2 ms·
I wonder if there's definitional confusion underlying this? I rarely see discussion of the gaps that hide under an umbrella like <party/ideology>-ans. Are we t
by abathur 7y ago
I wonder if there's definitional confusion underlying this?
I rarely see discussion of the gaps that hide under an umbrella like <party/ideology>-ans. Are we talking about candidates and office-holders? Party officials and operatives? Openly-affiliated pundits? Activists? People otherwise not on the playing field who happen to vote for or be registered as party-affiliated? Abstract stereotypes projected by partisan media?
In practice, these groups may be largely distinct, and questions referencing them can easily smuggle a lot of assumptions in. I would be surprised if highly disengaged voters and highly engaged ones aren't talking about different things when they tell you what they think <X>-ans think, so you'd expect a delta.
- abathur 7y agoThere's also a lot of dogma/orthodoxy that elected <X>-ans have to at least pay lip-service to, which might exacerbate perceived gaps on issues that are often in the talking points/propaganda efforts/purity tests. Aside from nailing down who the questions mean, it might be interesting to see how well respondents can imagine what partisans think about obscure concrete issues.