What difference will it make?

 I've had several posts about the following question:  "In America, each generation has tried to have a better life than their parents, with a better living standard, better homes, a better education, and so on. How likely do you think it is that today's youth will have a better life than their parents--very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?"  One influence on opinions was partisanship--people were more optimistic when a president of their own party was in power--but it seemed like the effect of the president's party was stronger for Republicans.  Since the last time I wrote about this, there have been a few additional surveys and one change of administration, so I'm updating the analysis.  Here is the percent of Democrats saying very or somewhat likely:

There's no clear difference between optimism in Republican (red) and Democratic (blue) administrations and also no clear trend.  Positive views in the latest survey (September 2022) are low, but not the lowest ever (that was in 1995).  Here is the corresponding figure for Republicans, using the same scale:

Republicans are considerably more optimistic during Republican administrations.  Also, if you look at Republican administrations (1983, 2001, 2008, 2017, 2019), there doesn't seem to be a trend, but if you look at the Democratic administrations it seems like a downward trend--the last time it was over 50% in a Democratic administration was January 2010.  

    We can put these together and look at the gap between Republicans and Democrats:

In Republican administrations ranging from 1983 to 2019, it's consistently about +10 for Republicans.  Under Democratic administrations, it was about -10 until around 2010, but since then has been much larger.*  That is, Republican expectations for the relatively distant future depend on the party of the president much more than Democratic expectations do.  It's worth noting that this question is focused on economics--I will look and see if I can find anything on expectations about other things, like the culture or the survival of democracy.* 

*In 1999, positive expectations were higher among Republicans than Democrats (77%-72%).  I thought this was probably a mistake, but I was able to check the original data and confirmed it.  

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

Views of recent immigrants, 1986-2015

 In 1986, a CBS News/NY Times survey asked "Overall, would you say most recent immigrants to the United States contribute to this country or do most of them cause problems?"  The question was repeated off and on until August 2015 (it's odd that it hasn't been repeated since then).  The results (usually about 10% said they didn't know and about 8% volunteered that it depends--those numbers didn't show any pattern):  

Opinion clearly moved in a pro-immigrant direction, although it's hard to say if it is a trend or a one-time jump.  In 1994, 29% said that they contributed and 53% that they caused problems.  The next survey wasn't until December 2001, when the numbers were almost reversed (51%-31%).  That was only a few months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, which might have been expected to produce more negative attitudes towards immigrants.  The fact that opinions were generally positive could reflect the influence of political leadership:  as Paul Krugman said, George Bush did a lot of bad things as president, but after September 11 he "tried to calm prejudice, not feed it."  

The 2007 survey also asked "do you think most other people would say most recent immigrants to the United States contribute to this country, or do most of them cause problems?"  This kind of question interests me, because beliefs about what other people think may affect willingness to act on your own beliefs.  I think that usually believing that most people are on your side is an advantage--it makes people more likely to express their views and therefore more likely to convert others--although sometimes it may lead movements to take extreme positions that are unpopular (Republican overreach on abortion in the past year may be an example).  People generally underestimated pro-immigrant sentiment:  32% said contribute and 53% said cause problems.  There's a general tendency to think that other people share your views, and that was the case here:

                                  Think others think
                              Contribute       Problems

Contribute                    47%                44%

Cause problems           13%                 78%

I looked at some other factors to see if they affected perceptions of what other people thought, but none of them made much difference after controlling for your own beliefs.  Why were people who thought immigrants caused problems more confident that most other people shared their beliefs?  One possibility is that it's because opinions about immigrants had been more negative in the past.  Most people don't have frequent conversations about particular political issues, so when people try to judge what other people think they may rely on things that they heard years ago.

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

The same old story?

Since my last post, one week ago, the tone of commentary on Ron DeSantis has become more negative--there have been comparisons to also-rans like Scott Walker and Ted Cruz.  A piece in the New York Times by Sam Adler-Bell suggests that the race is falling into the same pattern as 2016.  DeSantis "polls considerably higher than Mr. Trump with wealthy, college-educated, city- and suburb-dwelling Republicans. Mr. Trump, meanwhile, retains his grip on blue-collar, less educated and rural conservatives. For the G.O.P., the primary fight has begun to tell an all-too-familiar story: It’s the elites vs. the rabble."  

A recent Quinnipiac University poll  of likely Republican primary voters finds 40% for Trump, 36% for DeSantis, with Nikki Haley and Mike Pence in a tie for third place, with 6% each.  Education and income do make a difference: Trump leads DeSantis 41-23% among white people without a college degree and trails (38-43% among whites with a college degree).  There's a similarly large split by income.  (They don't report breakdowns by urban/suburban/rural residence, but that's pretty dubious as a measure of "elite" status.)  What about other factors?  Trump leads by 48-28% among people aged under 45, and trails 40-35% among people aged 45 and up.  He leads among women (40%-32%) and has a smaller lead (40-39%) among men.  Trump is slightly behind among whites (36-38%) and has a substantial lead (56-27%) among what Quinnipiac calls "people of color" (probably mostly Latino).   

The survey also asks about second choice:  DeSantis is first with 31%, followed by Trump with 20%, Pence with 17%, and Nikki Haley with 9%. Relative to Haley, Pence does better among people with lower incomes, less educated people, younger people, women, and "people of color."  Some of the differences are small, and many of them could reasonably be attributed to chance.  However, there's a pattern that applies to both the Trump/DeSantis and Pence/Haley choices:  the more familiar name does better among groups that generally pay less attention to politics.  This provides an alternative  explanation of the education and income differences in Trump/DeSantis support--people with less education and lower incomes generally pay less attention to politics, and people who pay less attention to politics tend to go with the candidate that they've heard of.  These explanations aren't mutually exclusive--Trump probably retains some "populist" appeal.  But some of his strength, especially his strength among "working class" voters, at this point is just because of familiarity.  

In my view, a major reason that Trump won in 2016 is that other candidates focused on attacking each other, and didn't really go after Trump until it was too late.  Ironically, this could happen again in 2024 for different reasons--his opponents could interpret his early strength as positive appeal, be reluctant to antagonize his voters, and all leave the job of attacking Trump to someone else.

How could they?

A few weeks ago, Thomas Edsall had a column that began "Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory continues to confound election experts. How could American voters put such a fractious figure into the White House?"  Although most of the discussion in the column was about the general election, I don't think that his victory in November was particularly puzzling (admittedly, I don't claim to be an "election expert").  Trump got 45.9% of the vote, which is a pretty weak performance given the strength of partisanship today (only a little better than the 45.6 Michael Dukakis managed in 1988).  But Hillary Clinton only got 48% (partly because of the strength of partisanship and partly because of her own problems as a candidate), and the Electoral College did the rest.  

The more difficult question is why Trump won the Republican nomination.  One idea that has become popular is that he benefitted from the large number of candidates.  The reasoning is that they split the mainstream vote, so Trump won the early primaries without getting majorities and developed enough momentum that he couldn't be stopped.  This analysis is based on the assumption that there was a basic division between Trump and non-Trump voters, so that if a non-Trump candidate dropped out, his votes would go to other non-Trump candidates.  A CBS News/NY Times survey from December 15 asked people who said they were likely to vote in a Republican primary about their first and second choices, and also about which candidate "you would be most dissatisfied with as the Republican nominee."  A summary of the results for the top candidates:

                      First      Second     Dissatisfied
Trump             35%       12%          23%
Cruz                16%       19%            4%
Carson            13%        13%            4%
Rubio              10%        13%           4%
Bush                  3%        10%         18%

The race was closer if you look at combined first and second place votes, but Trump still had a solid lead (47%-35%).  And while Trump "led" in the dissatisfied choices, he only got 23%--apart from Trump and Bush, they were spread widely.  So there at this point, there wasn't a strong division into Trump and anti-Trump voters.  

The survey also asked potential Republican voters to rate Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, and Bush in several areas:  "ability to make the right decisions about the economy," "ability to handle the threat of terrorism," whether "he says what he believes," and "whether he has presented specific ideas about how he would accomplish his goals if he were elected president."  The percent giving favorable ratings:

                            Trump   Cruz   Carson   Rubio   Bush

Economy              82%    70%       65%    60%      52%
Terrorism              71%    72%       59%    59%     53%
Believes                76%    60%       72%    51%     41%
Specifics               59%    58%       47%    49%     42%

Trump was first on three of those, and a close second on the fourth.  Comparing him to his closest competitor (Ted Cruz), they were pretty much tied on terrorism and presenting specific ideas, and Trump had substantial leads on the economy and saying what he believes.  

So overall, I don't see support that for the idea that Trump benefitted from a splintered opposition--the main reason that he won was that Republican voters liked him (although Republican elites were less enthusiastic).  Carson's strong showing is also noteworthy--people seem to have forgotten about it, but he did well in the polls even though he didn't put much effort into campaigning.  His lack of effort and organization hurt him once the primaries started, but he clearly had an appeal to Republicans.  So that makes the contest for the nomination even more confounding:  two candidates who seemed weak on paper did well against what was supposed to be an unusually strong field.

A lot has changed since 2016, and there now seems to be a real division between Trump and non-Trump support.  But the 2016 campaign may still have lessons for today (hint:  I think DeSantis if overrated; my money is on Tim Scott).  

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

Red district, blue district

 It's become common to speak of "red" and "blue" states, and to note that the "blue" (Democratic) states are richer than the "red" ones.  But the states are of widely different sizes, and some are very large, so they are probably not the best units to look at.  Representative Marcy Kaptur's office has produced a chart that shows median household income and party control by Congressional district.  There is a clear tendency for Democratic districts to have higher incomes--e. g., Ruy Teixeira says "The first page is heavily dominated by blue but the second, poorer page is a sea of red."  However, on looking at the chart, it seemed that it wasn't a simple matter of "the richer the district, the more likely to elect a Democrat."  Specifically, it seemed that the probability of electing a Democrat first declined and then increased as you went from low to high income.  But it's easy to imagine patterns when there's really nothing but random variation, so I looked more systematically.  After ranking the districts from low to high income, I computed a 50-seat moving average--seats 1-50, then seats 2-51, 3-52, ....392-441.*  The proportion of Democrats against the income of the middle district in the group:

The pattern is even more complicated than I thought--the chance of electing a Democrat first falls, then rises, then remains steady once the median income reaches about $80,000 (about a quarter of districts are above that level).  There are hints that it increases again at the very top (9 of the 10 districts with the highest median income are represented by Democrats), but it's not possible to be sure.  The Democratic share is at a minimum when the median income is about $65,000.  

I don't have any explanation--I'm just offering it as something to think about.  A few other observations:

1.  The discussion of this chart has treated it as an example of the Democrats' problems with working-class voters, but the individual and district level relationships are different issues.   Congressional districts are large (about 800,000 people), so they all contain a range of classes.  Consequently, it would be possible for the Democrats to do better in richer districts and better among working-class voters--in fact, this is what a classical Marxist analysis would predict.  Of course, this is not the case in the United States today, but it means that the district-level relationship needs its own explanation.

2.  Back in the 1950s, Seymour Martin Lipset observed that conservative parties sometimes did better in the poor regions of a nation (e. g., southern Italy).  His explanation was that those regions hadn't moved fully into a capitalist economy, so that their voters followed the lead of traditional elites, but this isn't applicable to the US today.  Curiously, the issue hasn't received much attention in subsequent research--I don't recall having seen anything, and my searches in Google Scholar drew a blank.  

3.  A common method for detecting non-linearity is to include a squared term in addition to the original.  But when you do that with these data, the t-ratio for the squared term was less than one.  In fact, you had to go up to the fifth power before one was statistically significant, and people rarely go that high.  So in this case, if you used a polynomial regression, you'd probably miss the non-linearity.   

  

*The chart includes non-voting delegates as well as representatives.