UPDATE: I defeated Donald Trump


On Monday, I wrote about my plan to strategically vote against Trump on Super Tuesday. As with many things political scientists say, it was a decision based in reason that I did not expect much to come of.

When I got to the polling place, I was asked which ballot I wanted, and it was somewhat surreal to hear myself say: "Republican." I could feel JFK spinning in his grave. I got into the voting booth and found myself face to face with this: a genuine Republican primary ballot.


I went through with the plan, and voted for John R. Kasich of Ohio (I did laugh at the idea of supporting Jeb!). On my way out I pledged to re-read Profiles in Courage to make it up to JFK.

This morning, the results show that my single strategic vote won Hartford, Vermont for John Kasich. And statewide, Kasich played Trump to a tie, as they will split Vermont's 12 GOP delegates. 

Not to call myself a hero, but this morning my neighbors woke up in a town that does not support Donald Trump to be his party's presidential nominee because of me. 

Now, the Republican party, and the country at large, faces an uncertain road ahead with the Donald. There are more questions than answers. Many in his party are now hoping for a brokered convention.

But I hope that my single humble* act is instructive to other Americans. Your vote matters. If you think, as I did, that Donald Trump will hurt America, do not be afraid to deploy your vote strategically, your town (and maybe one day your country) will thank you for it.

 (*as humble as any vote that is immortalized by two blog posts can be) 

Popular posts from this blog

Turnout for What?: An altogether different concern with field experiments

Image
To the degree that Political Science Twitter can blow up, it blew up this week with the controversy over a field experiment run by professors at Stanford and Dartmouth in Montana (For the latest in the debate, see John Patty ; for overview, Derek Willis in NYT ). I don’t have anything to add to the ethics in field experiments discussion, although I am sympathetic to the accused profs. (If you would like a totally ethical look at how information increases participation in races like these, see my MPSA paper from last year!) My concern with this episode is that it illustrates a problem with the literature on turnout studies. They’ve gotten too good. One only needs to look around at the mail parties send to voters to see that voter shaming ( like in Alaska ), and possibly intimidation, is alive and well. These are techniques that were first tested by field experiments. (Look, it even happened to me in 2012) The combination of these techniques and the robust field offi
Read more

2022 Midterm Projection: Fundamentally Republican

Image
I think this is going to be an ugly election cycle for the Democrats. We can expect losses for the president's party in Congress in their first midterm election, and Joe Biden has not done anything to change my expectation. This is compounded by the fact that the economy seems to be the most pressing concern for voters, and inflation is a very difficult issue for policymakers to make go away or minimize. Since inflation is effectively making money less valuable, people that have a lot of money hate it , and even though unemployment is at a record low right, and many people in lower tax brackets have money in their pockets, it doesn't seem to go as far when you have to pay large bills for gas, heating your home or buying groceries.  So I believe we'll see the US House of Representatives swing to Republicans, probably with about 15-20 Democratic seat losses. Oddly, this is not actually that high of a number (Trump's party lost 41 in his only midterm, Obama lost 63 in his
Read more

10 Tips for Going on the Political Science Job Market

Image
It’s August, and academics are procrastinating so I’ve seen lots of advice on the job market. A lot of this advice seems good, but it usually comes from tenured professors who last went on the market before the advent of Twitter. So here are ten quick thoughts on my two recent trips to the academic job market: My qualifications for dispensing advice include spending many hours in the belly of the beast. Long term planning. One of the most sobering pieces of advice I got on the market came from Mike Horowitz at Penn, who emphasized to a group of us: “The market is a multi-year process.” This turned out to be the case for me, and the majority of people I have seen go through the market. At Penn we had 5 years of guaranteed funding, so planning for the market should begin in earnest in the second half of the fourth year. Once you lose that guaranteed funding, you’ll need to spend time on finding contingent employment, and anytime that is spent not on research you will not get
Read more