• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,491
Senator Bernie Sanders is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency. As he has risen in the polls, so has a theory about elections: The key to a progressive victory is motivating previous nonvoters to show up at the polls.

"To defeat Donald Trump," Sanders proclaimed at a recent rally in Exeter, New Hampshire, "the simple truth is we are going to need to have the largest voter turnout in the history of American politics. That means we are going to have to bring people into the political process who very often have not been involved in the political process." The senator's most famous surrogate, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, put the point more succinctly at a rally in Las Vegas: "The swing voters that we're most concerned with are the nonvoters to voters."

The logic underlying this theory is that Americans who are eligible to vote but rarely do so tend to favor leftist policies. A new survey of 14,000 Americans, conducted by the Knight Foundation, provides the best data available so far to test that hypothesis. The answer given by the study is unambiguous: "If they all voted in 2020," the report concludes, "non-voters would add an almost equal share of votes to Democratic and Republican candidates."


Nonvoters are in fact somewhat more likely than voters to be brown or black: While 10 percent of voters are black, 13 percent of nonvoters are. And while 11 percent of voters are Hispanic, 15 percent of nonvoters are. But among nonvoters, the overall share of people of color is quite small: Nearly two out of every three nonvoters are white.

Nonvoters are also far less progressive than is commonly believed. They are more likely than voters to support constructing a wall on the southern border with Mexico, less likely to support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, less likely to support abortion rights, and less likely to favor gun control. Nonvoters do skew left on some important economic issues, such as support for a higher minimum wage. But on the defining cultural issues of the moment, they are markedly more conservative.

In light of their views on public policy, it is hardly surprising that nonvoters are not particularly likely to describe themselves as liberal or to say that they favor the Democratic Party. Among voters, 38 percent consider themselves Democrats and 30 percent Republicans, for a differential of eight points. Among nonvoters, 31 percent consider themselves Democrats and 26 percent Republicans, for a differential of only five points. The ideological breakdown of nonvoters is even more revealing: A clear majority of them consider themselves either moderate or conservative; only one in five say that they are liberal.
www.theatlantic.com

What Nonvoters Want

Boosting turnout won’t necessarily help the most progressive candidate.



twitter.com

Yascha Mounk on Twitter

“@TheAtlantic This is important: With Bernie the presumptive nominee, Dems will stake their chances of beating Trump on the idea that they can mobilize a lot of nonvoters. As AOC recently said, "The swing voters that we’re most concerned with are the nonvoters to voters.” So let's test it.”
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
Traditional lane terms like "conservative" or "progressive" no longer mean anything but corporate media still hasn't figured this out. Many voters vote in a way that is contrary to their self-described ideology.
 

notte

Member
Oct 25, 2017
70
Just anecdotally, the nonvoters I know tend to have a more myopic view of the world, so it's not surprising they would embrace more "traditional" conservative ideas.
 

higemaru

Member
Nov 30, 2017
4,095
This conflicts with the general wisdom that the larger the turnout, the better the results for the Democrats are. In placing emphasis in minority communities most likely to be negatively affected by Trump, Republican, and Third Way policies, we can totally get a majority. Worth noting that The Atlantic is one of the most traditionalist faux-liberal magazines we've got so this article is just what they want to hear.

Hell, if Clinton had just campaigned in Wisconsin in 2016, we would have won.
 

Enduin

You look 40
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,469
New York
Non-voters I would assume also tend to be low information so it's not surprising they'll lean moderate. I don't think this really means a whole lot. If Bernie, or anyone else for that matter, can motivate non-voters to vote there's nothing that says in attempting/doing so that they will get equal measures of non-voters to turn up or that they will automatically vote based on their initial gut reaction low information views.

The very act of getting them active and engaged enough to vote could be in part due to exposing them to new ideas/policies and turning them not just from non-voter to voter but from low information to more informed.
 

Deleted member 8860

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,525
The idea is not that all non-voters are leftists, but that there are significant numbers of non-voters who would be motivated to vote by an inspiring leftist candidate/platform.
 

XenodudeX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,891
Jacksonville, Florida
Disaster in the making. This weird theory that a secret progressive non voter was going to magically awaken and save the country from big bad Trump was always a fantasy. It will cost us the election.
 

Deleted member 31923

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 8, 2017
5,826
Just anecdotally, the nonvoters I know tend to have a more myopic view of the world, so it's not surprising they would embrace more "traditional" conservative ideas.

And it makes sense that myopic, low information people would like Trump. Something simple and stupid like building the way, I'm sure to them that "just makes sense."
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,358
This is why I never had much faith in a compulsory voting law, I think we need to focus on voting rights reform instead to make sure those that want to vote can vote, but picking the best nominee to get the largest turnout is equally as important. Hopefully Bernie can pull through, but I am getting really worried about the tactics moderates are turning to dissuade voters
 

bdbdbd

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,900
I think this hypothesis was already proven after watching how many eligible voters remained on the sidelines when Trump had a legitimate chance to win the election and they weren't the least bit concerned enough to exercise their right to vote.

That doesn't mean every last single nonvoter couldn't be swayed.
 

SwampBastard

The Fallen
Nov 1, 2017
10,999
This conflicts with the general wisdom that the larger the turnout, the better the results for the Democrats are. In placing emphasis in minority communities most likely to be negatively affected by Trump, Republican, and Third Way policies, we can totally get a majority. Worth noting that The Atlantic is one of the most traditionalist faux-liberal magazines we've got so this article is just what they want to hear.

Hell, if Clinton had just campaigned in Wisconsin in 2016, we would have won.
I am not at all suggesting that you are wrong about the bolded, but I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of people being this easily influenced. It's horrifying.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,890
Are there nonvoters who can be turned into votes for Democrats? Absolutely
Are there lots of nonvoters who can be turned into lots of votes for Democrats? No

It's important to work on increasing turnout, but just having increased turnout doesn't necessarily lead to the groundswell of momentum that many people like to pretend it will. You have to put in the work to not only get people to the polls, but to convince them to vote for you and that, unfortunately, is a lot easier said than done.
This conflicts with the general wisdom that the larger the turnout, the better the results for the Democrats are. In placing emphasis in minority communities most likely to be negatively affected by Trump, Republican, and Third Way policies, we can totally get a majority. Worth noting that The Atlantic is one of the most traditionalist faux-liberal magazines we've got so this article is just what they want to hear.

Hell, if Clinton had just campaigned in Wisconsin in 2016, we would have won.
Uh, no... Clinton still needed to win Michigan and Pennsylvania too and they were both further out of reach than Wisconsin and Wisconsin had the most egregious voter suppression laws of the group.
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
Anecdote:

Nonvoters are my mum. God rest her soul.


Single parent, busy, exhausted, can't get time off to vote, doesn't follow politics closely, feels disempowered to change anything, isn't particularly sophisticated or apprised of issues, is an intelligent moral person overwhelmed by more pressing immediate issues like feeding three kids and paying the rent. Happens to be working class and would believe in union power and common sense legislation but again, no time to think about it or do anything. No financial freedom to take the day off.


If voting day were a national holiday that was rigorously adhered to, like Christmas Day, then the GOP would be gone basically forever.


That one step could solve vast amounts of horror.
 

Ottaro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,523
The idea is not that all non-voters are leftists, but that there are significant numbers of non-voters who would be motivated to vote by an inspiring leftist candidate/platform.
Yeahhhhh. I always assumed this was what we are talking about when we talk about activating nonvoters? Not that we are activating all of them... no one can activate all of them
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,257
Atlanta GA
Under the right circumstances Sanders running can motivate progressive and independent non-voters. Trump and the GOP are doing little to motivate conservative non-voters and that doesn't appear to change any time soon.

The problem is, how many non-voters won't be able to vote due to Republican led efforts to suppress votes.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,382
This is mostly just rhetoric from Bernie, though he may believe it. victory does not depend on motivating a bunch of non voters.
 

Hound

Member
Jul 6, 2019
1,822
This is an extremely dangerous strategy, and honestly has me very worried about Bernie as the nominee, even if he is my preferred choice for president.
 

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,483
Dallas, TX
This conflicts with the general wisdom that the larger the turnout, the better the results for the Democrats are. In placing emphasis in minority communities most likely to be negatively affected by Trump, Republican, and Third Way policies, we can totally get a majority. Worth noting that The Atlantic is one of the most traditionalist faux-liberal magazines we've got so this article is just what they want to hear.

Hell, if Clinton had just campaigned in Wisconsin in 2016, we would have won.

That wisdom was based on an assumption that because minorities tend to turn out a thing lower rates and also tend to vote Dem, that turnout increases disproportionately help Dems. Which was true for a long time, until Trump blew it up in 2016 by turning out a big cohort of white non-voters, while non-white voting sagged without Obama on the ticket.

But generally, non-voters, white or not, right or left, are more socially conservative than average, generally alienated in a way that makes them skeptical of any sort of "establishment" or anything that looks too much like business as usual, but also open to anyone promising them direct material benefit, i.e., leftism. That's why Trump was able to woo them with the combination of intense bigotry, brusque anti-establishment rhetoric, and attacking other Republicans from the left on social security and healthcare (though clearly sitting here three years later he was bullshitting about that last part).

And Bernie is genuinely well situated to play well with those dynamics. He obviously fully supports the Democratic line on social issues, but rarely centers that stuff in a way that will make socially conservative non-voters feel attacked, promises lots of direct benefits to you, and attacks all the people and establishments you don't like, with the sort of aggressive tone that reassures you he's not just part of the establishment scheme here to trick you.

The question is how much can he juice their turnout by, is it going to be enough to outweigh any affect he may have in demobilizing the sort of wealthy white suburbanites who hate Trump, won some major victories for Dems in 2018, but are skeptical of any notion of revolution and generally value the sort of mild-mannered establishmentarianism that Bernie rails against, can he pivot to do more to appeal to those people without alienating those non-voters, and how will these non-voters, who aren't ideological, who won't see Bernie and Trump as polar opposites, deal with some of the cross-pressures of kind of seeing the appeal of both.
 
OP
OP
GrapeApes

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,491

Teh_Lurv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,094
There has been quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to support the political leanings of non-voters. A common theme among interviews with independent/moderate Democrats who voted for Trump in rust-belt & midwestern states was how disengaged they were prior to the 2016 election. The last time those voters actually cared enough to vote was either back in 80/84 for Reagan or 2008 for Obama.
 

Shake Appeal

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,883
In which the media class continues to make the mistake of thinking voters' preferences are stable, coherent, and informed. People change their minds, act irrationally, profess one thing but do another, hold bewilderingly contradictory ideas, and lack awareness of basic policy and economic terms, let alone how those things should shape their political and electoral decisions.

Turning out nonvoters doesn't mean convincing them of the ideological certitude of every piece of Bernie's platform; it consists of convincing them that their personal circumstances will improve under a Bernie Sanders presidency.
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,304
I am not at all suggesting that you are wrong about the bolded, but I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of people being this easily influenced. It's horrifying.
The poster is wrong because she also needed PA and MI to win, WI wasn't enough. But if we amend their post to include those states, I think it might be largely accurate. But, you are right that it's horrifying. People are more swayed by a politician waving at them at some rally or shaking their hands or kissing their babies, than they are by reading up on their platform, track record, etc.

Like, Obama didn't even win because of a promise of a progressive platform, he won because of his charisma and his "hope and change" platitudes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,321
For Bernie there's the angle of whether his nomination would depress democratic turnout from your Biden and Bloomberg supporters. You'd hope that wouldn't be the case (it would be dumb af if it was) but the primaries are making the camps look pretty polarised?

In which the media class continues to make the mistake of thinking voters' preferences are stable, coherent, and informed. People change their minds, act irrationally, profess one thing but do another, hold bewilderingly contradictory ideas, and lack awareness of basic policy and economic terms, let alone how those things should shape their political and electoral decisions.

Turning out nonvoters doesn't mean convincing them of the ideological certitude of every piece of Bernie's platform; it consists of convincing them that their personal circumstances will improve under a Bernie Sanders presidency.

I agree: Bernie is, and has to be, the difference. People resonate with how he's stuck with his ideals for decades, and that reaches across in a manner unpredictable to the usual left-right paradigm. In 2016 Hillary didn't have energy from supporters or the vision by the end, and that's what I see his campaign doing much better.

But I've been wrong about politics this past bloody decade 😁
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,233
I think some of you underestimate just how incredibly uninformed most people are about politics. Even some of the people in my office with Master's degrees and PhDs tend to be depressingly ignorant about politics.
 

Jag

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,669
Anecdotally as well, but people who I've spoken to in FL that claim to dislike Trump have said they will vote for any Dem candidate except Bernie. For Bernie they will simply not vote. I suspect more people feel that way, but don't verbalize it.

I see Bernie having a hard time taking Florida too even if we somehow reverse this insane poll tax Desantis put up.
 

cHaotix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
427
I think some of you underestimate just how incredibly uninformed most people are about politics. Even some of the people in my office with Master's degrees and PhDs tend to be depressingly ignorant about politics.

This seems true in my experience. A lot of the people I interact with are not as informed as you would expect a knowledgeable voter should be. Keeping up with politics and voting takes effort, and it's easy to dismiss these things when you don't see an immediate benefit. Even though voting is easy as hell here in Dallas when you do it early. I'm usually in and out in less than 10 minutes.
 

hurlex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,142
Lol what a dumb premise. Obviously Sanders isn't going to try to turnout a bunch of right wing non-voters. It's implied he is going to motivate progressives who havent been voting.

You could argue Trump's success (esp in Florida) was his ability to turn out conservatives who didn't traditionally vote. But the progressives stayed home.
 

meowdi gras

Member
Feb 24, 2018
12,610
I reckon we will be increasingly saturated by these "studies" and "think pieces" following each Bernie win, "proving" that he stands no chance at seizing the nom. Ultimately, it's the malleability of voters' minds to such manipulation tactics which will end up deciding the election.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
This conflicts with the general wisdom that the larger the turnout, the better the results for the Democrats are. In placing emphasis in minority communities most likely to be negatively affected by Trump, Republican, and Third Way policies, we can totally get a majority. Worth noting that The Atlantic is one of the most traditionalist faux-liberal magazines we've got so this article is just what they want to hear.

Hell, if Clinton had just campaigned in Wisconsin in 2016, we would have won.
People who vote in some elections aren't considered nonvoters.
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
I'm actually more curious if Sanders will try a more moderate shift if he gets the nom
 

Erpy

Member
May 31, 2018
2,996
I reckon we will be increasingly saturated by these "studies" and "think pieces" following each Bernie win, "proving" that he stands no chance at seizing the nom. Ultimately, it's the malleability of voters' minds to such manipulation tactics which will end up deciding the election.

The articles aren't really arguing that Sanders can't seize the nom. They're merely arguing that after he gets the nom, the "Sanders turnout" theory will fall flat because either a large part of the non-voter base is too conservative to be attracted to Sanders (meaning they either still won't turn out or will turn out for Trump) or he will trigger a larger-than-usual youth turnout, but it'll be negated by the depressed turnout of older voters who are put off by his revolution unless said youth turnout assumes such miraculous proportions that the drop in older voters is small by comparison.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Bernie can definitely win, but the arguments about a huge swell of youth and non-voters catapulting him to victory have always seemed to not line up with the information we currently have.

However, the complete doom proclamations about Bernie's chances in a general are pretty over the top given that a lot of the polling data about a general won't be that informative until the primary is over.