The public radio program On The Media had an excellent interview with Ibram X. Kendi about how the media is obsessively focusing on the wrong swing voters, and because of that error, party establishment Democrats are trying to persuade people who are unlikely to switch back to them, at the cost of ignoring those voters who previously voted Democratic but either did not vote in 2016 or voted third party. He says that these latter voters are far more persuadable to vote Democrat this time and should be the primary focus of the campaigns.
Most of the Democrats running for the White House are making their case for defeating Trump with the persuasion theory, whereby they say they can draw moderates and disaffected Republicans into their tent. This is the traditional conception of the “swing voter.”
These candidates — and many pundits, too — may be missing an important voting bloc hiding in plain sight: those who go from voting for Democrat to not voting at all. Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and executive director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University calls them “the other swing voters,” citizens who are not disengaged, but who are unsatisfied and unwilling to cast a ballot for those who won’t recognize them.
Kendi writes in The Atlantic that these other swing voters have swung elections and may do so again. In order to activate them, he tells Brooke in this segment, the press and campaigns need to stop thinking of these voters simply as “nonvoters” who need to “turn out,” and more like swing voters with agency who can be persuaded to favor particular policies.
Kendi says that there were more Obama voters who swung to not voting or voting third party than who swung to Trump, and yet the media and the political establishment focuses obsessively on the latter group, and erroneously lump the former, who are typically younger and people of color, with non-voters who have not registered to vote and have no intention of voting, and thus dismiss them as hopeless causes.
He says that the size of the group of 2012 Obama voters who in 2016 did not vote or voted third party far exceeded the total of 86,000 voters that Clinton lost by in the three states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Nationwide about 4.4 million 2012 Obama voters did not vote in 2016 while another 2.3 million voted third party, the total being larger than the six million voters who swung to Trump.
Kendi also says that about 70% of those Democratic voters who switched to Trump in 2016 are generally satisfied with him and are unlikely to be persuaded to vote Democratic this time around and are now effectively like Republicans.. But it is these voters that candidates like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, those who dropped out like Petet Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, and the Democratic establishment are courting.
Meanwhile about 70% of those Democratic voters who did not vote in 2016 or voted third party are dissatisfied with Trump and can be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around but that is less likely to happen if you did not give them a reason to switch back with a message that appeals to them. If the party nominates someone just like Hillary Clinton again, those people will stay away again.
He says that those who warn that there is a risk that nominating Sanders will alienate some voters are right but they are ignoring the risk that nominating someone like Biden will alienate other voters. The point is that the voters that Biden will alienate are the same ones that Clinton alienated but who can be persuaded to vote for a Democrat like Sanders.
It is an excellent 11-minute interview.
It goes to show how prolific the centrist establishment mindset is when their main thought and concern is appealing to swing voters and soft-republicans rather than activating the apathetic parts of the democratic base.
Then again, that would require them to run on a platform that might make them slightly less monumentally wealthy.
The disappointing realization I had listening to this is that this is almost certainly by design. Better to lose and be able to blame the progressive Left than to win on a platform that appeals to them at the expense of the donor class.
You perhaps also noticed in the last debate that some of those candidates (I recall Bloomberg specifically) were claiming it was those voters that helped flip the House in 2018. Given that there were a number of long-shot progressive candidates elected, I am highly skeptical of those claims. I wish Sanders or Warren would have pushed back on that, but I don’t recall them doing so.
I was contemplating this morning about becoming one of these other swing voters. The thought of Biden becoming the nominee depressed me. I see him as simply a return to the status quo that led to Trump in the first place. So what would the point of electing him really be? OK, he’d be better than Trump, but if we’re not dealing with the underlying problems in our country, are we really any better off overall?
I’ve noted in comments on other posts that I worry about Bernie being an ineffective President due to not having many allies in the Senate and how that might set back the progressive movement, but I’ll be honest and say that worries me less than having a moderate that is only willing to make small improvements because the setback to that is going to be another authoritarian Republican, if not Trump himself! (If Trump loses this year, there’s nothing legally stopping him from running again in 2024, is there? It would not surprise me if he would do that…if he even acknowledges defeat in the first place.)
Now only if we had a “progressive” candidate who was not pushing into his 80s and already has suffered a heart attack. Sorry to be “ageist,” and I am no spring chicken myself (57 this May), but I have a great deal of trepidation about voting for Bernie. Or sadly, any of the real democratic Party candidates. We need new blood! 🙁
Leo Buzalsky @4:
I have said before that if The Orange Toddler-Tyrant loses in November, he will probably start campaigning immediately for 2024. But I don’t think what few brain cells he has left will last that long. I think it was Marcus who replied to me that Ivanka would be the chosen one for 2024. I do still say that if he loses in November, he will do as much damage in the next two months as possible out of pure spite.
.
bmiller @5:
How long before AOC can run for president?
@ 6 johnson catman
How long before AOC can run for president?
I was thinking along these lines this morning. I wonder how many countries have a two-tiered citizenship and age discrimination built in?
The Republicans are better at this. They invest in candidates at all levels, from state legislatures and up at the very least, so there is always a cadre of upcoming new Rs. Democrats pay a lot of attention to the presidency and somewhat the senate, but the rest are very much on their own.
BTW note that Democratic presidents are typically young when first elected compared to Republican ones. This does not give me much confidence with this cycle.
We need new blood! 🙁
If Bernie becomes the candidate his VP pick becomes super important, on account of his age. That’s going to be tricky because there will be a lot a pressure to have a more moderate name on the ticket for “balance.” I can’t think of anyone who would be a good and realistic pick. Warren would obviously be good, but she would be seen as too similar to Bernie in most people’s eyes. As would Nina Turner. Tom Steyer would be okay based on what he’s said, if only he weren’t a billionaire. What are smart people saying about this?
Back to Warren, as much as she’s being reviled right now by some Bernie supporters, I’d like to see her as Biden’s VP pick if he gets the nomination, because I think she’d have the best chance of getting the most Bernie supporters out to the polls on election day.
With all of the presidential candidates -- excepting Tulsi Gabbard -- already in their 70’s, and the fact that Covid-19 is much more lethal for old people, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or more of the current candidates succumb to the disease before the general election. As there is not likely to be an available vaccine against Covid-19 for about two years, having an old person in the presidency greatly increases the likelihood the vice president will succeed the president.
re Steve Cameron @9: For a Bernie VP pick, my wife suggested Stacey Abrams. She is 46 years old and a vibrant campaigner. I would love to see something like that. The results from last night (sooper toosday) are rather disappointing though. Milquetoast got a lot of support, probably because the other “moderates” dropped out of the race and threw their support behind him. If he does become the nominee and gets elected, we can expect four years of nothing meaningful for the 99% getting done.
I wonder if turnout for democrats will be even lower this year if Biden is nominated. It’s not that I like him less than Hillary Clinton, and it’s not even that I would have expected Sanders (or Warren for that matter) to be able to implement their desired policy. I’m just tired of the ever rightward bend this country has taken with no strong voice to start balancing people’s perceptions on reasonable policy. I very well may be one of those disaffected swing voters on the left. I’ll still vote in local elections, but I may sit out the top of the ticket. Have the republicans stack the supreme court, further weaken their own health plan that Obama disgustingly adopted without a fight. Many will suffer, maybe at some point such voters will recognize their own atrocities against their own country. Maybe not.
Maybe it’s time to more seriously consider emigration. This country’s actions are such a thorough contrast to my values, and I sometimes describe myself as academic transient, anyway.