Here are the cross-tabulation results between partisanship and support for the three-way Kentucky gubernatorial election between Matt Bevin (R), Jack Conway (D), and Drew Curtis (I) as per late July’s Bluegrass Poll. This shows results among likely voters only with a margin of error of 3.8%.
||Matt Bevin (R)
||Jack Conway (D)
||Drew Curtis (I)
||Composition of Likely Voters
There are a couple of interesting patterns here:
- It is noteworthy that Conway’s support among Democrats is higher than Bevin’s support among Republicans. Conway is also drawing slightly more support from Republicans than Bevin is from Democrats.
- The nearly 4% margin of error means that Bevin’s support could be anywhere from 34%-42% and Conway’s support could be anywhere from 39%-47%. So this is essentially a “statistical tie.” That being said, the small but consistent lead that Conway has enjoyed all year should make us more confident in the reality of Conway’s small lead in public support among likely voters.
- It is noteworthy that the Republican-leaning-Independents are more undecided than the Democratic-leaning-Independents. This again speaks to Matt Bevin’s weakness with those who would otherwise be inclined to vote for a Republican candidate.
- That being said, Conway should not be pleased that he is not drawing more support from the Democratic-leaning-Independents.
- It’s interesting that Drew Curtis is drawing roughly equal support form both Republicans as well as Democrats.
At this point in time I’d say that there is weak-to-moderate evidence that Jack Conway enjoys a small but steady lead over Matt Bevin among likely Kentucky voters. Given that campaign events tend to make a bigger difference in state and local elections (as compared to presidential elections), there is still potential for either candidate to potentially pull into a more confident lead as the campaign heats up this fall.
A recent research article by Andrew Hall entitled “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” asked whether parties who nominate more extreme candidates in a primary face a penalty in the general election. To test this question, he examined U.S. House elections from 1980 to 2010 and found that the party that nominates a more ideologically extreme candidate over an ideological moderate tends to lose, on average, somewhere between 9%-13% of the vote in the general election. This reduces the chance of winning the seat by anywhere from 35%-54%. The take-away from this research article is that parties stand to benefit from nominating more moderate candidates and take big risks when they nominate more ideologically extreme candidates.
Political scientists often argue that partisan and economic “fundamentals” matter more than campaign events or candidate characteristics when it comes to predicting the outcome of political elections. Thus, whether Republicans nominate Jeb Bush or Rand Paul, it will end up mattering only a little in terms of the final outcome of the election. This effect, however, is most strongly the case when it comes to nation-wide presidential elections. The further one goes “down the ballot,” the less the “fundamentals” tend to matter and the more campaign events and candidate characteristics come into play.
In the case of gubernatorial elections, I would argue that they’re roughly equivalent to U.S. House congressional elections in terms of the relative effect of “fundamentals” vs. campaign events and candidate characteristics. Thus, I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that, all other things being equal, the effect that Professor Hall found for U.S. House elections would generally apply to state-wide gubernatorial elections as well.
This suggests that the Kentucky Republican party did themselves no favors by nominating Tea Party ideologue Matt Bevin over establishment Republican James Comer on in the May 19th Republican gubernatorial primary. It may have potentially cost them up to 10% of the two-party vote come November, giving a respectable advantage to Democratic candidate Jack Conway.
This is one of the best explanations of the origins of human political behavior that I have encountered. It deserves careful consideration.
The book is available here.
Outline based on portions of summary chapter 29.
- Fukuyama rejects the idea that all behavior is socially constructed. There are certain scientific facts about human biology that affect and constrain human behavior.
- Humans never existed in a “state of nature”
- The “state of nature” of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. is a fiction. Humans never actually existed in such a state of isolated individuals. As long as there have been humans (and primates) we have organized ourselves into groups and behaved in terms of our group identities.
- Thus, humans evolved the necessary “cognitive and emotional faculties” to exist efficiently in groups. The fact that we cooperate in groups isn’t purely a rational cost-benefit calculation, but also a biological instinct and urge that evolved over time.
- Why do we cooperate with one another?
- ANSWER 1: “kin selection.” Human beings have evolved to be altruistic toward those who share common genes. This is an evolutionary adaptation to promote gene survival and reproduction.
- ANSWER 2: “reciprocal altruism.” Human beings learn from repeated interactions with other individuals/groups and develop either trust or mistrust based on the results of those interactions.
- Since we interact most often with those who share our genes and learn that this is beneficial to us, we are predisposed to treat those in our kin groups better than those outside our kin groups.
- We learned that our survival is enhanced by cooperating with members of our kin groups.
- This explains the political behavior of PATRIMONIALISM – or favoring those in your kin group.
- Why are human beings rule-followers?
- Human beings have a natural inclination to create rules and institutions.
- Humans can create rules rationally through an economic cost-benefit analysis based on a desire to maximize advantages, reduce costs, and solve “prisoner’s dilemma-type problems of social cooperation.”
- The instinct to follow rules, however, is more a product of emotion, evolution, and instinct. These come through emotions like “guilt, shame, pride, anger, embarrassment, and admiration.” These are biologically transmitted more than culturally transmitted. This is evidenced in the fact that small children organize their behavior according to these emotions.
- We have evolved a psychological predisposition to “endow rules with intrinsic value.”
- This explains why there is a bias toward conservatism in societies.
- Individuals and societies cling to rules long after conditions have changed because of the emotional investment in the “rightness” of those rules.
- Why are human beings aggressive?
- We are predisposed to violent behavior. This has been inherited from our primate ancestors who behave similarly.
- Institutions have always arisen to help “control and channel violence.”
- Human being desire “not just material resources but also recognition.”
- Recognition is “the acknowledgement of another human being’s dignity or worth.” This is also known as “status.”
- Status is relative, not absolute, and thus exists in a zero-sum environment.
- We attain recognition only at the expense of others because we organize ourselves into hierarchies.
- Those with higher levels of recognition (status) have greater access to sexual partners and thus a higher degree of reproductive success. Thus, we have evolved a desire for recognition and status.
- Much of human political behavior revolves around the desire for recognition.
- This involves recognition not just for oneself, but for one’s values, culture, religion, etc.
- Liberal democracy is based on the desire/demand for “equal recognition.”
- Political LEGITIMACY arises when humans transfer the object of recognition from an individual to an institution. AUTHORITY is based on that perceived legitimacy.
- Ideas are causal factors in political behavior.
- Humans have evolved to create “mental models of reality.”
- These models attribute causal explanations to things. These can be visible and demonstrable or invisible and assumed.
- Early human causal factors: spirits, demons, gods
- Contemporary human causal factors: gravity, radiation, self-interest
- All religions constitute a “mental model of reality” that explain cause and effect relationships.
- Humans have evolved a desire for mental models that make the world “legible, predictable, and easy to manipulate.” Religion is a mental model. Science is a mental model.
- Shared mental models are necessary for facilitating widespread collective action. Religion is especially useful for playing this role. Religion can motivate people to overcome the collective action problem because it gives people intrinsic motivation for action. Thus, religion is very useful to the formation of politics and the state.
- Religion also helps motivate people to transcend kinship and friends as a “source of social relationships.”
- At the same time, secular ideologies like Marxism or nationalism can accomplish the same function.
- Religions persist because they are non-falsifiable to one extent or another, and the natural bias toward conservatism endows them with intrinsic value. Also, there is evidence that humans are “hardwired” for religion just as they are “hardwired” for language or following rules.
- Contra Marx, religion is not an invention of the elites to control the masses. Religion was present long before social hierarchies became common.
- Brahmanism in India and Catholicism in Europe helped establish political institutions and the rule of law in those areas.
- Political legitimacy should be understood as an idea, similar to other ideas that people have about “God, justice, society, wealth,” etc.
- Democracy and accountable government cannot be explained in the absence of the importance of ideas.
- How do political institutions develop?
- “Political systems evolve in a manner roughly comparable to biological evolution.” Variation and selection.
- Human biology provides for the instinct to follow rules, but the content of those rules develops through an “evolutionary” process.
- Variation is planned.
- Characteristics are transmitted culturally instead of genetically. This is an advantage because they can be changed at whim instead of being biologically “hardwired.” But it’s a disadvantage because of our conservatism bias.
- Can spread through imitation, not reproduction.
- Competition drives political development. This drives the selection process of political development.
- Most competitive pressures have come from “violence and war.”