What moves swing voters

[Josquius]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

So what do you suggest we do about them?
They're there and they always will be. Thanks to the internet we are more exposed to them than we would historically be. Its the same as with the far right; they've been allowed to connect with each other and become more extreme from mutual feedback loops and the way twitter works.
Left wing politicians outright coming out and blanket condemning them would be a bit weird as unlike with the far right what they tend to do isn't so obviously "bad", merely stupid and counter-productive.

We should keep challenging them on social media, and the left as a whole ought to bring into our mainstream message the rejection of any kind of speech silencing. This doesn't even have to be direct, it can be entirely indirect.

But again, this is really a tangent to the basic point I was trying to raise in the thread. No matter what you think about the woke ideals, the point is that they don't convince the people who need to be convinced when it comes to ending the right wing stranglehold on the non-highly educated middle class.

I disagree with this.
Working class people aren't all racist homophobic shit bags.
What cracks them is when its presented that there's an agenda of giving MORE to vulnerable groups than they get. The core left wing values of equality for all are indeed valued by a majority of people. Its what the far right itself likes to play with and hide behind with the all lives matter nonsense.
We need hold the message that minority groups deserve full and equal rights, they should be allowed to get on with their lives unhindered. And importantly we need to somehow get through that its all we want. The conspiracies of social justice critical race trans-enforcement bollocks are just that. Nonsense.
As things are going now with the growth of the anti-woke cult the right are trying to grab equality for themselves and try to present the left as the unreasonable extremists.
Of course as is known too well giving fake news the oxygen of publicity to rubbish it isn't a smart move. The effective way to counter fake news has been discussed for years and there's no real concensus. A quick dismissal then shifting the topic seems the best bet to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

What proof do you guys have that the left promoting "woke" ideas is what led to the defeat of the democratic governor in Virginia?

I struggle to see the link honestly.

I don't think there is one in Virginia.  OTOH I don't think the OSC explanation flies either in light of what happened elsewhere.

[Berkut]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

So what do you suggest we do about them?
They're there and they always will be. Thanks to the internet we are more exposed to them than we would historically be. Its the same as with the far right; they've been allowed to connect with each other and become more extreme from mutual feedback loops and the way twitter works.
Left wing politicians outright coming out and blanket condemning them would be a bit weird as unlike with the far right what they tend to do isn't so obviously "bad", merely stupid and counter-productive.

We should keep challenging them on social media, and the left as a whole ought to bring into our mainstream message the rejection of any kind of speech silencing. This doesn't even have to be direct, it can be entirely indirect.

But again, this is really a tangent to the basic point I was trying to raise in the thread. No matter what you think about the woke ideals, the point is that they don't convince the people who need to be convinced when it comes to ending the right wing stranglehold on the non-highly educated middle class.

I disagree with this.
Working class people aren't all racist homophobic shit bags.

I think the problem is that you are presenting a false dilemna. Those are not the only two alternatives, and in fact, the presentation in this fashion, that either you fully buy into the most lefty of left ideals about ideintity politics or you must be a "racist homophobic shitbag" is exactly the attitude that pisses people off.


To be fair, there *are* racist homophobic shitbags out there. They are likely not reachable however, so should be simply discounted. They are going for their Trumps no matter what.

What cracks them is when its presented that there's an agenda of giving MORE to vulnerable groups than they get. The core left wing values of equality for all are indeed valued by a majority of people. Its what the far right itself likes to play with and hide behind with the all lives matter nonsense.

...or the left with the "either you agree with the left wing identity politics message, AND agree that it ought to be the first, second, and third priorities for all political thought, or you must be a "racist homophobic shitbag". Which of course the right then picks and jams down their throat, because they like winning elections more then they like presenting fair and nuanced arguments.

Your attitude is EXACTLY what turns off middle class and non-college educated voters.

We need hold the message that minority groups deserve full and equal rights, they should be allowed to get on with their lives unhindered. And importantly we need to somehow get through that its all we want. The conspiracies of social justice critical race trans-enforcement bollocks are just that. Nonsense.

Start with not presenting the issue as "you agree with us or you are likely a racist homophobic shitbag".

As things are going now with the growth of the anti-woke cult

And maybe consider that it is possible to be anti-woke without being part of the right, or a member of a cult, and that conflating "woke" with "all things progressive" is both inaccurate, counter productive, and frames the discussion in a fashion that means there cannot be a satisfactory outcome, or even a rational discussion about tactics and strategy.

Woke != progressive.

the right are trying to grab equality for themselves and try to present the left as the unreasonable extremists.

Of course, they have figured out how to win way out of proportion to their numbers. They will continue to run the same strategy that has gotten them power as long as the left continues to let them.

Your argument sounds to me a lot like "we should keep doing the exact same thing we have been doing and hope it just gets better".

In the US at least, the outcome has been absolutely horrifically bad. Given how marginal the actual right wing message is among most actual Americans, the fact that they have managed to capture more the 50% of the political power in this country is an astoundingly bad outcome. I don't think the answer is to keep on doing the same thing.

[Josquius]

I think the problem is that you are presenting a false dilemna. Those are not the only two alternatives, and in fact, the presentation in this fashion, that either you fully buy into the most lefty of left ideals about ideintity politics or you must be a "racist homophobic shitbag" is exactly the attitude that pisses people off.

This is the message the media are trying to build. This idea that the nasty metropolitan liberal elite lefties think all working class people are horrible racists unless you totally and completely bow down and agree with mandatory gender changes and self-flagellation for white people.
Its bollocks.

...or the left with the "either you agree with the left wing identity politics message, AND agree that it ought to be the first, second, and third priorities for all political thought, or you must be a "racist homophobic shitbag". Which of course the right then picks and jams down their throat, because they like winning elections more then they like presenting fair and nuanced arguments.

Your attitude is EXACTLY what turns off middle class and non-college educated voters.

You're repeating a gammon fallacy here. "Oh you just call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi!!"- I often get this thrown at me even when I haven't actually called anyone a nazi. I see it all the bloody time.
As said it isn't woke which is the main problem. Its the anti-woke cult which has built up this idea of 'woke' as an all powerful enemy, the intolerant 'tolerant' left which is so horrible and not open to other points of view because it has no time for far right extremists.
Their spin is disagree with one view, no matter how abhorrent it is, then you're somehow intolerant of all people with different viewpoints.

Start with not presenting the issue as "you agree with us or you are likely a racist homophobic shitbag".

I mean, if you disagree with "Gay people should be allowed to shag and love each other as much as they want and being black should be no impediment to living your life" then I hate to break it to you but....

And maybe consider that it is possible to be anti-woke without being part of the right, or a member of a cult, and that conflating "woke" with "all things progressive" is both inaccurate, counter productive, and frames the discussion in a fashion that means there cannot be a satisfactory outcome, or even a rational discussion about tactics and strategy.

Woke != progressive.

Thats just the thing.
Woke DOES equal all things progressive in their eyes. Its just the latest term they use much like SJW and virtue signaller.
Dare to speak up and say "Yeah, I don't care if someone is trans, leave them alone" then you're instantly grouped in with the nuttiest of fringe internet commenters who think people should be allowed to change their gender on a whim.

Of course, they have figured out how to win way out of proportion to their numbers. They will continue to run the same strategy that has gotten them power as long as the left continues to let them.

Your argument sounds to me a lot like "we should keep doing the exact same thing we have been doing and hope it just gets better".

If the left needs to become identical to the far right to win then what's the point in winning?
We aren't just talking Blairite moving economically to the centre a bit here. We're talking about giving up on fundamental human rights and pushing back several decades of progress that have made the world a better place for a large number of people.

[Eddie Teach]

No, we're talking about learn to see nuance.

[Josquius]

No, we're talking about learn to see nuance.

That's the point that is being missed here.
The mainstream left do see nuance.
They are not the shouty nutters on the internet.
The shouty nutters spend a lot of their time and energy attacking the mainstream left in fact- often to the detriment of attacking the right.

The right however...they have really thrown in their lot with their shouty nutters. As the left sticks to the centre and tries to hold the line the right have lurched right in the quest to push things back. They've learned that selling tax breaks for the rich to poor people doesn't work but by playing identity politics and they can gain a lot by convincing poor white people that the problem is the nasty intolerant left trying to destroy white working class men (just look at this ignorant pink haired tranny on twitter! He-she is totally the same person as the left wing politicians!")

Disagree with 'woke' radicals all you want. In themselves they're not the problem. They're wrong but they're mostly harmless.
Where they are a problem is in providing ammunition to the anti-woke movement which is having very real effects at the ballot box in tricking people into voting for your Trumps and Johnsons.

Contrary to what the media presents the problem is not the mainstream left being too 'woke'. Rather its how the left can maintain distance from these people whilst still keeping their vote and not betraying their core progressive values.
The right has got into a position where it safely can give a nod and a wink to the nazis and get their support whilst managing not to alienate most people too much.
The left isn't so lucky with its extremists.

[The Minsky Moment]

A few points

1) the Yougov analysis is hardly breaking news.  The formula of focusing messaging on jobs, economics, health care has been at the core of every successful Democratic effort for decades: Clinton, Obama, the 2018 midterms, the 2020 election.

2) For that very reason, the Democrats were kind of screwed in Nov 2021 because while jobs have been holding up, real incomes have taken a hit from inflation.  One can argue about the fairness of sticking that to the Democrats as the party in power but that's just the way it is.

3) I see little evidence that what happened in Virginia had anything to do with "woke" rhetoric.  The Democrats got slammed nationally because Biden's popularity is low, Congress is worse and people are not feeling good about the present state of the economy.  Specific to Virginia, the Democrats ran a lackluster campaign, not because they pushed "woke" rhetoric but because they focused on tarring Youngkin as a Trumpite and the voters didn't buy it.  Youngkin OTOH pulled off the extraordinary feat of getting full-blown Trumpist support, while appealing nice and reasonable to educated RINOish moderates. E.g., White women in VA who voted slight Biden in 2020 broke sharply for the affable guy in the sweater.  This could be a good formula for the GOP in other locations but will be very hard to replicate as there was no primary in Virginia and Youngkin's selection was engineered by state party leadership.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/briefing/swing-voters-us-elections.html
This is an article people who actually want to win elections need to understand. It based on the results from polling done aimed specifically at both left leaning primary voters, and working class voters in general.

The study is here: https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/08095656/CWCPReport_CommonsenseSolidarity.pdf

It does not exactly support the conclusions in the NYT story.

To begin with, the focus of the report is really on the left leaning Democrat primary voters, not the swing voters.  Among the left leaning primary voters, all the left messages were viewed favorably.  The progressive populist got the highest result, but only by a few % points.   And among voters 18-44, the woke progressive message was slightly preferred (within the margin of error)

With respect to the swing voters specifically, the report had this to say:

Of our survey respondents, 23% identified as independents who do not lean toward the Democrats or the Republicans. That said, only a small fraction reported changing their presidential votes between parties— from 2016 to 2020, less than 3% of all respondents did so. This is consistent with mountains of political science research showing that the partisan preferences of
US voters are quite stable. As a result, even under the most optimistic assumptions, candidate characteristics or messaging are likely to have at best a modest impact on swing voters' choices at the ballot box.

(Note however, that with many political campaigns resulting in very close margins, even small effects may be very significant)

Among this group, the NYT ranking of the candidate messages holds.  However, it is important to note that the error bars are quite long and thus the all the apparent differences fall within the margin of error.  In particular there does not appear to be any material difference between the results for woke progressive, woke moderate, and mainstream moderate.  Progressive populism does seem to have a small edge but again within the margin of error.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting eary indications that the strongest swing in Virginia was in areas with large Hispanic populations, which follows similar points in 2020.

This is what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have an image of the archetypal swing voter - I think Matt Yglesias is guilty of this when he points out that the median American voter is a 50 something white guy without a degree. The focus in this thread on Obama-Trump voters and the white working class etc maybe held for 2008-16. Arguably that voter has gone to the GOP because they've been trending that way for years and 2008/12 were maybe exceptions.

But I think if Democrats are seriously weakening among Hispanic voters that's a big risk for them in their coalition. The same analysis may apply cut-and-paste but I'm not sure that we know that yet.

[Berkut]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/briefing/swing-voters-us-elections.html
This is an article people who actually want to win elections need to understand. It based on the results from polling done aimed specifically at both left leaning primary voters, and working class voters in general.

The study is here: https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/08095656/CWCPReport_CommonsenseSolidarity.pdf

It does not exactly support the conclusions in the NYT story.

To begin with, the focus of the report is really on the left leaning Democrat primary voters, not the swing voters.  Among the left leaning primary voters, all the left messages were viewed favorably.  The progressive populist got the highest result, but only by a few % points.   And among voters 18-44, the woke progressive message was slightly preferred (within the margin of error)

With respect to the swing voters specifically, the report had this to say:

Of our survey respondents, 23% identified as independents who do not lean toward the Democrats or the Republicans. That said, only a small fraction reported changing their presidential votes between parties— from 2016 to 2020, less than 3% of all respondents did so. This is consistent with mountains of political science research showing that the partisan preferences of
US voters are quite stable. As a result, even under the most optimistic assumptions, candidate characteristics or messaging are likely to have at best a modest impact on swing voters' choices at the ballot box.

(Note however, that with many political campaigns resulting in very close margins, even small effects may be very significant)

Among this group, the NYT ranking of the candidate messages holds.  However, it is important to note that the error bars are quite long and thus the all the apparent differences fall within the margin of error.  In particular there does not appear to be any material difference between the results for woke progressive, woke moderate, and mainstream moderate.  Progressive populism does seem to have a small edge but again within the margin of error.

You seem to be working rather hard to wave this away.

1. The NYT article, *explicitly* states that that the focus of the report is not exactly the same as the focus of the article, so your "To begin with..." implication that this is somehow some kind of discovery of some sort of nefarious bate and switch is bogus:

You can read the full poll results here. (If you do, note that the beginning of the report focuses on a Democratic-leaning group of working-class voters — who are relevant to primary elections — rather than the swing voters who have been my focus.)

And the actual poll results almost exactly align with the message of the NYT article:

What Style of Campaign Rhetoric Is Most Effective
for Progressive Candidates?

Key Takeaways
1. Campaign messaging that avoids woke rhetoric is popular among many
working-class voters.
· Given a choice between five different styles of political rhetoric, the
progressive populist soundbite— which pitted "people who work for
a living" against "the superrich" — was at least as, if not more popular than, the four other options (woke progressive, woke moderate,
mainstream moderate, and Republican). The progressive populist and
mainstream moderate choices consistently fared better than either
of the woke options.

2. Explicitly populist and class-based rhetorical appeals are popular with
working-class voters— and may be especially important for candidates
aiming to win blue-collar workers to a progressive platform.
· Among certain key demographics — including rural/small-town
voters, self-identified working-class voters, and voters in blue-collar
occupations— the progressive populist candidate enjoyed more support than all the other candidates, including the mainstream moderate.

3. When combined with a candidate with a non-elite background and a
political platform focused on economics, populist rhetoric proved even
more attractive to our respondents

The article is specifically looking at how to influence those "modest results". They matter.

And your claim that the error bars are so long that they all fall within the margin of error is rather disingenuous. They all fall within the margin of error if you overlap all five responses with one another. But the delta between the progressive populist response (the favorable response with this group) and the woke response (the least favorable) is significant, and only overlap in the very extreme. To the extent that you can dismiss the data on those grounds, you might as well simply throw out the entire poll, and in fact, the vast majority of polls that are trying, in good faith, to figure out nuance between competing positions.

[Berkut]

Interesting eary indications that the strongest swing in Virginia was in areas with large Hispanic populations, which follows similar points in 2020.

This is what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have an image of the archetypal swing voter - I think Matt Yglesias is guilty of this when he points out that the median American voter is a 50 something white guy without a degree. The focus in this thread on Obama-Trump voters and the white working class etc maybe held for 2008-16. Arguably that voter has gone to the GOP because they've been trending that way for years and 2008/12 were maybe exceptions.

But I think if Democrats are seriously weakening among Hispanic voters that's a big risk for them in their coalition. The same analysis may apply cut-and-paste but I'm not sure that we know that yet.

But the data does not show that. They have not "gone to the GOP", at least not all of them.

The data is right there in front of us. These people are reachable. They just aren't reachable with the particular message some people demand they be reached with, but ARE reachable with a populist progressive message.

[Berkut]

If the left needs to become identical to the far right to win then what's the point in winning?

So preaching a populist progressive message is now "identical to the far right"?

This is, again, exactly the fucking problem. You care more about posturing then winning.

You would rather scream about how racist and assholes blue collar workers are if they don't accept 100% of the left wing agenda then actually convince them to vote for us.

We aren't just talking Blairite moving economically to the centre a bit here. We're talking about giving up on fundamental human rights and pushing back several decades of progress that have made the world a better place for a large number of people.

We are not at all talking about giving up anything at all. Nobody in this thread has proposed giving up on anything like that.

This is exactly the problem. The demand that unless you parrot exactly the issues as one element of the left demand with exactly their language and their emphasis, why, you must be in favor or "...giving up on fundamental human rights and pushing back several decades of progress that have made the world a better place..." Or perhaps you are a homophibic racist shitbag?

[Zoupa]

Interesting eary indications that the strongest swing in Virginia was in areas with large Hispanic populations, which follows similar points in 2020.

This is what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have an image of the archetypal swing voter - I think Matt Yglesias is guilty of this when he points out that the median American voter is a 50 something white guy without a degree. The focus in this thread on Obama-Trump voters and the white working class etc maybe held for 2008-16. Arguably that voter has gone to the GOP because they've been trending that way for years and 2008/12 were maybe exceptions.

But I think if Democrats are seriously weakening among Hispanic voters that's a big risk for them in their coalition. The same analysis may apply cut-and-paste but I'm not sure that we know that yet.

But the data does not show that. They have not "gone to the GOP", at least not all of them.

The data is right there in front of us. These people are reachable. They just aren't reachable with the particular message some people demand they be reached with, but ARE reachable with a populist progressive message.

Fine, that's just not what happened in Virginia and New Jersey.

Also, this is not happening in a vacuum. The other side deploys their new and improved dog whistles, and scared white folks flock. Voters have agency.

[Berkut]

This is coming from the poll, not the apparently right wing New York Times article:

. Candidates who invoked progressive populist messaging were viewed
just as favorably as candidates who used other types of campaign messaging, while candidates who opted for woke messaging were typically
viewed less favorably than other Democratic candidates. This was
true across virtually all our measures of the working class. The pattern mostly held across racial groups as well. This suggests that while
there is a considerable risk of alienating sections of the working class
by employing woke talking points, there is no similar risk posed by
avoiding them — those sections of the working class that prefer woke
messaging are not alienated by populist progressivism.

[Berkut]

Interesting eary indications that the strongest swing in Virginia was in areas with large Hispanic populations, which follows similar points in 2020.

This is what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have an image of the archetypal swing voter - I think Matt Yglesias is guilty of this when he points out that the median American voter is a 50 something white guy without a degree. The focus in this thread on Obama-Trump voters and the white working class etc maybe held for 2008-16. Arguably that voter has gone to the GOP because they've been trending that way for years and 2008/12 were maybe exceptions.

But I think if Democrats are seriously weakening among Hispanic voters that's a big risk for them in their coalition. The same analysis may apply cut-and-paste but I'm not sure that we know that yet.

But the data does not show that. They have not "gone to the GOP", at least not all of them.

The data is right there in front of us. These people are reachable. They just aren't reachable with the particular message some people demand they be reached with, but ARE reachable with a populist progressive message.

Fine, that's just not what happened in Virginia and New Jersey.

Also, this is not happening in a vacuum. The other side deploys their new and improved dog whistles, and scared white folks flock. Voters have agency.

Of course they do! Which is why we should figure out how to convince them!

And again, it's not ALL of them. Just some of them. Not even that many of them would make a radical difference, at least in US politics.

As to what effect this had in VA, I don't know. I know a lot of people who voted previously did not vote. That seems a problem that this might be touching on, but is likely more just exhaustion among a group of voters who are not generally inclined to vote anyway.

The problem that the right's crazies are in a perpetual state of crazy activity while the lefts base tends to just relax and pass unless there is something really egregious is a different problem.