We have officially entered an "Era of Cult Politics"
Two recent YouGov polls show that blind partisanship is highly influencing vote choice.
As an educated, well-informed voter, if I asked you the simple question of “which political party supports curbing immigration into the United States?”, you would probably have one answer: the Republicans. Regardless of if you are a Democrat, Republican, left, right, blue-eyed, or black-haired, it’s pretty much a generally agreed upon view.
Or is it?
If you didn’t know, President Biden signed an executive order limiting the number of asylum seekers coming across the US-Mexico border to 2,500 per day. While a number of Democrats kept quiet, some, like Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, protested the move. But what do the voters think, especially the partisans?
First, let’s look at the most recent YouGov poll, conducted for The Economist. This poll was out in the field June 9th to 11th. In this poll, adults were asked:
“Do you support or oppose shutting down the US-Mexico border to new asylum-seekers if an average of more than 2,500 migrants attempt to enter per day?” - The Economist/YouGov Question
As you can see in The Economist poll question, there is no mention whatsoever of Joe Biden. No mention whatsoever that this is Joe Biden’s actual and enacted policy. Instead, they are given this question without any partisan cues at all. So what were the results?
Of those who are Democrats, 46% support this policy idea, while 33% oppose it. This in and of itself might show that the Democrats might not necessarily have a good read on where their own supporters stand on the immigration issue. Still, if we look at independents, it’s 51% support and 22% opposed, while Republicans are at 71% support and 20% opposed.
This Economist poll shows that voters are distributed in a manner that seems typical, with the more liberal view being skewed toward the Democrats and the right-leaning view toward the Republicans. Also, Democrats being under 50% shows that the aren’t necessarily supportive of this issue, even if it has plurality support.
Now, let’s shift over to YouGov’s poll that they conducted for CBS News, which was out in the field from June 5th to 7th, a few days before The Economist’s poll. In the CBS poll, adults were asked:
“As you may know, Joe Biden recently issued an executive order that partially shuts down asylum processing along the US-Mexico border, allowing US immigration officials to more quickly deport migrants trying to cross the border illegally. Do you approve or disapprove of this action?”- CBS/YouGov Question
As you can see, this question is more detailed but asks about the same policy, which is Biden’s executive order. However, both questions provided different details. Most importantly, the CBS question provided a partisan cue, by naming “Joe Biden”, whereas the question for The Economist did not. So, how did this skew the results?
Well, a lot.
Amongst Democrats, support for the executive order jumped to 76%. This is a 30% jump in the same policy by simply using “Joe Biden” as a partisan cue. As for the Republicans, support only slightly dropped to 64%, which is only 7% lower than the poll done by The Economist. Still, this drop shows a negative partisan cue. Independent voters also shot up, with 71% supporting the CBS-written question, compared to 55% in The Economist.
With that being said, do voters mostly simply take their cues from party elites, thus meaning that they don’t have to do any thinking of their own? It seems so, with one of the most notable recent instance being how a Heritage Foundation priority became Romneycare, which eventually became Obamacare. Democrats loved it because it had the name “Obama” on it. Same can be said with trade, and even with war. This is how the Republicans went from a pro-free trade and interventionist party to a pro-tariff and isolationist party. Voters calling the Soviet Union “evil” now are more likely to side with Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
If that is the case, elites are just leading the herd in the directions that they want them to go. At this point, we would call this a cult. Now, granted, Democrats are probably less likely to accept the criminal activity of their elites compared to Republicans. But when it comes to issues, the recent YouGov polls show that all voters care about are partisan cues, and nothing more.
We are in a really dark place when it comes to electoral politics. This is definitely not going to end well. People are voting based on feelings than facts. Usually I try to be optimistic, but there is no light at the end of this tunnel.
I feel like if the Sun in the UK does NOT endorse Keir Starmer like they did Tony Blair under similar circumstances in 1997 it would be truly evidence that we have entered a "new" era. Obviously, the Sun doesn't have the influence it once did but it also shows that it is now captive of a smaller more partisan readership.