Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico
Elsewhere in this issue we write about the interesting Quebec election coming up in the fall. My own focus is on the election to our south.
On April 23, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent a message to key donors: it had just received a “terrifying” report that could reshape the midterms. Three major battleground states – Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio – had shifted toward the Democrats: “Unfortunately, the Left is still crushing us in voter verifications and voter enthusiasm! … If we don’t close the gap RIGHT NOW, these races are only going to move further toward the Democrats as Election Day draws closer.” And they have the money to put where their mouth is.
Despite GOP efforts at rigging the election, the Democrats are effectively guaranteed a majority in the House of Representatives, where the results more or less reflect public opinion – a simple reflection of Donald Trump’s unpopularity. In the Senate, the matter is far from decided, given that in the one third of Senate seats for which there will be elections, only a few purple seats could realistically shift from the GOP to the Democrats. A 50-50 distribution after the election is quite possible, making the few toss-up elections, like that in Texas, crucial. Local Democrats need to keep these numbers in mind in planning their election strategy.
The implications are breathtaking. Consider Trump’s plan to remove 5,000-plus troops from Germany and more from elsewhere in Europe. It came as a knee-jerk response to the German Chancellor’s being critical of his policy toward Iran. Normally such a decision would be based on strategic implications having been tested by knowledgeable people in the Washington bureaucracy. Similarly, no knowledgeable people seem to be anywhere near his decision-making on Iran.
A recent paper by political scientists David Broockman and Joshua Kalla sheds light on how voter perceptions are shaped by the policy positions attributed to candidates. In their survey experiment, the researchers asked voters about hypothetical candidates, assigning them various policy stances. The results revealed that specific positions significantly influenced how voters viewed a candidate and how likely they were to support that candidate. For example, changing a candidate’s stance on the use of race in college admissions or racial targeting in small business assistance led to substantial shifts in voter support.
Policy positions commonly held by left-leaning activists and party leaders, such as support for admitting more asylum seekers or requiring gender self-identification for sports teams, are not always embraced by the broader Democratic voter base. In Broockman and Kalla’s survey, fewer than 50 per cent of Democratic primary voters supported these positions. Candidates in purple states or districts simply avoid these issues: thus, Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico addresses questions about transgender rights by highlighting economic inequality instead.
The survey experiment found that for Democrats, dropping support for race-based college admissions and racial targeting of small business assistance were the most impactful changes in shifting voter preferences. Adopting policies such as merit pay for K-12 teachers, limiting teaching of gay and lesbian content, accepting fewer asylum seekers and being tougher on minor crimes also made candidates up to 10 per cent more appealing in swing districts.
The authors note that in 2020, California Democrats tried to overturn the state’s ban on race-conscious college admissions through a ballot initiative, with support from every major Democratic leader. Yet the measure failed, garnering less than 43 per cent of the vote – demonstrating the challenge of persuading voters to adopt orthodox progressive views. In that election, Democrats benefited from maintaining progressive stances on defending Social Security, skilled immigration and the minimum wage, which were more popular among their base and the general electorate.
Many progressives contend that rather than moderating their positions to appeal to voters, political leaders should lead boldly and work to shift public opinion over time. In many circumstances I share this perspective, but Trump has changed the political landscape. And relying on blue voters alone will not be enough to win the Senate. Given the danger he represents to democracy itself, a Senate that will oppose and even act against him must be a primary objective.
All of this, of course, presumes that there will be an election. Trump has so far failed to change the rules and boundaries of a sufficient number of districts to affect the overall outcome. Which leaves the possibility of a coup attempt to block the election taking place. Trump has done it before, and he makes it very clear that he is thinking about it now. My own view is that, as in other such instances, the rule remains “Trump Always Chickens Out.” We shall see.
