20:17 the reason I think they seem “unserious” to us is that they’ve been convinced that voting is a popularity contest. Absence any context about how government works or the motivations fueling political actors, that makes perfect sense. Our problem (including my fave Bulwark hosts) is that we have an extremely weird level of understanding of the context of how government and politics work.
Our analyses of normies’ votes must be informed by that self-awareness, or else our analysis will be a waste of time.
P.S. IMHO the people that need to step up aren’t the politicians—it’s the political scientists. Just like we needed science communicators like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Hank Green, we need governing communicators to dedicate infotainment video channels to popularize a foundational understanding not just of how a bill becomes a law, but also about what’s in the Constitution and why it matters.
P.P.S. Political scientists (including myself here) also need to get off their asses and throw out the old paradigms that never made sense in the first place. 20 years ago, I got two degrees in political science and both relied heavily on the rational actor paradigm. No one in the history of the world has voted based on rational decision-making. It’s a myth. But we’re still teaching it. So I’m creating a series that breaks down current issues with zero jargon and without assuming that my audience has a basic understanding of how US governments work. It’s not their fault, it’s ours. Let’s do this! #TheOpposition
52:19 I think it’s incorrect to conclude that about “it’s not about abortion.”
A vast majority of normies are from a time when you absolutely could not discuss abortion, periods, vaginas, uteri, birthing or anything but a “baby bump.” You will literally be ejected from the room if you bring any of that up, and not in a judgy way, but in a genuine appalled way.
In “polite society,” it’s still anathema to talk about abortion with men in the room. If we are artificially constrained about even having conversations that discuss 1) what abortion even is, 2) when people typically face the question of abortion, 3) the fact that “abortion” is not even a term that refers to a medical procedure, etc., then sexism is the problem, not the political issue of abortion.
We’re making analysis based on surface level data. Where are the political psychologists? What about people’s motivations? If the only people offering choices and vocabulary about the election are mainstream media (and almost no non-mainstream media create new frames to discuss the election), then people try to understand what those (again) artificial and arbitrary concepts are, and they think those are the only bases on which to vote. Like high school students an exam time, many of us are regurgitating what we’ve heard. If we could actually go deeper into asking “why?” after each opinion that focus group participants gave (preferably at least 5 “why’s”), we could find out what people are thinking and what “data” they are basing these statements on.
I agree with Sarah that focus groups provide way more data than polls. But if the people there only have the mental frames offered by the mainstream media, then even participants’ own words are still just responding to a multiple choice question. We need more data before we can reach any of the kinds of conclusions we’re talking about.