The more charismatic candidate wins almost every time. The parties and candidates already analyzed which issues will get them the votes, they have whole teams breaking down which positions poll the best in which county.
The actual result is based on which candidate voters would rather have a beer with. The elections are mostly decided by swing voters. Swing voters don’t have strong opinions on the issues which is why they are swing voters
Swing voters are not really the sole political deciders. They matter extra because they effectively count as two votes, but base turnout is often a larger effect than the actual swing voters.
About 15% of Biden’s voters did not vote, 5% switched to Trump and 1% voted for someone else. That’s compared to 11% of 2020 Trump voters, who sat it out, 3% who switched to Harris and 1% who went for someone else.
So of 2020 voters, Harris lost a net 4% to the couch and 2% to switching. You can count the switchers twice because they were a lost vote for Harris and a gained vote for Trump, so that’s basically a wash. Trump then won a net 1% of people who didn’t vote in 2020 (which coincidentally is roughly the same size as an individual candidate’s 2020 voters). So doing better with any of those groups could have swung the election.
Exactly - this is a pretty good overview of the idea and the research behind it. We’ve always wanted to believe that people are fundamentally rational beings but it just isn’t true lol.
The more charismatic candidate wins almost every time. The parties and candidates already analyzed which issues will get them the votes, they have whole teams breaking down which positions poll the best in which county.
The actual result is based on which candidate voters would rather have a beer with. The elections are mostly decided by swing voters. Swing voters don’t have strong opinions on the issues which is why they are swing voters
Swing voters are not really the sole political deciders. They matter extra because they effectively count as two votes, but base turnout is often a larger effect than the actual swing voters.
So of 2020 voters, Harris lost a net 4% to the couch and 2% to switching. You can count the switchers twice because they were a lost vote for Harris and a gained vote for Trump, so that’s basically a wash. Trump then won a net 1% of people who didn’t vote in 2020 (which coincidentally is roughly the same size as an individual candidate’s 2020 voters). So doing better with any of those groups could have swung the election.
Exactly - this is a pretty good overview of the idea and the research behind it. We’ve always wanted to believe that people are fundamentally rational beings but it just isn’t true lol.
Sort of - but that view treats all communication as equal and valid, and it ain’t.