With all the myriad commentary flying around about about the meaning of Scott Brown’s victory, it would help to remember that people who follow politics write about politics. This creates a bias whereby the majority of people voting are perceived as voting based on political reasons (as defined and understood by the commentariat).
The reality is otherwise. People vote emotionally. Specifically, they vote with their limbic system. The famed “most people” don’t have time to wonkishly pour over political details, therefore they intuit (correctly, I would argue) that their rational neocortex brain is not really the best indicator of what they should do. Hence they rely on their limbic brain (a product of our mammalian ancestry).
Drew Westen, one of the leading proponents of neuro-politics, has shown (persuasively, in my opinion) that elections basically boil down to 5 topics, in decreasing order of significance from the top down.
1. Party image (narrative), a sense of identity to the cause
2. Personal Qualities of Leader of Party (ability to connect to people emotionally)
3. “Gut” Qualities of Leader (can they trust you, cool under pressure, appear disciplined, etc.)
4. Policy Proposals
5. Facts about Policy Proposals
So with Coakley-Brown, let’s go through that list.
1. The party image of the Dems is down. Health care is part of that, but more importantly, I believe, is a lack of narrative (including but not limited to an oppositional narrative to create distinction).
2. Coakley was a horrible candidate. Particularly horrible insofar as she was aloof, emotionally tepid (if not outright cold), and appeared to be a robotic, party-machine hack. In contrast, Scott Brown is more media-friendly, outgoing, and “likable”.
3. A push here, I would say. The only real hurdle was for Brown, as the insurgent candidate, to prove he was reliable. Or at least not unreliable by massively screwing up his campaign. (Which he didn’t do.)
4/5 have to do with special Massachusetts circumstances and the health care debate, but in the end #1-3 are what make the biggest difference.
To wit, (h/t Andrew Sullivan), here is Nate Silver on last night’s election:
The final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.
If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.
In other words, national environment (bad for Dems)=#1, Coakley (emotionally disconnected, un-energetic candidate)=#2, Special Local Circumstances=#4 + 5
Numbers four and five, the things Democrats hem and haw about so much works out to about a 4% difference. So when White House Dems blame Coakley they are right. When Coakley Dems blame the national environment (and the White House by extension) they are also (in part) right.
But generally Dems (particularly progressives) spend all their time arguing over the 4% that really isn’t the difference maker.
—
Afterthought: Humans have three basic brain systems: neocortex (rational thought), limbic (the emotional, nurturing brain), and reptilian (fight/flight mechanism). If a candidate/party wants to smear another candidate they usually attack using the trust factor (#3) by lighting up the reptilian brain. Republicans of course have become adept at this over the years with their constant “scare tactics” (Though a Democrat like Hillary Clinton used the same technique in her run). Democrats have typically responded to such “fear-mongering” (i.e. reptilian-brain excitation) with “rational” responses which don’t work because they are not responding on the level at which the issue was first raised and often fail to use the limbic system to connect to voters emotionally.
What is your point? It seems to be that if people voted logic it would be different? or that when you reduce it to 2 variables, D vs R it would be a D win?
Don’t forget that in MA Independents outnumber Ds & Rs put together. They were the ones who gave Obama 63% a year ago. Your analysis ignores that entirely.
Maybe the Web future of “superempowered” citizens who are networked globally is emerging and an old fashioned 2-party system exists in name only.Report
I don’t know if people voted logic it would be different. In any regards, they don’t, so I think it a rather moot issue.
My point is that analysts project way too much and miss the rather obvious causes involved.
e.g. If you see (as I have) commentary talking about “how could Mass abandon health care?” I think that’s off the mark by a wide margin. The vast majority of people don’t vote based on policy (#4) or facts about policy (#5). Only political junkies do. And then they (imo) tend to assume that is the mindset (or really the emotion-set) of the voters.
Voters as Brian Caplan showed are not rational. But too much of political organizing is still based on the idea that they are.
As to independents, I didn’t mention them specifically but they are implicit in the entire discussion, as independents are the ones most likely to be swayed (from election cycle to election cycle) based on the 2 parties’ images and the individual candidate’s personal and presumed leadership qualities.Report
Imagine, if you will, an Amendment to repeal the 17th.
What do you think that that would do to the process?Report
I don’t know. Who would be picking them? Kyle if I recall suggested Govs of each state become the Senate and meet on a regular cycle yearly, doing an advise/consent kind of thing only, instead of writing legislation (at the same the House is which I find patently absurd).
Govs are elected so it would still follow (basically) this formula, although as I recall Gubernatorial elections aren’t as easily pigeonholed into national party politics (usually Gov races precede runs by either party).Report
One hopes that state legislators would be significantly more 4ish and 5ish than Joe Voter… is that an unreasonable expectation?Report
I’m with you Jay. Send the 17th out the door. Let the Legislatures pick the Senators like before. Modern technology, travel and communication fix all the logistical issues with the old style Senate and any legislature that delays too long in selecting their Senators will be ill serving their constituents and will likely be punished accordingly.Report
NOrth, I’m with yuns on the 17th, Bravo!!!!!! We’re all Tertium Quids, Bro!Report
maybe, i don’t know. back in the days of 18th century paternalism for sure, but given the 24/7 politicization, I really couldn’t say.Report
One thing to note is that I heard of some rather vile attack ads against brown from the coakly campaign that would certainly count as scare tactics. Not that I am happy with Massachusett’s new senator(I’d rather have a party hack who votes the way I want than someone who is pledged to get in the way) but thats no reason to ignore facts.
I can’t tell you what they said exactly because I didn’t want to look at them from what i heard.Report
I think your basic premise is correct. That is not to say that if everyone used logic they would always vote Democratic. That would be naive and I don’t believe that’s what you are saying. Citizens vote emotionally and more instinctively then the media/pundits would have you imagine. I think there isn’t enough consideration given to the average voter who decided that its time to try out a Republican in that historically democratic seat. The same average voter who isn’t thinking nationally, and probably doesn’t follow the daily congressional proceedings, but feels obligated to vote.Report
exactly jp. well said.Report
Your explanation does help to make sense out of the fact that it is hard to find those on the right who usen numbers in their analysis very much. Other than Manzi, and some libertarians, you seldom see actual numbers/data being used by writers from the right. I have sometimes felt as though the right must be innumerate. Very frustrating for us numbers geeks.
SteveReport