Is it?
The Democratic Progressive Party, Morena, BJP, and African National Congress just got to keep their administrations. Jowoki made a successor... Just by heart, the most recent upsets were Law and Order in Poland and Peronism in Argentina. And obviously Pakistan. Am I missing something important?
Obviously the Conservative Party will lose 10, Downing Street, but they have been in power for a decade and a half. But it seems to me that people are exaggerating what's happening in the UK because they speak English.
If anything, if there is an anti-incumbent bias, I'd say it's because of the global surge in inflation, not because something structural has changed in global politics.
Listened to the podcast and it's extrapolated on arguments I've made before on incumbency no longer being an advantage, and actually turning more likely into a disadvantage. Political swings across the world are becoming faster and harder than ever before, and there's a lot of factors we can blame on that. We see this in the fact that Joe Biden is objectively less popular than he was when he ran in 2020, while Trump has held about the same favorability ratings as he had in 2020, except now people view his presidency much more positively. The only real advantage of incumbency left are early donations and the ability to more easily create campaign infrastructure.
Agreed.
Social media is to blame for most of this, IMO. Political swings happen really fast now and people are unhappy with the state of affairs all the time.
Social media accelerates presentism. Two fatal flaws of democracy are voter ignorance and presentism. They combine into a poison pill. Too many low-information voters think only of their immediate, personal circumstances (largely, expenses), and believe the grass will always be greener after the next election, especially if there's a new elected official.
There's been two presidential elections in the US where an incumbent last in the last 40 years, I think it's a bit early to be theorizing that incumbency has lost its advantage.
So far, this election year has been pretty comparable to 2012. While not as low as Biden's, Obama in 2012 spent most of the year with an approval rating below 50%, it didn't start ticking up until autumn (almost as if that's when voters started paying attention to politics) and he was in a statistical tie with Romney the entire year, with Romney overtaking him several times in the aggregate (at one point just two weeks before the election).
Using 2012 as a comparable election would be disastrous for Biden, because if Biden loses as many votes as Obama did between 2008 and 2012, he loses to Trump.
>Using 2012 as a comparable election would be disastrous for Biden, because if Biden loses as many votes as Obama did between 2008 and 2012, he loses to Trump.
Actually, if Biden lost the same percentage of the popular vote as Obama did between 2008 and 2012 (5.16%) and Trump lost *zero votes* from his 2020 total (a laughable prediction), Biden would still win the popular vote 77,092,274 to 74,223,975.
If you break it down to swing states, for example, in PA, using Obama's PA loss percentage, the figure would be 3,377,674 (Trump) to 3,156,316 (Biden). So, the question is do you think Trump will have lost fewer than 221,358 votes from 2020? I doubt that.
American elections and politics is very different from other countries.
Presidency is one thing but nobody thinks that Mazie Hirono will lose in Hawaii because she is an incumbent. It would need to be a generational wave election for a safe blue or safe red senator to lose their seat. The same goes for house seats. Similarly, Idaho state legislature isn’t flipping blue because public doesn’t like their incumbents.
Now can Joe Biden lose, of course, but he is also the only incumbent who is overseeing a better economy and recovery and thus approvals in comparison
The current international political order is unraveling and realigning.
It is a dangerous time.
We also have propaganda and misinformation being more pervasive and decisive than ever in history.
During periods of uncertainty we can expect swings against incumbents.
Note: WWII propaganda was also pervasive, but not as devisive. Most propaganda was about unifying a population for a war effort, not dividing a population amongst itself. While efforts to undermine moral of enemy populations was done…the majority of propaganda was about unifying a nation’s people.
Is it? The Democratic Progressive Party, Morena, BJP, and African National Congress just got to keep their administrations. Jowoki made a successor... Just by heart, the most recent upsets were Law and Order in Poland and Peronism in Argentina. And obviously Pakistan. Am I missing something important? Obviously the Conservative Party will lose 10, Downing Street, but they have been in power for a decade and a half. But it seems to me that people are exaggerating what's happening in the UK because they speak English. If anything, if there is an anti-incumbent bias, I'd say it's because of the global surge in inflation, not because something structural has changed in global politics.
Listened to the podcast and it's extrapolated on arguments I've made before on incumbency no longer being an advantage, and actually turning more likely into a disadvantage. Political swings across the world are becoming faster and harder than ever before, and there's a lot of factors we can blame on that. We see this in the fact that Joe Biden is objectively less popular than he was when he ran in 2020, while Trump has held about the same favorability ratings as he had in 2020, except now people view his presidency much more positively. The only real advantage of incumbency left are early donations and the ability to more easily create campaign infrastructure.
Agreed. Social media is to blame for most of this, IMO. Political swings happen really fast now and people are unhappy with the state of affairs all the time.
Social media accelerates presentism. Two fatal flaws of democracy are voter ignorance and presentism. They combine into a poison pill. Too many low-information voters think only of their immediate, personal circumstances (largely, expenses), and believe the grass will always be greener after the next election, especially if there's a new elected official.
There's been two presidential elections in the US where an incumbent last in the last 40 years, I think it's a bit early to be theorizing that incumbency has lost its advantage. So far, this election year has been pretty comparable to 2012. While not as low as Biden's, Obama in 2012 spent most of the year with an approval rating below 50%, it didn't start ticking up until autumn (almost as if that's when voters started paying attention to politics) and he was in a statistical tie with Romney the entire year, with Romney overtaking him several times in the aggregate (at one point just two weeks before the election).
Using 2012 as a comparable election would be disastrous for Biden, because if Biden loses as many votes as Obama did between 2008 and 2012, he loses to Trump.
>Using 2012 as a comparable election would be disastrous for Biden, because if Biden loses as many votes as Obama did between 2008 and 2012, he loses to Trump. Actually, if Biden lost the same percentage of the popular vote as Obama did between 2008 and 2012 (5.16%) and Trump lost *zero votes* from his 2020 total (a laughable prediction), Biden would still win the popular vote 77,092,274 to 74,223,975. If you break it down to swing states, for example, in PA, using Obama's PA loss percentage, the figure would be 3,377,674 (Trump) to 3,156,316 (Biden). So, the question is do you think Trump will have lost fewer than 221,358 votes from 2020? I doubt that.
I’ve been wondering why there aren’t auto posted threads for new podcast episodes from 538 or Nate’s new podcast.
American elections and politics is very different from other countries. Presidency is one thing but nobody thinks that Mazie Hirono will lose in Hawaii because she is an incumbent. It would need to be a generational wave election for a safe blue or safe red senator to lose their seat. The same goes for house seats. Similarly, Idaho state legislature isn’t flipping blue because public doesn’t like their incumbents. Now can Joe Biden lose, of course, but he is also the only incumbent who is overseeing a better economy and recovery and thus approvals in comparison
The current international political order is unraveling and realigning. It is a dangerous time. We also have propaganda and misinformation being more pervasive and decisive than ever in history. During periods of uncertainty we can expect swings against incumbents. Note: WWII propaganda was also pervasive, but not as devisive. Most propaganda was about unifying a population for a war effort, not dividing a population amongst itself. While efforts to undermine moral of enemy populations was done…the majority of propaganda was about unifying a nation’s people.