Solve for the candidate quality polarized equilibrium

Consistent with the predictions of this model, we also show that, in more conservative states, low quality conservative candidates do better relative to high quality conservatives, and vice versa.

And this:

We also show that voter beliefs about the candidates harden over the course of the primary…

That is from George Deltas and Matthias Polborn on SSRN.  Via Kevin Lewis.

Comments

Low quality defined how? Seems like circular reasoning: for example, picking Democratic candidates, the sharpster-type ghetto baiting politicians will do better in ghettos rather than upscale Democratic districts? So low quality voters demand low quality politicians?

It strikes me that the people called out as low quality on the left are not in fact in elected office.

lol okay. It strikes me that Republicans are great and Democrats suck

You should learn to read these comments for what they are. For instance that was actually invitation to name counter-examples.

I can think of maybe a couple of old and infirm Democrats who I would consider a bit crazy, but I think in up and comers they don't have the same kind of Roy Moores.

If they did, I don't think they would stick to 'em, like Republicans did to Roy Moore.

You are a knee-jerk lefty that hates conservatives. Worst of all, you are predictable and boring - predictably boring.

How to define quality drove Robert Pirsigs' protaganist mad, unless you can define exactly what you mean by quality you are just obsfucating. A crap argument by those with a political axe to grind.

What does “low quality” mean? Doesn’t agree with elite opinion?

Low quality = not the condorcet winner. Read for comprehension.

Guys, the term is explained on the first page of the paper. It has nothing to do with race or elite opinions.

Why not give us your summary of the definition? And then defend attaching the word "quality" to it.

Disclaimer: I only skimmed the paper.

Quality in a candidate is things voters like other than their positions.

That would be things like: good looks, a good story, perceived honesty, and so on.

The authors find positions are more important than quality. In a primary, this may select a low quality candidate who will fair poorly in the general.

Thanks. So "quality" = perceptions by those mugs the voters. And how do the researchers establish those perceptions? I'll bet they just ask the voters who - at least for researchers - never lie.

Just more evidence of f Trump’s genius in winning the 2016 election.

That is a good joke. Because, and here I feel a strange need to explain to the audience, Trump is rather instead a crowning example of the effect described.

Only to thoughtless lefties like you.

You lost. I love saying that!

You lost.

How do you like that Supreme Court?

"Solve for the equilibrium" is getting wearisome. I want some noo cliches.

Self-recommending.

Except darn it, sometimes the shoe fits.

Excellent

Low quality in the sense that the candidate does not represent the majority-preferred position. Indeed, it's conventional wisdom that many if not most Republican politicians support policies that are actually opposed by the majority of Republicans. An explanation is that Republican voters pick candidates not according to the policies they represent but hot-button cultural issues that appeal to emotions. One of the more creative techniques being used by some Republican politicians this year is to claim that the Democrats support policies that are actually the opposite of the policies Democrats support. For example, in this year's election as in past elections, Senator McConnell has claimed that Democrats want to cut social security and Medicare. The reality is that the combination of tax cuts benefiting the wealthy and an aging population have made it likely that they will have to be cut unless taxes are raised to "save" social security and Medicare. Of course, the "taxes" Republicans will agree to raise are regressive payroll taxes. If Democrats oppose raising regressive payroll taxes, Republicans will argue that Democrats want to cut social security and Medicare. It's clever, if deceptive.

"Senator McConnell has claimed that Democrats want to cut social security and Medicare"

Do you have a citation for McConnell saying that?

Oh please every single piece of mail I get from Democrats this year has been about how Republicans are voting to allow people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more for healthcare.

Yet when I checked the vote citations, every single one of them was for some form of ACA-repeal. Charging more for pre-existing conditions was illegal long before the ACA if you maintained coverage. Virtually all Republican proposals also protect against such charges.

And this is not an isolated issue. Tying together votes on complex legislation and saying the other guy "voted against" the popular half of the omnibus is a trick dating back to the founding of the Republic.

Another neat trick is to get legislation proposed/voted that has no chance of passing, doesnt mean what the title says it means, and/or full of land mines, simply to force your oponent to take a position

Shorter: I acknowledge that Republicans are wrong-footed on Healthcare.

Truer: anonymous knows he is arguing in bad faith

Or perhaps he is just more widely-read.

https://democrats.org/press/new-poll-voters-trust-democrats-more-than-republicans-on-health-care-by-15-points/

The hike was excellent, as was the follow up egg, shrimp, and potato breakfast burrito.

Yes, and democrats.org says Democrats are good. Surprise surprise!

You are such an a**hole!

'if you maintained coverage'

For example, by keeping the same job your entire life. Working for a company that never eliminates your position or goes out of business.

No, there was a provision for changing jobs and for paying your own premiums while you were unemployed. I still have a certificate of continuing coverage based on that provision.

The overlooked problem with this post is that the HT is no longer "The Excellent Kevin Lewis."

I think this sentence helps explain the asymmetry in the conclusions and points to what is probably a very interesting paper:

"For example, Grossmann and Hopkins
(2016) argue convincingly that Republican party and Democratic party are radically asymmetric organizations: “While the Democratic party is fundamentally a group coalition, the Republican party can be most accurately characterized as a vehicle of an ideological movement.”

citation: Grossmann, M. and D. A. Hopkins (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats.

Excuse me: book, not paper.

"Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats."

+1,

That might explain why conservatives tend to pick a position on the left and use it as an explaining ideology for the left.

Rather than spotting coalition attempts as brazen as "stronger together."

Yes, that's probably explanation #1,000 for why people you don't like are bad stupid idiots

One more thought and then I will go hiking, I promise.

It is kind of strange that one "side" in American politics desires coalition, and the other "side" says no I don't want to be a part of it, because ideology.

No wonder we ended up with one side more overtly small-d democratic, on the other side more likely to ramble about the failings of democracy itself.

Post all you want you troll, you lost. You lost all across the USA - state legislatures, governorships, the House, Senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS.

You lost.

Then y u so mad?

Well there is a very easy solution if one side wants coalition regardless of ideology and the other side is only interested in ideology. Adopt the ideology and everything is solved.

People can be fiscally conservative but liberal in attitude, like John Kasich.

Comments for this post are closed