General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne study explains why it’s tough to pass liberal laws
Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming?
Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing.
Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage:
The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/04/one-study-explains-why-its-tough-to-pass-liberal-laws/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)The local level is incredibly important, yet most people don't know what's happening or bother to show up. You have elections where a Republican beats a Democrat by 650 votes with only 28% of registered voters showing up, and primaries with turn-out below 10%. There's a ton of things that could get done on the local level if people just paid a bit more attention and put a little more time into what's going on around them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Bandit
(21,475 posts)One usually doesn't know what Party someone belongs to when they run for school board or mayor or city council... I think the political Parties enter at the state level...
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)so much so that our primary is usually considered the defining election rather than the general. Keep in mind that state level positions are local positions - a state senator is elected by their local area. So when you hear about, say, Virginian state senators trying to change the way their electoral votes are divided to give republicans an edge, keep in mind that many of those senators only won by a few hundred votes in elections with very low turnouts. The lack of engagement at the local level reverberates and becomes amplified as it affects who controls the House and might even affect who will become president.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)In our city, the mayor is partisan and elected.
In a city I grew up in it didn't have a mayor. The city council was non partisan and they decided who would be the city manager. IMO the voters should decide.
Beartracks
(14,591 posts)At least, that's my take on it.
=========================
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)According to FiveThirtyEight: "Over the past six presidential election cycles, likely voter polls have been 0.7 points to 2.5 points more favorable to the Republican candidate than registered voter polls." Or more simply, more people voting helps Dems, less people voting helps Reps.
I bet if it were all Americans and not just registered voters, the differences would be even more pronounced.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)A perfect example of this is that polls have shown that people who favor less restrictive gun laws where more likely to have donated to orgs and to have called elected officials. Well your congressperson they keep tallies on who calls them about an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if this were found to be true for marriage equality or healthcare. Part of that is just human nature, people are often more passionately against something than for it
freshwest
(53,661 posts)every policy meeting, coordinate with others in community and church groups and come out in force in elections. Their way of looking at the world is strongly biased to the conservative.
They refuse to talk to liberals, discard the opinion of public workers and unions as being too involved. They only agree with a public program if they aren't getting a cut from operating it.
They are usually upper middle-class and look at the functions of government as being a business model. There are many angles that liberals do agree with, such as more control over one's healthcare, their child's schooling, and how land is going to be used, but they still insist that words like revenue neutral and privately owned be applied.
They have long memories for anyone who is in opposition to their ideas and I have found those I've met are easily provoked and offended by opposition. It's difficult, as the liberal message is one of services provided by government. They consider that to be inhumane or coercive.
It's an uphill climb for any Democrat to ask them to simply work to keep a functioning government. People sho wonder why things aren't going the way they 'used to be' should go and talk with them in meetings as our elected Democrats do. They're implacable.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)reckoning, and we've seen the hell they've caused once in control.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)of the social services network, and then NGOs stepped in that weren't religious, but operated solely out of the profit model. They got contracts and there was collusion among career bureaucrats and adminsitrators who'd retired to get those contracts.
They ended up bleeding the system dry of funding, out of things that no honest profit could be made from doing, but continued to bleed them. The more failures due to less funding, the more lawsuits were filed and state legislatures reacted not by restoring the funding, but by allowing them to operate with less oversight by handing over those formerly served in accountable institutions to corporations that hid their crimes.
They have destroyed the knowledge base that took generations to build to handle all kinds of social problems by denigrating those doing the work and starving the networks of care, sometimes even outright dumping their failures on other public agencies that were unable because they were not trained to deal with them.
Then they loosened up the laws to, in effect, decriminalize abuse and corruption. This is fascism in one of its most destructive forms.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)is admired by most people in this country. And with the law on their side, and an apparent disdain for justice, what's to stop or change the facist bastards?
We really should stop teaching sharing in Kindergarten. It creates ill-prepared citizens.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)As far as not teaching children to share, I understand what you're saying - but education in private facilities create more problems through social division and isolation. They don't have the sharing public schools have taught. They are focused on only their class, their group, their religion. Others are not really people to them.
This was the great success of FAPE, the combination of economic, racial and social groups, all learning how to interact with each other and promote social mobility and expansion of ways to make it in the world. It prepares people for a global society, which many are already working in now.
In my area, they have taught a great deal of not just sharing, but problem solving from that age on, to prevent conflicts. Also how to use emotional intelligence to be able to react to change and problems with integrity. We also have courses on media literacy to help comprehend the psychological means of advertising and propaganda.
What I'd like to see is more economic teaching, about how the different classes or groups in society work together. What one needs to do if they don't fit the college mold and how to make use of their talents to succeed in life. An honest appraisal of how this country is organized. There are public schools teaching Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' to their students as part of their course material.
It won't happen in conservatively controlled districts. People who want to change this country will have to get involved and not cede ground to the conservatives who have taken over school systems in red states, and every other office, including the ones that people don't know very well. I find that they have done great ground work, use their energy to make those meetings every week to build coaltions.
Yet I find more people willing to blame what is going in D.C with Democrats or Obama for what he can't change at the local level. People seem to have less interest in these tedious positions not in the national news. We need to get down to the ground on this and keep at it. The conservatives have been at it for over 40 years, we must do it or just accept fascism.
Don't give up, although I can understand if you are older and can't get involved.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)One has to be able to drive all the time if public transportation is not available, make donations, be dressed and have the luxury of doing so. Nothing about you. Sometimes people feel that calls to action are like getting harrassed, they say they are no longer able to do so, because of age, health or finances. A number of people I know are at that stage and can't do it anymore. I do it when I must, but prioritize closely since I am not as strong as I once was, nor am I financially able to do much.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)to suggest I was not able-bodied or something. Some of the other limitations do apply however.
Still, we can all do something. It's just not always clear what the most effective something in one's range of abilities would be. That is a weakness we (Democrats) would be wise to address.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Democrats are mainly urban, but those in areas that supply us with necessities feel excluded from what we see as good ideas - thus their sense of victimhood. They are lower paid because what they have to sell is a large part of their lives and a small part of ours.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Right Wingers are not "responsible for supplying us with necessities".
Yes, there are a variety of reasons for the sense of victim hood you mention, a few legitimate, but I believe our biggest obstacle is the success of the vast Right Wing advertising campaign that has convinced many Americans that progressive ideals and policies are evil, even while when presented with those ideals and policies free of the "progressive" label most favor them.
While it's ture that, as the OP states, "legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are," I think it's equally true and important that many Americans believe they themselves are more conservative than they actually are.
I don't think we've improved the situation detailed here: http://archive.truthout.org/why-left-has-no-answer-right-wing-lie-machine59220. And I think that is a serious failure of the left.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)but liberal politicians still err on the side of underestimating the extent to which voters support liberal policies.
pscot
(21,044 posts)Conservatives are organized and funded by wealthy conservatives and they a disproportionate amount of noise. This creates the perception that there are more of them. Great OP, by the way.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the wheel grinds until the axle breaks. Then the bus crashes in a ravine, killing everyone aboard.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Corporations, etc...not us "real" people.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Is it cash or a new car???? 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)be minimal.
Then again, I assume a lot of things that I find out are wrong! 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)See you around lunch time!!!!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Why did I click the play button? For me, "Because it's there" is no where enough reason to do that walk...
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)I posted a poll above that showed people who favored "gun rights" over gun "control" donated more money to orgs with those positions and they called officeholders more. Not by a small margin either they were 5x as likely to have given money and 2x to have called. That has consequences in the real world. Money in politics is obviously a factor, but I have to wonder since conservatism today is so much about being angrily against stuff than for anything, does that effect how much energy they put in issues. That gun control poll should give liberals some pause.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Back when I was heavily involved in my company's union, I visited the offices of several members of congress on behalf of the union's PAC. When you are in their office, you can't directly speak of political contributions or you get thrown out. We knew that going in. Usually you talk to one of the staffers (which is OK because that's actually the person you want to talk to), but on one occasion we got to speak to the House member himself. We were a bit shocked when he complained that our union had "supported" his opponent. We corrected him and said that wasn't true. He left the office and returned with a list of PACs and come to find out someone in his staff had confused our union with another that had their home office in the same building and on the same floor. In other words, when you call to make an appointment with a member of congress on behalf of an organization, they check your organization to see who it gave money to. This was a Democrat (who I will not name).
That's how the game is played. Money talks. Everything else walks.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)emotion and fear usually wins out ... at least when it comes to the freakshow we currently have in Congress and the sensationalized entertainment based news media that keeps them in office. Logic and reason just don't bring the ratings
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)both parties need better candidates instead of the same ole people. Some of the people in Congress just go in their Districts and lie about standing up for their Constituents real interests. People need better education on the issues. When people want Social Security cut for other people but not theirs, it is an indication they are confused about the issues. Politicians race bait and pit people against each other. Education is another example. The problem there is money and bigger class sizes. You also have the poorer students, that don't have the opportunities of wealthier kids at home. It has less of a problem with teachers, but politicians have managed to blame organizations that support teachers by confusing the difference between teachers and their unions. There needs to be a real effort to improve the public schools instead of diverting money to private schools. Education needs to be less expensive, not more expensive. That is in their interests. I also think extremists in religion divides people, and certain politicians has used that for their own self interests. I think religion is best kept out of politics and praticed within your own personal life. I think it would be hard to be President of the United States if you are intolerant in your own life. To give you an example, I don't see how Romney could be President of the United States unless he renounced Brigham Young. In my opinion, Brigham Young was a racist.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,159 posts)
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)the political center is further to the left than everyone has been saying. When different issues on the liberal side are mostly supported by the voters then that political center cannot be where the perceive it to be.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)The left has to pretend they don't love the money while pursuing watered down strategies that won't piss of corporate sponsors.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)that they repeat and promote 24-7-365. While I don't advocate such steely advocacy, it does brand the Republican far-right Party with brevity and clarity. They do the same with the Democratic Party, since Democrats won't do it for themselves. In fact, Democrats eschew that task.
Put another way, LBJ is too far left for the Democratic Party.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)So what is driving the misperceptions? Certainly caint be da librul media....
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I once suggested this and was pounced on for being lazy. But why not distribute, online, to real world people who work 13 hours a day, where to go in local area town meetings, local websites to write to, and anything else we can do to make our voices heard? So I'm a lazy and good for nothing, barely have the time to write this 1 minute post, but I bet I'm not the only person who has no idea what time my next town council meeting is or where to find out. I would actually take days off to attend. The rich obviously do.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)online" you need contacts. A list of people willing to give you their email address in order to receive such notices. Or people who visit your website. But, Republicans don't care if you're willing to receive what they want you to read. Nearly all of my friends are liberals, yet, in the last 15 years I've received at least ten times more RW emails than liberal leaning ones. The RW just push it out there.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)You're absolutely right, one of the big problems is that a lot of people aren't being engaged. Unfortunately, I don't know of any place that serves as a nexus for progressive activism. A lot is happening with local groups, but that's only if you're lucky enough to have good active ones in your area, tracking them down isn't always easy. Your best bet would probably be meetup.com or Facebook. Also, if you see people collecting signatures for a progressive ballot initiative or progressive candidate talk to them, they may be able to connect you with organizers.
Another problem is that most of the people that have a large audience don't seem to care a lot about doing anything. Look at the top blogs on the left, and see how many posts are spent laughing at Republicans or telling Democratic politicians what they should be doing. Compare those posts with how many posts there are telling people how to get involved in local issues, writing about their personal organizing efforts, or promoting progressive initiatives.
Mutatis Mutandis
(90 posts)Define the terms, control the debate, control the debate, control the laws. Subtle, repetitive conflation is what the corporate media is all about. Arfffffffffffffff
toby jo
(1,269 posts)2 senators / state gives weighted power to the right; gerrymandered tilt of the house; and their ownership of private wealth.
All this adds up to an 'idea' that their view is dominant. We are giving too much away in the interest of honesty.
cprise
(8,445 posts).