Someone asked me about non-voters- a group we know almost nothing about bc every survey discards them as byproduct. I was interviewed about a forthcoming study of more than 13K non-voters coming out in Politico. Its the survey I have always dreamed of running-I'm excited about it
Political science research demonstrates 2 things are massively predictive of voting. The 1st is socialization. There is no better predictor of you being a voter (or a reader of my tweets) than your parents having been voters. That can be overridden by a college edu-the 2nd best
predictor of voting. BC prez elections enjoy larger participation, 60% in the last couple) more non-college edu voters participate in these elections than in others. Midterms, locals, and off-year elections like VA's are dominated by college educ voters. The Trump Effect turnout
surge is expected to boost presidential turnout this cycle to an unprecendented high- maybe 70% nationwide w some states, states that have liberalized access to voting like CA, OR, WA, perhaps hitting 80%. That's crazy high! This is DEF going to produce a bump in non-college edu
voters- however, not all non-college edu voters are white, and not all white, non-college edu voters are MAGA friendly. Part of the war will be how many MAGA WWC can Parscale find, then mobilize versus how many non-MAGA working class voters (white & otherwise) can Ds mobilize. In
In other words, it will be a mobilization war. However, unless they adjust their strategies, Ds are just as likely to expend their arsenal trying to recruit MAGA voters over to their side (impossible) rather than motivating their own untapped pool of non-college educated voters
to the polls. This would be a massive strategic mistake. In terms of college educated voters, & keep in mind, we are really only talking about college education whites in terms of a variation in vote CHOICE, the Ds need to motivate college educated voters-writ large-to the polls
while simultaneously continuing to push college educ whites away from the GOP. Keep in mind, by pushing away, we're talking about that very small group of persuadable- largely sensitive to change messaging anyway. As you'll see in @newrepublic piece, most of the suburban swing
we're seeing is not from the same college edu white voters changing their minds about the GOP, its from millennials getting activated and showing up to vote (finally). And millennial suburban white college educ voters are realigned to the Dems. Now, Bernie people read this and
get excited bc they read it to mean that I'm arguing there is no such thing as the center & that Ds can go balls to the wall left- that is not what I am saying. But there is a TON of gray area between the way that Ds do competitive campaigning now, & Sanderism. A ton. What my
research argues is that the American electorate is not center-right, operationally, and is only center right symbolically because of incompetent messaging & framing from the Dem Party mainstream-which moves through electioneering in a completely decentralized, non-hierarchical
and def most detrimental- non-strategic way based on flawed assumptions about electoral behavior-some that are simply outdated and others that have just never been true (IE: voters are smart- a fine thing to say but a terrible thing to believe & design campaigns around). In short
The party's problems are more consultant-based than candidate based often coming up with theories that are two smart b y half (yard signs don't vote, for example. They do help w name ID- the main problem any candidate faces). The Dem Party's consultant class & D-trip nexus is
incredibly insular, & dismissive of innovation. They bring to bear 20th century techniques on 21st century campaigns against an opponent who is already in the 22nd century & who will do whatever is necessary to win. The model Ds should be following is the @RepKatiePorter model
in their centrist, or marginal races. They should be making an affirmative cases for economic liberalism not claiming to be economic conservatives. What a disastrous frame that is. It says to the voter- "there is something inherently flawed w my party & its program, meanwhile the
record of economic conservatism sits there like a giant oozing crevice in the Earth, ripe for picking apart and scapegoating. BTW, when is the last time you heard a Rep on the stump saying he is "not that kind of Republican?" They don't do that, bc to do so would be to accept the
opposition party's frame that there is something wrong with your party. Hell, you never even hear a Republican campaign (verbally, literally) as a moderate R, and never as a fiscal liberal. Tells you how much ground in that debate you have conceded over the past 3 decades of
strategic stewardship by the Dem Party's current leadership class. No wonder you're now facing a populist insurrection-it is in no small part, one powered by deep frustration in the messaging/strategic incompetence of the Democratic Party's consultant/strategy class. But I
digress, despite the GOP's very sharp shift to the right over the 2010s, encapsulated by a 2016 nominee who ran on a platform of punishing women for abortions, banning an entire religion from entry into the U.S. (land of religious freedom), & building a magical 3000 mile 50
billion $ border fence, ask voters who was more moderate, Trump or Clinton, and they're telling you Trump bc the GOP frames Dems as extremists (even when they are sheepishly centrist) and the Dems never frame the GOP as extremists aside from 1 issue, abortion, which when they do
they do so poorly (messaging to the brain and not to the gut). What would happen if the GOP's economic platform was framed as 1 of extremism? It certainly is an extreme departure from the system the country had prior to Reagan? Who knows? We'll probably never know, that's a prob.
BC my guess is when the data comes in about non-voters we're going to see high levels of economic & institutional mistrust- and if the GOP's message is Dem economic policies are bad for you & then 1/2 the Dem Party is running on a variation of that message- you can see why voters
from the lower 2 incomes strata are uninspired to think the act of voting is apt to improve things. Dems are also terrible at credit claiming. A Dem pundit on TV recently said, "its not like when Ds had power they did much to improve the lives of working people?" too which my
eyes went 👀 bc I'm pretty sure they used power to bring health insurance to more than 25 million people despite having to fight the GOP every step of the way & did this to minimum wages. Look at the red state/blue state divide here. 
We know that people are MUCH more likely to vote when they know there is a return on investment (which is why college makes you more likely). This is why the GOP credit claims even when they have to make shit up (we're fighting to protect pre-existing conditions).
Out of space
Out of space
