April 10, 2019

"The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate/A detailed look at the voters with the numbers to decide the 2020 Democratic nominee."

The NYT delves into something that shouldn't surprise anyone: The noisiest people are atypical.
The outspoken group of Democratic-leaning voters on social media is outnumbered, roughly 2 to 1, by the more moderate, more diverse and less educated group of Democrats who typically don’t post political content online, according to data from the Hidden Tribes Project. This latter group has the numbers to decide the Democratic presidential nomination in favor of a relatively moderate establishment favorite, as it has often done in the past.
If you look only at Democrats who don't "post political content to social media sites," you find 53% of them say they are "moderate or conservative" and 70% say "political correctness" is a problem.

There are also more than twice as many black people in this group — 24%, as opposed to 11% in the group that posts political content. And that's according to the Hidden Tribes Project. The NYT did its own "informal poll of Democrats on one of our Twitter accounts," and only 2% were black.

These people who are less active on social media are also — as the NYT puts it — "under-represented in the well-educated, urban enclaves where journalists roam" and "under-represented in the Northern blue states and districts where most Democratic politicians win elections."
Less engaged and less ideological voters tend to be cynical about politics. One might think cynicism would translate to support for outsider candidates, and it probably could against an establishment favorite with enough flaws. Instead, it has more often meant skepticism of ambitious, idealistic, pie-in-the-sky liberals and progressives who offer big promises with no record. It has meant an appreciation for well-known, battle-tested politicians who have been on their side or even delivered in the past.... 
Subtext: You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden. 

ADDED: The article linked above went up at the NYT yesterday. Today, the theme continues, with "How Radical Is Too Radical for 2020 Democrats?/Or is that question beside the point in the Trump era?" a column by Thomas Edsall. Democratic Party candidates are embracing the Green New Deal and slavery reparations, which might work in the primaries but prove deadly in the general election. Edsall ends inconclusively:
Three years ago, Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency. Maybe, this time around, Democrats can gamble successfully on a similar strategy and win. Or maybe not.

56 comments:

rehajm said...

Subtext: Get ready to suck it again, Bernie Bros.

Lucid-Ideas said...

...Or they've turned into extreme conservatives after witnessing the bounce-me-off-the-walls-in-a-padded-cell lunatics the democrats have become.

I voted for Obama in 2008. I used to consider myself a 'moderate'. I take responsibility for those thoughts of youth and votes and the gaping door to hell they unleashed when Obama-the-liar-and-activist was let into the White House and he flung the doors open to people that make him look like sane.

NYT can keep deluding themselves. Trump won because millions - many millions - of former democrats aren't democrats anymore. They didn't stay home. They voted for the opposition. It wasn't a 'minus 1' it was a 'minus 2' for them on election day.

DNC is now the 'BJP'. 'Bungee-Jumping Party' and they forgot the bungee...

Dave Begley said...

Althouse, "You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden."

Great line.

stevew said...

"You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden."

Ok, LOL level comment for me today.

This explains why the attempt to take Biden out failed so spectacularly. It also explains why I, traipsing around Massachusetts and the Northeast corner of the US, almost never encounter the virulent anti-Trumper that I see on blogs and social media.

This NYT piece is a decided call to action, no?

MadisonMan said...

From the Article:

the more moderate, more diverse and less educated group of Democrats

and

"under-represented in the well-educated, urban enclaves where journalists roam

Why are NYTimes writers desperately trying to link education into this? It's not like well-educated means intelligent.

narciso said...

Credentialed not educated like the netroots from 2003.

Lance said...

Less engaged and less ideological voters tend to be cynical about politics.

Fox Butterfield strikes again.

mockturtle said...

How does the NYT define 'well-educated'. Do they mean well-credentialed? Well-indoctrinated? Educated in liberal arts institutions? Having worked with many scientists and engineers in the private sector, I can say without hesitation that most were on the conservative end of the political spectrum. OTOH, most people I know who have worked in government positions are liberals. Small business owners tend to be conservative. This is just another ploy by the media to marginalize conservatives by calling them a bunch of ignorant hillbillies.

stevew said...

"Three years ago, Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency. Maybe, this time around, Democrats can gamble successfully on a similar strategy and win. Or maybe not."

They just don't get it - despite all their credentials and education: Trump did this by being himself and true to himself. A Democrat that gambled on a similar strategy would be seen, correctly, as a poseur, a fake, and would lose spectacularly.

MayBee said...

I too doubt the eduction/represented on Twitter or in Journalist's Circles connection.

How many people really roam in political media's circles? They are representative of the people who are clustered near the political media centers, not representative of educated people.
And I know many many many well educated Democrats and liberals who have and want nothing to do with political tweeting. They just aren't interested in getting in that particular scrum. It's not because they aren't intelligent.

Michael K said...

I pointed out in another thread that this might explain why Biden keeps chugging along.

There must be Democrats that are not crazy, although you could not prove it by some commenters on this blog.

The present Democrat coalition is a top and bottom thing with techies on top and welfare types on the bottom.

The reason why Bernie's followers tend to be under 30 is student loan debt plus free rider wannabes.

Never-Biden Never-Putin said...

Bernie is head Klan Master to the white Antifa basement boyz.

Infinite Monkeys said...

Why are NYTimes writers desperately trying to link education into this? It's not like well-educated means intelligent.

4/10/19, 9:22 AM


It's like you read my mind.

MayBee said...

mockturtle said...
How does the NYT define 'well-educated'.


I suspect this is more about elitely-educated, which is an issue. It's why we see Felicity Huffman facing jail time. You graduate from USC with a 2.0 grade point average after cheating to get in, and you are still going to be called "well educated" by the NYT.

traditionalguy said...

The Propaganda guys are setting the table for Buttigeig.It starts with the moderates win theme and next highlights the hero who is Gay man married to a man and a believes in Ecumenical religion like a the RINOs do. Smooth compromise coming.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Education is what economists call a 'Veblen' or 'positional good'. It's purpose is to signal status only. higher-education has been a Veblen good for about 30 years now. Nobody tell the NYT.

Kay said...

Commenting about politics on social media, or what have you, is like a performance in some sense. I’ve always suspected that loudest (and sometimes most interesting) voices are representative of nothing. Normal people don’t care about the controversies that pass for political discourse on Twitter or wherever.

This is partly why I find debating politics online to be a colossal waste of time and energy.

tcrosse said...

The Propaganda guys are setting the table for Buttigeig.

The Marketing Department is pushing this new product. NBC News stories on him have been campaign ads. In a few days he will be on Ellen (No shit, really). The product development team have given him a name more ridiculous than any nickname Trump could concoct. There's some Big Money behind this.

Sam L. said...

"Subtext: You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden."
Now, that's FUNNY.

MBunge said...

This may be the time to point out that Biden is actually a pretty crummy candidate. He's an unremarkable politician with a long history of gaffes and little evidence the public has any great affection for him. He's also really old and lacks the obvious vitality of fellow geezers Trump and Bernie. And does Biden have ANY history of appealing to and energizing minority voters?

You can understand the VERY WHITE folks who run the Democratic Party feeling like they need to tamp down the AOC-ification of their party and, you know, prevent a full blown socialist from targeting them and their super-rich patrons, but there are some perfectly fine candidates out there beyond Biden. What about that Delaney guy from Delaware? Don't repeat the mistake where the mania for electing a female President blinded folks to how much Hillary sucked as a candidate.

Mike

Chuck said...

MayBee said...
mockturtle said...
How does the NYT define 'well-educated'.

I suspect this is more about elitely-educated, which is an issue. It's why we see Felicity Huffman facing jail time. You graduate from USC with a 2.0 grade point average after cheating to get in, and you are still going to be called "well educated" by the NYT.


I'm not so sure. After Donald Trump transferred from Fordham to Penn/Wharton, and despite Trump's repeatedly crowing about it, not many people refer to Trump as "well educated."

This is such a great link for this purpose:

://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/nation/donald-trump-jr-mocks-college-admission-scandal-despite-his-past/article_a0c6b82e-44de-55a8-a452-3ef0f1b37d0c.html

(Trump's favored admission to Penn following an interview with an admissions officer who was friends with Trump's older brother Freddy, and Jared Kushner's mysterious admission to Harvard after his family made a 7-figure gift.)

JAORE said...

A savior is on the horizon. Alec Baldwin says if he runs he'll beat Trump "easily".

Come on in, the water is fine.

Fernandinande said...

Education is what economists call a 'Veblen' or 'positional good'.

Most STEM contains useful, usable knowledge which is worth money. People in other fields are often just indoctrinated or mis-educated.

It's purpose is to signal status only. higher-education has been a Veblen good for about 30 years now.

It's not a coincidence that the ludicrous Griggs decision was foisted on the country about 30 years + a generation ago.

bagoh20 said...

They should change party. Escape toxic progressivity.

bagoh20 said...

"Alec Baldwin says if he runs he'll beat Trump "easily"."

Even he doesn't believe that. If he did, he would run. You can't tell me he wouldn't love to be President and park wherever he wants.

Martin said...

As usual, the NYT is so enmeshed in their narrative that they lose any contact with reality.

Trump's 2016 tactics were unconventional, but his positions were very mainstream---America was and should be a great country but w ehave had 8 years and a whole Democratic Party dedicated to tearing it down; the well-being of Americans should be of greater interest to the government than foreigners, in particular people here illegally; people her e illegally DO present problems; most Muslims are not terrorists, but then most damaging terrorists are Muslims and we should at least be honest about that; the hollowing out of American manufacturing has caused real problems and should be addressed if possible.

It is quite possible, even likely, that a Dem will defeat Trump in 2020. But that will only delay the day of reckoning--or maybe advance it. You cannot deny reality and govern based on lies forever.

After the recent news media disasters--Kavanaugh coverage, Covington boys, Jussie Smollett, Mueller flop, the memdia and Democrats had a chance to reset, and they have very consciously decided to double down, instead. I imagine tgis is what concerns Edsall, and rightly so. But the issues are of substance at least as much as style.

Twitter is a sewer of mob rule, and I include in that a fair portion of what Trump tweets in addition to almost everything from such as AOC. To make Party policy based on tweets is, well, catering to the mob.

Hindenburg and von Papen thought they could make Hitler Chancellor and control him. The Dem leadership thinks they can cater to AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Farrakhan, Sharpton, and all the rest, and somehow walk it all back when the time comes.

Maybe they can, the media will do everything it can to help. But those of us in flyover country are not half as stupid as the coastal people think we are, and our memories are not as short.

We shall see.

glenn said...

Worth remembering that the alleged perps in the ongoing college admission scandal are members of that “well heeled urban coalition”. And that a bunch of them are A. Vocal lefty Democrats. B. Tax cheats.

mccullough said...

The NY Times peddles so much Social Justice Bullshit for their Rich White Audience but now reports that most people who identify as Dems think it is bullshit.

Too late.

Biden isn’t getting the nomination. He’s there to remind the non Times readers that the Dem Party is a bunch of Social Justice Warriors with insane ideas.

Biden is a groveling wimp now. It’s his turn to genuflect before The Progressive Altar. He’s a joke. One of Trump’s punch lines now. Welcome back, Joe.

chuck said...

> Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

No mention of Russian collusion? That's progress.

mccullough said...

Obama said a few days ago these Progressives are douchebags.

Too late.

Fen said...

The Left's inability to honestly understand why Trump won is going to cost them the 2020 election too.

Call us Tea Baggers again.

Fen said...

"Nobody trusts a Bernie in power"

Bernie had the nomination stolen from him and just took it up the ass. Or more precisely, let his followers get the shaft while he moved into his new 3rd house. Why would anyone follow him?

Oh yah, these are Marxists. The same idiots who believe Socialism will work this time if they dress it up in fancy adjectives like "Democratic".

Steve Crowder should hoax campus Marxists into joining the new "National Socialist" party.


dreams said...

"Or maybe not."

Because...Trump.

cacimbo said...

"It has meant an appreciation for well-known, battle-tested politicians who have been on their side"
What? The most recent Democrat President was NOT battle-tested. It was the very inexperienced Obama.

"under-represented in the well-educated, urban enclaves where journalists roam"
Urban areas are full of the poorly educated, poor black, non-tweeting voters that keep Democrats in power. It is true they are not in the elite white micro enclaves where the journalists roam. On the rare occasions journalists do deem to interview urban blacks they somehow always find the blacks who are very supportive of unchecked immigration, a view shared by almost none of the American blacks I have ever known.

n.n said...

Reparations to slaves and their descendants. Reparations to Americans who stood against slavery, sacrificed blood and treasure to conserve human rights, and their descendants. Also, reparations to Americans who stand against diversity including racism. That would be reconcilable.

n.n said...

It's not like well-educated means intelligent

There is a correlation inferred from observation, assumptions, and assertions, and that is sufficient for modern science.

Not Sure said...

"wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden"

Hey, some of us just had breakfast!

Does all this normalization of hair sniffing mean Biden has a lock on the nomination?

Seeing Red said...

It’s another crawl across broken glass election for me.

MadisonMan said...

Democratic Party candidates are embracing the Green New Deal and slavery reparations

Bob Kerry noted that in the most recent election, the three successful Democratic Senators, and 3 governors, uniformly did not campaign on the Green New Deal, or on Single Payer Health Care.

MayBee said...

Martin Said...Trump's 2016 tactics were unconventional, but his positions were very mainstream---America was and should be a great country but w ehave had 8 years and a whole Democratic Party dedicated to tearing it down;

yes yes yes exactly this

Fernandinande said...

I asked a girl for a date and she said she had to wash her hair because Biden was in town.

YoungHegelian said...

It has meant an appreciation for well-known, battle-tested politicians who have been on their side or even delivered in the past....

Experience and loyalty counts for a sizable fraction of the electorate? No! I mean, who'da thunk it?!

Three years ago, Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Trump's manner may be unconventional, but among the broad electorate, especially the Republican electorate, his policies were not radical. His policies were essentially to actually do what other Republicans had been saying they would do.

The Democrats misunderstand the "unconventionality" of the Trump campaign at their own hazard.

Ralph L said...

the well-educated, urban enclaves where journalists roam

But the skies are cloudy all day with pies.

Ralph L said...

What's important now is who shows up to vote in the primaries, and those garner a higher percentage of the noisy wactivists.

If no one challenges Trump, Republican voters could vote for the crazier candidates in the open primaries.

Kevin said...

Three years ago, Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Every election is about changing or staying the course.

Trump offered change for middle America and against the deep state, which just let Hillary off.

The Dems are offering change for everyone who wants more government power and against those who want to work and do better.

Bob Kerry can see from Kansas how that's going to play.

Bay Area Guy said...

OMG -- the NYT has finally written a good, salient article on politics, How is that possible?

A wise, good-natured blogger writes: Subtext: You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden.

This is both funny and accurate.

Here's a distinction I make between 2 groups: The Democrat voter (there are millions) and the Democrat elected official (there are thousands).

The Democrat voter is often a good, honest, hard-working normal gal or guy. If you video-taped their life, you would see very little difference in deeds than than average Republican voter. They simply are confused about politics in the abstract. They act good, but vote bad.

The Democrat elected officials (particularly the D.C. types) are a different kettle of fish. They are dominated by wackos. AOC, Swalwell, Nadler, Tlaib, Omar, Maxine Waters, the Congressional Black Caucus, Bernie Sanders, Hirono -- they are all just inept, lying weasels, who never worked in the private sector, never had to make a payroll, and have no sense of American pride, history or tradition.

Big Mike said...

Guys, it’s Kerrey, with an extra ‘e’. Autocorrect keeps trying to remove it because the Microsofties who wrote the Autocorrect code are fascists.

Biff said...

"You hot-headed NYT readers better wake up and smell the hair of Joe Biden."

Perhaps the funniest line ever delivered on this site. Not only did I laugh out loud, but I made a mess with my coffee. Thanks! (I think.)

n.n said...

Is NYT suggesting that the election was influenced by Democrat bots from China, Ukraine, perhaps Britain, somewhere else? Bots transported and sustained on platforms provided by Alphabet/Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. networks. This may explain the attack on the independent Gab. This calls for a special counsel to investigate possible, probable collusion between the warlock hunters... Democrats/establishment and foreign governments.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"If you look only at Democrats who don't "post political content to social media sites," you find 53% of them say they are "moderate or conservative" and 70% say "political correctness" is a problem."

Oh, dear. There is a wide, wide, difference between how Democrats perceive their politics and what they actually are. I'd happily bet that half that 53% are barking-mad Leftists by any objective standard. Democrats have been spinning the "moderate" jive for so long that their faithful no longer have any true metric for figuring out what "moderate" is.

Yancey Ward said...

Wow, Edsall doesn't get Trump at all. Here is the difference- Trump ran to the center during the primaries- on only one real issue did Trump get to the right of the Republican field- immigration. The Democratic field so far declared (remember, Biden is still undeclared) are all trying to get to the left of each other. That is disastrous for the Democrats in the general election.

To actually throw out conventional wisdom, a Democratic candidate will get to the right of the field in this case, not what that last part suggests.

John henry said...

Nancy Pelosi told AOC something like this the other day. I forget the actual quote but it was along the lines of "don't confuse Twitter followers with votes. They are not at all the same thing.

Tim pool of Timcast podcast makes a similar point in a recent podcast. He also feels that Twitter's censorship is going to bite fascist/progressives in the ass. He is more eloquent but his thesis is tha lack of push back because of banning and fear of banning leads to ever more extreme views, autophagy of those not sharing the extreme positions and, since they see nothing else a feeling tha they are prevailing

John Henry

John henry said...

Apologies in advance for the machismo and mansplaining in my comment on the disqualifying nature of the vice presidency.

I am feeling sooooo ashamed of myself.

(not really)

John Henry

Bilwick said...

"There is a wide, wide, difference between how Democrats perceive their politics and what they actually are. I'd happily bet that half that 53% are barking-mad Leftists by any objective standard. Democrats have been spinning the 'moderate' jive for so long that their faithful no longer have any true metric for figuring out what 'moderate' is."

Indeed. Remember "Garage Mahal"? Stupid as Inga and loony as Ritmo. I once mentioned my Statist Scale (aka the Coercion Meter) with 0 being libertarian anarchist (a la Robert Le Fevre and 10 being Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. I posited 6-8 as the "State-F*cker Zone" (Hillary, Obama, etc.) Garage Mahal, after at least a year of parroting the "Hive" party line on everything, said he was a "5." And the poor sap actually believed it!

Maillard Reactionary said...

When I first read the headline of this blog entry, I thought it said "The Democratic Electorate is not the actual Democratic electorate...", but then realized my mistake.

I still think it is true, though.

Bunkypotatohead said...

When a writer devotes that many words to a subject, the conclusion should be something more than "Maybe...or maybe not"