Pollsters/Researchers are finding that "Running against Trump" works

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

Negative enthusiasm is a heck of a thing. A few pieces on it have come up recently and they're worth compiling together because they paint both a grim picture for the GOP's fortunes in the upcoming midterms, while also serving as a warning that the next time Dems achieve a political Trifecta, they'll likely be in the exact same position as they were in 2010.

Rachel Bitecofer from the Wason Center at CNU has an incredible piece on how who actually votes in any given election is not actually consistent year to year, and explains how modern midterm elections under Trifectas end up as referendums on the President that massively turn out people opposed to them and completely alter electoral results nationwide, in a way similar to how the Moon affects the tides.

I’ll come back to this shortly but first I want to explain a very important, but largely ignored, fact about the American electorate. In many elections, even competitive ones, Independents are not always the decisive factor determining who wins and who loses an election. You are likely scoffing at this claim because it contradicts the way we understand elections but consider the evidence. Although Barack Obama won the majority of Independents in his 2008 presidential race (primarily because the economy was quite literally collapsing on Election Day) he did not win the majority of Independents in his 2012 reelection bid. Given the conventional wisdom of elections, such a thing should not be possible. And it’s not just that he failed to carry Independents nationally, he failed to carry Independents in critical swing states such as Ohio that he still won. In fact, Obama lost Independents in that decisive swing state by a staggering 10 points, but he still won the state because the impressive turnout operation established by the Obama campaign managed to produce an electorate that was 38% Democrat. And as I show in my unfortunately titled book The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, Democrats lose Independents quite often, and in elections they win and they lose because they have a population advantage in many places and when their partisans turn out in high numbers, it trumps the combined loss of Republicans and Independents, assuming they don’t lose the latter group by wide margins.

The fortunes of the Republican and Democratic parties seems to rock back and forth every few cycles, creating the appearance of neurotic electorate that can’t quite figure out what it wants. But what we are really seeing, especially in the first midterm under a new president, is backlash from negative partisanship from voters of the party that lost the presidency looking for electoral revenge coupled with complacency from voters of the ruling party. Out of power partisans vote because fear is an excellent motivator. Especially the kind of fear that comes from seeing the opposition party enacting policies you don’t support and stacking the federal courts with judges with the “wrong” ideology.

Think about it. When we look at the impressive gains made by Republicans in the 2010 and 2014 congressional midterms, as well as the 1000+ state legislative seats they gained over the course of the Obama presidency, partisan gerrymandering only accounts for part of their electoral success. And in the case of the 2010 midterms, the current district lines that strongly advantage Republicans in many states are the product of the big gains Republicans made in state and federal elections, not the cause of it. So the electoral success of Republicans is more than a story of partisan gerrymandering, which didn’t take effect until the 2012 election. Instead, much of their electoral prowess over the past 8 years was largely driven by backlash to Obama and Republican strategists’ success at tapping into this “fear factor” by nationalizing elections. For Republicans, elections in the Obama era, both big and small, were framed as a referendum on Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. This brilliant messaging, combined with a complacent Democratic electorate, allowed Republicans to over perform their share of the electorate by 5 points in the 2010 midterms and 10 points in 2014 in midterms. It is negative partisanship among opposition party voters that drives the midterm effect, not movement of independent voters back and forth between the parties.

This updated theory of electoral behavior led to my successful prediction of the Blue Wave in the 2017 elections in Virginia (at the 20 minute and 32 minute marks). All told, we ran 5 surveys on the gubernatorial race between Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillespie over the course of the general election and they were remarkably stable, predicting that Northam would win the election handily. This worried my colleague, who had spent the past decade making a close study of the Virginia electorate because the elections in 2013 and 2014 had turned out to be far more competitive than expected. Indeed, this was a reason the national punditry herded around a close and competitive election the final week heading into Election Day. But by applying my theory of negative partisanship’s electoral effects in the polarized era, I suspected that Ralph Northam’s victory was cemented on November 9th, 2016 when Donald Trump won the presidency. Trump’s victory created a different Virginia electorate from the electorates of 2010, 2013, and 2014. Because Democrats lost the 2016 presidential election, especially considering the way they lost it and to whom, I expected a turnout surge among the Democratic portion of the electorate and this is exactly what happened. Despite predictions of a close race by other pundits, Northam ended up winning by 9%. And he did it by a surge in Democratic Party participation, not by winning over Virginia’s right-leaning Independents. In 2013, 37% of the electorate were Democrats and in 2017 that percent increased to 41%, which is enough to turn a average 2-3 point advantage for statewide Democrats into a 9 point route that also allowed Democrats to flip 15 House of Delegate seats when even the most ambitious predictions, including my own, predicted a gain of just 7 or 8 seats due to gerrymandering. The point I want to hammer home is that the determinate factor driving voter behavior in this election was negative partisanship because had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, Virginia may well be currently governed by the Gillespie Administration despite the growing demographic advantage Democrats hold among the overall population of the state and the increasing influence of Northern Virginia on statewide election outcomes.

Researchers looking into how to activate and motivate Millenial voters found that negative messages about Trump were far more likely to motivate people to vote, and worked just as well as positive messaging as those who claimed they preferred positive messaging. (A lesson from Dr. House, MD: People lie.)

The research also found, perhaps less uniquely to the younger voters, that negative messaging in the time of Trump beats aspirational any day of the week.

Half of the sample—excluding “super voters,” the term researchers use for those young people almost certain to vote—was read an aspirational message and the other half a negative one. The former described America as the “land of the free and a place where we take care of each other, but right now, we’re not living up to what we are supposed to be as a country,” and urged the sample to “[vote] for new leaders who will bring change in November.” The latter said that things are already terrible and will get worse “if Donald Trump and his allies gain more power,” citing their “hateful, racist, and sexist attacks.”

The negative message proved twice as effective a motivator and did especially well with the younger end of the cohort (aged 18 to 27), women, and Hispanic voters. That final category, though hardly a monolith, is especially important to motivate, the research finds, because “non-whites have significantly lower intensity on caring about who controls Congress—particularly Hispanics.”

As for labeling the opposition, the researchers also tested “names for Republicans that make them sound bad.” In general, the more congressional Republicans were linked with Trump, the worse they sounded. Neither “the establishment” nor “the people in power” performed nearly as well (poorly?) as “Trump’s enablers,” “the party of Trump,” or “Trump’s allies in Congress.” And “Republicans are moving us backwards” or—this was really tested—“Republicans are fucking us over” are found to be more effective than “Republicans are stealing our future” or “Republicans are selling us out.”

In addition, a set of polls released yesterday by Navigator Research found that expressly stating a hypothetical Democratic candidate's opposition to Trump led to an increase in the generic ballot relative to a neutral statement.

As of now, Democrats have a lead of 8 points (45% to 37%) on a generic congressional ballot among likely voters. But the Democratic lead is wider (+12) when it is explicitly framed as a choice between a generic Democrat who will provide a “check and balance on Trump” and a Republican who will “help Trump pass his policies and programs.”
The Democratic lead is roughly the same (+13) – and also wider than the initial generic congressional ballot – when the framing is a Democrat who simply “opposes Trump” versus a Republican who will “support Trump”

So, if it works, why are people saying that it won't. And I think there's two answers for that. One is that, as Yglesias points out below, many special elections have been taking place in deep red territory where candidates have to be more tactical about what they say regarding Trump. The other is that pundits and other individuals who are actively saying "Running against Trump won't work" are almost always members of groups like the far right or left who lose massive amounts of political leverage if "Running against Trump" actually does work.

Wacom Center post: http://wasoncenter.cnu.edu/signs-si...-democrats-will-win-big-in-the-2018-midterms/

Unspooled Twitter thread on the Millenial messaging stuff: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1027549597340708864.html

Slate Rundown of the Millennial messaging stufff: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-new-research-on-motivating-young-voters.html

Navigator Research polling on Trump messaging: https://navigatorresearch.org/how-to-link-republicans-in-congress-to-donald-trump/

Garlador · Aug 16, 2018

November is almost here...

PersonAndStuff · Aug 16, 2018

They have awoken a sleeping giant.

SaviourMK2 · Aug 16, 2018

Trump is poison. He's a horrible person with terrible judgement and known for his corruption and abuse of power. The fact that he lost by so many votes and only won on technicality is my hope factor that flip voters will bite the bullet and join us in hindering him/removing him from office. If you can link candidates to his corruption (especially when he endorses them) then it helps, even a little bit.
We're just lucky Republicans are too spineless to tell him they don't want his endorsement pubically.

shnurgleton · Aug 16, 2018

That's because Trump is badman

carlsojo · Aug 16, 2018

Worked out well for Hillary.

Pooh · Aug 16, 2018

Can't wait to see all the bleeped TV ads running nationally as we approach November.

"Trump is ##### us over. Let's vote that ##### out of office. (Paid for by ...)

WhoTurgled · Aug 16, 2018

carlsojo said:
Worked out well for Hillary.

you mean it worked well for trump

Aaron · Aug 16, 2018

If Republicans manage to hold onto the House it will be entirely due to gerrymandering and voter suppression at this point.

Anyone claiming Democrats "need a message" or a leader is just concern trolling or doesn't know what they're talking about.

Volimar · Aug 16, 2018

Leave most of the negativity for the PACs. I want the candidates to focus on showing what they want to do aside from fighting Trump.

Digital Dinosaur · Aug 16, 2018

I've wondered before if there isn't potential just from the fact that so many people neared voting age during the Obama years. Black president, attempts to genuinely move society forward, etc.

To grow up knowing only that with no firsthand knowledge of what a republican president was like, then go straight to Trump - like, holy shit. To a degree I think a lot of people are still dazed. This doesn't seem real to them; nothing makes sense.

So what you do is instead of shying away from shoving the ugly reality in people's faces, you fire everything. Show people exactly what is so vile and evil.

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

carlsojo said:
Worked out well for Hillary.

The dynamic between UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE v UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE and GENERIC DEMOCRAT vs UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE is huge.

It is also an important lesson in why Dems generally succeed when they nominate younger candidates new to the national stage who don't have a massive paper trail and who have an easier time defining themselves to voters (while letting voters fill in the blanks however they want) because of their newness.

Kai Dracon said:
I've wondered before if there isn't potential just from the fact that so many people neared voting age during the Obama years. Black president, attempts to genuinely move society forward, etc.

To grow up knowing only that with no firsthand knowledge of what a republican president was like, then go straight to Trump - like, holy shit. To a degree I think a lot of people are still dazed. This doesn't seem real to them; nothing makes sense.

So what you do is instead of shying away from shoving the ugly reality in people's faces, you fire everything. Show people exactly what is so vile and evil.

The schism between older Millenials (remember 9/11 and Bush because they were in HS/College+) and younger Millenials/Gen Z (don't remember 9/11 and Bush well) was blatant in 2016.

Zophar · Aug 16, 2018

Trump will poison the GOP for generations. In a history of devil's bargains in the GOP, betting on Trump is a real doozy.

KtotheRoc · Aug 16, 2018

The GOP elected a guy that everyone else hates as much as they hated Clinton/Obama.

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

Zophar said:
Trump will poison the GOP for generations. In a history of devil's bargains in the GOP, betting on Trump is a real doozy.

Sadly that's not likely the case. Nixon led to Carter and within 4 years we had Reagan. Dubya led to '06 and '08 w/ Obama and in 2010 we had the Tea Party Wave. People have very bad collective memory.

Zophar · Aug 16, 2018

Kirblar said:
Sadly that's not likely the case. Nixon led to Carter and within 4 years we had Reagan. Dubya led to '06 and '08 w/ Obama and in 2010 we had the Tea Party Wave. People have very bad collective memory.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure as hell not going to let this one go any time soon and I know a lot of my peers feel the same way. Trump is gonna be hard to live down in ways I don't think Nixon/GWB were.

Voyager · Aug 16, 2018

Kirblar said:
Sadly that's not likely the case. Nixon led to Carter and within 4 years we had Reagan. Dubya led to '06 and '08 w/ Obama and in 2010 we had the Tea Party Wave. People have very bad collective memory.

Yep, people already forgot about Bush.

PhoenixDark · Aug 16, 2018

This is why I've found the argument about centrists so asinine. Traditionally, midterms are driven by the unpopularity of the president, depressed turnout from the president's party, and increased turnout from the opposing party. We saw that in 2010, 2006, 1994, etc. This year will be added to that list, and republicans will lose big. The democrats being centrist or not liberal enough for you doesn't impact that. The best strategy is to offer a variety of electable candidates who understand and discuss local issues while also running against the president. That's why republicans ran so many veteran candidates in 2010 and democrats are doing the same this year.

Trump is killing the GOP this year. Obviously things can rebound later but as of right now it's not looking good. The sooner he stops being radioactive, the better (for republicans).

Ithil · Aug 16, 2018

carlsojo said:
Worked out well for Hillary.

You unintentionally prove the point correct. Trump was heavily boosted by people who were voting against Clinton, not for Trump. Likewise she was hurt by people not willing to vote for her even if they leaned left.
Now Trump is the target. Many people hate him and will vote solely to vote against his party. People can go on about his base all they want, because there's a substantially bigger portion of the population that hate his guts, and many hate him now more than they did in 2016.

An important reminder about all this; there is no Clinton on the ballot this November.

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

Zophar said:
I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure as hell not going to let this one go any time soon and I know a lot of my peers feel the same way. Trump is gonna be hard to live down in ways I don't think Nixon/GWB were.

What's likely going to alter politics going forward is the more non-white demographics of younger generations, and the axiom of "People grow more conservative as they age" being completely untrue for Gen X and Millenials so far. On the latter point- I think the death of the USSR fundamentally altered politics in ways for generations growing up in the absence of an existential threat. In the 50s/60s/70s/80s people didn't know that Communism's economic inefficiency would cause it to self-destruct and it provided a unifying message to keep the Never-Trump types and the racist Trumpists together in the same party.

Angelus Errare · Aug 16, 2018

carlsojo said:
Worked out well for Hillary.

Difference being Trump was unknown to most Americans in terms of what kind of person he was, minorities views of him didn't matter. It was all about "just give him a chance, how bad could he be." But now that the rest of America sees that *gasp* he actually is a piece of shit like minorities (and in particular African Americans) have been saying, such a styled campaign would work very efficiently against him.

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

Angelus Errare said:
Difference being Trump was unknown to most Americans in terms of what kind of person he was, minorities views of him didn't matter. It was all about "just give him a chance, how bad could he be." But now that the rest of America sees that *gasp* he actually is a piece of shit like minorities (and in particular African Americans) have been saying, such a styled campaign would work very efficiently against him.

Jamelle Bouie's point about Trump's deceptive campaign (ran as a populist when he had no record, governed as a Paul Ryan instead) being a disaster for the GOP in 2018/2020 is an important one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ld-trumps-failed-policies-in-the-midwest.html The swing voters in the Midwest are the Populist ones who are socially conservative....but who also like welfare states. They're the Le Pen types. And the combination of both attacking social safety nets and decimating industry via tarriffs is....not going to go well for the GOP.

lunarworks · Aug 16, 2018

Angelus Errare said:
Difference being Trump was unknown to most Americans in terms of what kind of person he was, minorities views of him didn't matter. It was all about "just give him a chance, how bad could he be." But now that the rest of America sees that *gasp* he actually is a piece of shit like minorities (and in particular African Americans) have been saying, such a styled campaign would work very efficiently against him.

Trump's been a media darling for almost 40 years. People knew exactly who he was, and he was exactly who they wanted.

Cochese · Aug 16, 2018

Not sure it is going to work well enough in Georgia.

carlsojo · Aug 16, 2018

Kirblar said:
The dynamic between UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE v UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE and GENERIC DEMOCRAT vs UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE is huge.

It is also an important lesson in why Dems generally succeed when they nominate younger candidates new to the national stage who don't have a massive paper trail and who have an easier time defining themselves to voters (while letting voters fill in the blanks however they want) because of their newness.

The schism between older Millenials (remember 9/11 and Bush because they were in HS/College+) and younger Millenials/Gen Z (don't remember 9/11 and Bush well) was blatant in 2016.

You do make a good point that Hillary wasn't just a Democrat, she was both unlikable and unpopular with the general population.

Ithil said:
You unintentionally prove the point correct. Trump was heavily boosted by people who were voting against Clinton, not for Trump. Likewise she was hurt by people not willing to vote for her even if they leaned left.
Now Trump is the target. Many people hate him and will vote solely to vote against his party. People can go on about his base all they want, because there's a substantially bigger portion of the population that hate his guts, and many hate him now more than they did in 2016.

An important reminder about all this; there is no Clinton on the ballot this November.

I hope the Clintons stay out of politics for a very long time.

Angelus Errare said:
Difference being Trump was unknown to most Americans in terms of what kind of person he was, minorities views of him didn't matter. It was all about "just give him a chance, how bad could he be." But now that the rest of America sees that *gasp* he actually is a piece of shit like minorities (and in particular African Americans) have been saying, such a styled campaign would work very efficiently against him.

Ah yes, no one had any idea that Trump liked to grab women by the pussies, walked in on women while changing, or was a huge racist. People knew he was a piece of shit, they wanted to believe he could rise above it. He couldn't but I think we've seen some evidence that people just... don't care.

Apathy is the enemy. Believing anyone can beat Trump or Republicans just by being on the opposite side is setting yourself up for failure. You can't win against the right by being passive. They're constantly fighting and it's working for them.

Angelus Errare · Aug 16, 2018

Kirblar said:
Jamelle Bouie's point about Trump's deceptive campaign (ran as a populist when he had no record, governed as a Paul Ryan instead) being a disaster for the GOP in 2018/2020 is an important one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ld-trumps-failed-policies-in-the-midwest.html The swing voters in the Midwest are the Populist ones who are socially conservative....but who also like welfare states. They're the Le Pen types. And the combination of both attacking social safety nets and decimating industry via tarriffs is....not going to go well for the GOP.

A large part will be on their base actually realising and getting hip to it all. But a big problem is how GOP time things and how Dems have no choice but to do course correction which GOP then uses to amass power again

lunarworks said:
Trump's been a media darling for almost 40 years. People knew exactly who he was, and he was exactly who they wanted.

Yea but most people only see the image of Trump they want to see and not the image underneath the cracks in the facade. Let's not pretend that Americans are a bunch of morally upright people, that was always nothing more than a delusion that only a certain segment of America believed in. As long as the person can promise the maintain their sense of superiority over minorities, they're completely fine with someone like Trump in all aspects. People thought he was only going to target "them" not realising they too were going to get fucked over

gutter_trash · Aug 16, 2018

negative campaigning works

they go low we go high`` doesn't

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

lunarworks said:
Trump's been a media darling for almost 40 years. People knew exactly who he was, and he was exactly who they wanted.

He lied about supporting universal healthcare because he's a bullshitter who says what people want to hear if it 's something he doesn't have deeply held beliefs. This is why Nazis are "very fine people" while he'll be for the Iraq War before he was against it.

Cochese said:
Not sure it is going to work well enough in Georgia.

Abrams is like the winnable version of Beto's race to me. Long-shot but it's got an actual chance while Beto would need the blue wave to end all blue waves to take Cruz down.

lunarworks · Aug 16, 2018

Angelus Errare said:
Yea but most people only see the image of Trump they want to see and not the image underneath the cracks in the facade.

The same could be said for Hillary. They only saw the cartoon villain years of GOP propaganda painted her to be.

Lunar15 · Aug 16, 2018

Elections are about hate. They've always been about how much one party hates the opposition. Presidents have been made into such powerful avatars of party identity that this pendulum is just going to keep swinging .

Rivenblade · Aug 16, 2018

Pooh said:
Can't wait to see all the bleeped TV ads running nationally as we approach November.

"Trump is ##### us over. Let's vote that ##### out of office. (Paid for by ...)

I read this in movie guy voice. It was good.

"Coming this November. You've seen what he's done. You've heard what he's said. Now, it's your chance to speak up. F*ck Trump. Vote Democrat and let's...WIN. BACK. THE. HOUSE." (final four words come swooshing towards the screen one by one)

Rivenblade · Aug 16, 2018

Lunar15 said:
Elections are about hate. They've always been about how much one party hates the opposition. Presidents have been made into such powerful avatars of party identity that this pendulum is just going to keep swinging .

Yep, there's always going to be an over-correction when people get tired of one way of doing things, or of the current party mismanaging money.

gutter_trash · Aug 16, 2018

Hillary has been vilified nationwide since 1993, bucking First-Lady norms and pushing for Hillarycare is what set off the conserva-nuts for 30 years.

rjinaz · Aug 16, 2018

They like too much what Trump is selling. So good, many Republicans won't be able to help themselves.

HStallion · Aug 16, 2018

Angelus Errare said:
Difference being Trump was unknown to most Americans in terms of what kind of person he was, minorities views of him didn't matter. It was all about "just give him a chance, how bad could he be." But now that the rest of America sees that *gasp* he actually is a piece of shit like minorities (and in particular African Americans) have been saying, such a styled campaign would work very efficiently against him.

Which is amazing considering he was lambasted for decades for his hubris, his gaudy taste and just being a shitty person all around.

Ac30 · Aug 16, 2018

carlsojo said:
Worked out well for Hillary.

Yeah because Hillary is on the ballot, this is a presidential election, and nothing has changed since 2016.

HStallion said:
Which is amazing considering he was lambasted for decades for his hubris, his gaudy taste and just being a shitty person all around.

Yes, but his opponent had emails and a vagina.

Ithil · Aug 16, 2018

gutter_trash said:
Hillary has been vilified nationwide since 1983, bucking First-Lady norms and pushing for Hillarycare is what set off the conserva-nuts for 30 years.

Fixed. Ever since she was First Lady of Arkansas, they've been at her.

gutter_trash · Aug 16, 2018

Ithil said:
Fixed. Ever since she was First Lady of Arkansas, they've been at her.

statewide since 1983,
nationwide since 1993

KillLaCam · Aug 16, 2018

Yeah keeping the high ground is dumb in these types of elections

captive · Aug 16, 2018

um, i mean, shouldnt this have been painfully obvious? Decades of smear campaigns against hillary are exactly why she's not president right now.

Gyro Zeppeli · Aug 16, 2018

I find the argument of not going further left because it will lose center voters silly. Centrist Democrats like Obama and Bill Clinton had plenty of criticism, particularly Obama, although granted, racism played a role into that for some. The point is, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's better to fight for what the people want, and I'm inclined to believe that enough people will follow for better prosperity for all. Regarding the topic at hand, adding on to that further left platform, a strongly-heated anti-Trump message will seal the deal for voters across the US.

AYF 001 · Aug 16, 2018

This is good, but we need to figure out how to keep these people engaged after midterms. I don't want them to say "Welp, got rid of trump, now things can go back to normal and I don't need to vote anymore!" Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and people need to realize that progress is an every day battle built on even the smallest of actions.

Kthulhu · Aug 16, 2018

Zophar said:
Trump will poison the GOP for generations. In a history of devil's bargains in the GOP, betting on Trump is a real doozy.

Don't be so sure. They did just fine after Nixon.

Gyro Zeppeli · Aug 16, 2018

Kthulhu said:
Don't be so sure. They did just fine after Nixon.

I think the difference is Trump turned the voters against the GOP establishment, in a sense. It's going to be difficult for the GOP to entice them with a non-populist platform in future elections, and if they do use another populist platform, then they risk it blowing up in their faces. Nixon, Bush Sr, and George W Bush kept in line a similar conservative platform, however, GWB introduced a poisonous neo-conservative ingredient.

loquaciousJenny · Aug 16, 2018

But this goes against the 200 iq 5th dimensional chess game the lefter wing keeps memeing about

Kirblar · Aug 16, 2018

Andington said:
I find the argument of not going further left because it will lose center voters silly. Centrist Democrats like Obama and Bill Clinton had plenty of criticism, particularly Obama, although granted, racism played a role into that for some. The point is, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's better to fight for what the people want, and I'm inclined to believe that enough people will follow for better prosperity for all. Regarding the topic at hand, adding on to that further left platform, a strongly-heated anti-Trump message will seal the deal for voters across the US.

Dems are being much more pragmatic in taking their shots than the GOP was during the Tea Party wave. It's asymmetric polarization- the polarization is real but the behavior on both ends of the specturm is very different. Ocasio got taken out, but he's in a safe blue district. Meanwhile, the Tea Party guy who took out Eric Cantor in Virginia might lose his seat in November.

Pollsters/Researchers are finding that "Running against Trump" works

I’m seeing double here!

volunteer forum janitor

One Winged Slayer