Thread by @tbonier

This is a thoughtful exploration of what seems to be the hot political twitter subject of the week. I'll share my own, less well-organized thoughts here.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1447208506592006146

First, the Shor conclusion that Dems are facing massive structural hurdles in the Senate/electoral college is inarguable, along with the notion that Dem campaigns need to empower a more diverse generation of leaders.

Unfortunately, I think some of the reporting on Shor's worldview has created a caricature of Dem campaign messaging being driven by a group of 20-something year old wildly liberal staffers. The messaging from most campaign ads is driven by the pollster (who is not 20-something).

How does the pollster derive their recommendations? From testing what messages appeal most to swing voters. Yes, that process is often flawed and could be improved, but I'd estimate that the overwhelming majority of Dem campaigns believe they are using popular messages already.

My point here is that, while I understand why the media may be attracted to this narrative of "out of touch woke campaign staffers" torpedoing Dem campaigns, I'd argue the true issue is not enough campaigns being smart about their message testing. (to be clear, many are smart)

Tactical considerations are also missing from the conversation in some ways. You can say Dems shouldn't talk about immigration because it's not popular, but when Trump is bombarding voters with his messaging on the issue, it's not clear that silence will help and it could hurt.

I have a nagging moral issue with this discussion as well. The idea of abandoning the promotion of important issues of social justice and equity because they turn off swing voters doesn't sit well with me. Yes, I understand that if you can't win, you can't govern more justly.

Campaigns are about changing behavior. I wish there was more discussion about how we can better message on issues of justice and equity to win support, rather than abandoning the notion of winning hearts and minds.

Keep in mind, some of the strongest predictors of Dem support in Georgia in 2020 were the voter's view on racial inequality and their opinion of Black Lives Matter. If you had a favorable opinion of BLM, there was an almost 80% chance you supported Biden. Not surprising....

What perhaps was surprising was the fact that voters with a favorable opinion of BLM outnumbered those with an unfavorable opinion by 13 pts. Had the summer of BLM demonstrations not happened, I sincerely doubt this would have been the case.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the popularist viewpoint would have argued for putting the discussion of BLM issues in the forefront in the 2020 campaign, yet without them, I would argue Dems would not control the Senate and perhaps not the White House.

That brings me to the last point - this discussion is overly focused on appealing to the "median voter", who happens to be an older white guy. This steers us away from an important conversation about how to motivate the millions of voters of color who generally don't vote.

Yes, I know the popularist argument is that those voters of color actually self-ID as moderate/conservative. I have two issues with this:

1) I don't trust self-reported ideological labels (calling oneself "liberal" comes with baggage, and also suggests a level of political involvement of activism that one wouldn't expect to see in someone who chooses not to vote).

2) These are voters who, by definition, don't feel connected to the political process, or have been subjected to barriers to voting put in place by the white establishment. Understanding their motivation through the lens applied to regular voters seems impossible.

I've rambled far too long for this medium. I'm glad this conversation is happening, and grateful for the attention that has been brought to these critically important questions!