The Good, the Bad, and the Delusional

The Great Delusion of Politics

... is that everyone thinks like my friends. They don't. All the people we know and interact with only represent a minority, ALWAYS. The presidents that win understand that. The ones that don't, lose.

Bill Clinton understood that when "he felt your pain".
George H.W. Bush said the economy was doing just fine.

George W. Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism" and welcomed Hispanics.
Al Gore talked about climate change.

Barrack Obama talked about hope and changed.
John McCain wanted to double down on the Iraq War.

and Mitt Romney let slip about his 47%, the greatest example of the Great Delusion you can see.

I'm being way over simplistic, but you can see the point. The president that can frame himself to appeal to the most people wins the election (duh), and that means appealing to more than just your "base" (not duh).

You can get away with the Great Delusion somewhat when your a governor, senator, congressman, etc. because you only have to convince a geographic niche. But the larger you govern, the less "delusional" you can be. This is a reason why business man can have trouble being politicians. If I can sell a product to 2,000,000, I'm a millionaire. If I get 2,000,000 votes running for president, I'm not even a footnote. Name a businessman that has sold a product to half of the country. Name one that has sold to half of a state.^[1]

This is where, I believe, I'm able to get more political insight than most. I'm weird. I know I'm weird, and I have been weird for a long time. In other words, I've had to deal with my own Great Delusion for a while.

So, I bring this up now, because in all of my previous posts, I have not explained how I think people actually vote. And, without me explaining this, you won't really understand why I make the poll predictions I do. Well, let's fix that now.

Different Kinds of Voters

To escape your Great Delusion, you have to have some idea about how different people vote. Most break the electorate into demographic groups: party, race, religion, income, gender, education, and religion. Instead, I found it simpler to break the electorate into mindsets: Delusionals, Partisans, Pragmatists, and Idealists.

Delusionals
If you prefer you can use a less pejorative word, 'inspired', but I'm going to use 'delusional' because in a way it's more accurate. These are voters that are so much for their candidate (or party) no fact or argument can persuade them. All faults are excused even if the voter must go to a delusional point in accepting them.

Within this group are also the ant-candidate Delusions. These have a mindset where the other candidate (or party) is so unacceptable, not argument can persuade them not vote against them.

Needless to say, Delusionals will only vote for the candidate and always vote.

Partisans
Partisans are less delusional, but still willfully excuse their candidate faults, because they are committed to their team (as in party or political organization). They don't care that their candidate is worse than the other because they are just as concerned about control of the rest of government: Senate, Supreme Court, and Congress. They are also motivated by the future of their team, and thinking as much to the next election.

However, Partisans are not blind to their candidates faults, they're just willing to overlook them. If a candidate is too flawed, they will stop supporting them. Partisans only vote for their candidate, but can be persuaded not to vote at all if their candidate is bad enough.

Pragmatist
Pragmatist want the better candidate regardless of their party. They don't expect a candidate to be perfect, and try to judge both on equal terms. You can describe them as 'independents' and that is often how they describe themselves, but most of the time that is not what happens in practice. You see, the problem is that we all define 'better' differently.  But, at least, in theory they will vote for the other party. So, we should think of the mindset one of two types:

Partisan-Pragmatist
While these Pragmatists are open to voting for either party, because of their values and ideas they effectively vote as Partisans. If you believe 'better' is to have smaller government, you are always going to vote for a Republican, and you will always vote Democrat if you believe in social program. However, in mindset, you are open to the other side, so there are ways to get you to switch or at least not vote.

Don't be confused by party allegiances. Many voters that look Partisan are actually Partisan-Pragmatists. Evangelicals and some minorities are good examples. This mindset votes strategically, not out of loyalty. What party affiliation they have is because of their needs at the time.

For example, a voter could be so concerned about an orange, small handed demagogue, that he starts, what looks like a partisan, blog. And as for the other candidate, he suspiciously never mentions her or her flaws. That's just hypothetical of course. We don't know anyone like that.

True Pragmatist
Here we really do have voters looking only at the best candidate. They usually have needs that neither party deals with adequately, or are just truly impartial. This is the closest to what you know as 'independent voters'. The classic Soccer Mom, is a good example of this.

There is a kind of in between Partisan and True Pragmatist. Some needs are addressed by one party but others are addressed by the other party. Another way, is where both parties are willing to address the need (though often using different strategies). These are treated as True Pragmatists, because they are open to switching. They just lean towards one party more than the other.

Both Pragmatist types realize Third Parties can't win, so would see a such a vote as "throwing it away". However, they might for emotional or strategic reason. In strategic cases, it would be because the Third Party is promoting an issue they want a major party to adopt. In the emotional case, this is just a substitute for not voting

A common exception are strong third party supporters, such as Libertarians. What going on here is that they really have sentiments to the Third Party, but knowing Third Parties have less influence, they participate in one of two major ones. However, if not satisfied with the candidate, then voting their sentiments makes strategic and emotional sense.

Both tend to be consistent voters because they believe in the importance of voting, but if the stakes of the election are low enough they can stay home.

Idealist
Idealist have this crazy idea that they should vote for the candidate that most represents their views regardless of their chances of winning. Unlike the Pragmatist, they don't vote strategically at all. Most are affiliated with a party but only because the party has adopted their (or at least one of them strongly). They also can be "single issue" voters.

Idealist don't switch between the major two unless both parties can meet there ideals, but will often vote third party or not vote out of protest.

What You Need to Know

Now, that you've heard the unique (as in weird) way I think of voters, here are some finer point that need to be cleared up.

First, at any point in our lives you and I could be a Delusional, Partisan, Pragmatist, or Idealist.

Second, as you can see, only True Pragmatist will switch sides, which means candidates have to change a voter's mindset before they can change their vote. This is incredibly hard, however. Mindset change more from life experience and the constant debates that happen between elections. As you can image, there is a lot to this, so I go over how mindsets form and, in loving detail, in the next post.

Third, while mindsets are hard to change, they can be motivated or unmotivated. Campaign are often much more about affecting who votes, then who they vote for. Just as importantly, voters affect how other voters vote (Say that three times fast). Motivated voters argue for you. Unmotivated ones don't, regardless of their mindset.

So, exactly how can Delusionals and Partisans be unmotivated. Given their conviction, why would they ever not vote. We have to think of willingness to keep an opinion and effort differently. Convincing a Delusional to admit their candidate is bad, or a Partisan to admit their party is wrong is practically impossible. However, if they lose faith, they could abandon their candidate or party. Then maybe they would switch mindset, but more likely they would just wait until the next election.

Fourth, different mindset have a way of alienating each other, so part of a candidates problem is keeping them together. The other candidate can also try and get his to fight.

Fifth, forget about Third Parties (sorry). They serve other roles, but in deciding elections, all they do is pull Idealists and angry Partisans from the candidate. The exception here are lower level candidates. The less powerful the office, the more likely a Third Party can win, so voting mindset have to consider this possibility.

How does the Great Delusion Apply?

Well, since you asked, one of the problem is that all these groups don't think they need the other.

A great example of this was after the 2012 elections. the Republican Party (Partisans) had figured out that they lost, and would keep losing if they kept insulting Hispanics (Pragmatists). Unfortunately, almost immediately Rush Limbaugh went to convince his Delusionals this was not true. After all, if Republicans got enough Hispanic support, they may not need him and his Delusionals. If the Republican Party had been able to solve this, there would be no Donald Trump.

Another interesting outcome, is that we like to think we're Pragmatists or Idealist, when we're actually a Delusionals or Partisans. For example, a blogger could be so scared of an orange, small handed demagogue, that he tries to sell himself as a Pragmatist, when he's actually quite delusional. Again, this is just hypothetical.

To escape your own Great Delusion, you have to first be honest with yourself as to what you actually are. (Though if your a Delusional you probably can't. Because, well, you're delusional). You then have to learn to recognize who everyone else is in your party, and the other. Then, remember that they to are under their own Great Delusion, but if your empathetic enough you can now talk to them without throwing food.

Oh, and before you think I'm being too hard on the Delusionals, remember you have probably been one, and I know I have. You or I might be one now.

I'll cover how coalitions form in the next post.