports that 39% of respondents listed economy as the most important issue facing the US.
2) These broad points fit with the narrative that democrats have not done well at credit claiming for what they have done well over the last four years. Biden has been missing for most of the year and much of the last year has focussed more on personal, non-policy attributes (so called valence characteristics), such as his health (egged on by Trump and sensationalist media). Faced with a combination of a hostile media environment and communications that didn’t cut through, the left appeared to be was largely motivated by anger and fear.
3) Most research finds that foreign policy isn’t a big motivator for people to vote. However, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the middle eastern conflict both have played prominently on the run up to the vote, particularly the war in Gaza. If we are looking for signs about why some previous democratic voters stayed home, this may be a strong one, as the democrats face strong internal opposition from liberals over US support for Gaza. Polls run by the AP found a large increase in people reporting that foreign policy was the most important position for their vote. Although that only meant around 5-6 % of respondents overall-- this could amount to a measurable drop in votes for Democrats, particularly the presidency.
4) Harris attempted to overcome a lot of these perceptions through her campaign. She took a few steps back on outright support for Netanyahu and sought to portray a positive, “joyful” campaign. Unfortunately, this didn’t really cut through the very negative media landscape that much more focussed on Trump’s anti-democratic antics --many of Trump’s crazy statements were used to distract from real policy failures -- whenever a ridiculous set of statements are made, ask what is he trying to distract us from. Creating a spectacle to distract from your policy or other failures is sometimes referred to as a "dead cat" strategy in the UK: "look over there! A dead cat!"
* Research on negative campaigning emphasizes that criticizing your opponent is not very useful for leading to people change who they vote for in the US, but can be very effective at impacting voter turnout. Previously this research showed a backlash effect for those campaigns that had gone too negative for too long. In meeting with Democrats throughout the last year it seemed to be very difficult for the average supporter to focus on a more positive message and not only about defending democracy. This is very understandable given the threat and focus of Trump's campaign, but also made it very hard to shift the campaign to the positives of a Harris Presidency. This is a very common challenge for incumbent politicians; some of my PhD research was actually focussed on how sitting governing parties struggle to provide a clear message and get their message through to voters (Greene 2016, 2018). Instead, the broader campaign was often portrayed by the media as primarily about inherent criticisms of Trump’s assault on democracy. The backlash in this instance then is that voters stop paying attention and stop caring faced with what seemed like the inevitable. It drives down turnout while increasing support for the individual attacked.
**Misinformation has a similar effect. The main impact of misinformation isn’t usually to cause people to switch whom they vote for, but to stop them from voting altogether. The far right, armed now with Twitter/X and a huge army of right-wing media created an overwhelming supply of misdirection and chaos. The goal is confusion and to undermine the moral integrity of those the process. Again, the primary effect is that people stay home.
**Add to this some likely targeted bomb threats delaying opening at 30 + polling stations, mail in ballot boxes being burned in Oregon, misprints and insufficient ballot machines in PA, it is easy to see how busy polling stations might have caused people to just go home.
**Add to this a healthy dose of old school racism and sexism (encouraged and regularly reminded of by the opponent) and the cost of incumbency (most sitting presidential parties lose votes), you can paint a pretty clear picture of why as many as 7-10 million previous democratic voters choose to stay home this year. It is much easier to just not vote than compromise your values, particularly given the list of challenges above.
(forsättning i nästa inlägg)
