As a follow up to my 2018 GOTV project, I was looking for something bold to do. I have always said, “Aim high.” In doing so, we expand our chances. Just the attempt to achieve a major target brings you more success than setting a modest one. A big goal fires the imagination. And we need a REAL big goal for 2020. Next year, we are facing the most crucial national election since 1860. Upon the outcome of this election lies the future of the United States of America, and to a lesser extent, the future of the world. A Democratic victory is absolutely essential. There is no alternative. We will have to set aside conventional ideas about what a “good” voter turnout is. We must smash all turnout records to pieces. I’m talking expanding the Democratic presidential vote by at least 20 million over 2016, going from 65,000,000 to 85,000,000. This sounds unrealistic at first, but consider this: in 2016, voter turnout (according to Pew Research) was 61.4%. This means there were over 86 million adults who did NOT vote. In 2018, voter turnout was about 50%, great for a midterm (and great for us!) but that left over 100 million potential votes on the table. I say with the stakes being what they are, we cannot take any chances. We must mount the greatest voter mobilization in American history. And what do we need to do to accomplish this?
REACH OUT PERSONALLY TO 100,000,000 AMERICANS OF VOTING AGE. NOT BY PHONE, NOT BY TEXT, NOT BY EMAIL, BUT FACE-TO-FACE. I BELIEVE WE CAN USE THESE FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS TO ACHIEVE A RECORD-BREAKING DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT IN 2020.
All the research shows that face-to-face canvassing is the royalty among the GOTV efforts. From a Yale University study of GOTV methods, located here:
Personalized methods and messages work better. Across a number of mobilization experiments, one consistent finding is that more personalized messages are more effective in mobilizing voters. When Donald Green and Alan Gerber put forth this generalized finding in Get Out the Vote!: A Guide for Candidates and Campaigns (2004), they contended that door-to-door canvassing was the most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization, and they suggested that the success of canvassing could be attributed to the personal, face-to-face delivery of the GOTV messages. In recent years, this finding has proven to be robust... [my emphasis] While it is apparent that methods other than door-to-door canvassing, such as volunteer and professional phone calls, may approach the level of effectiveness and cost-competitiveness of door-to-door canvassing, many results suggest that it is the dynamic interaction of authentic person-to-person contact that is most important in determining whether a method will successfully mobilize voters.
A study published by The University of Chicago found that even in an off-year municipal election face-to-face canvassing can increase turnout by 5%. And that’s a very modest goal.
And this study from The American Political Science Review lays it out bluntly:
We report the results of a randomized field experiment involving approximately 30,000 registered voters in New Haven, Connecticut. Nonpartisan get-out-the-vote messages were conveyed through personal canvassing, direct mail, and telephone calls shortly before the November 1998 election. A variety of substantive messages were used. Voter turnout was increased substantially by personal canvassing, slightly by direct mail, and not at all by telephone calls. These findings support our hypothesis that the long-term retrenchment in voter turnout is partly attributable to the decline in face-to-face political mobilization.
Aha! Did you see that last line? We have let the face-to-face method decline. We’re relying too much on impersonal methods (although I happen to think that personalized emails and postcards have a genuine place in our GOTV efforts). Face to face canvassing gets results. But it’s not just the number of people campaigns talk to, it’s the quality of the interaction. From Vox:
And, to actually affect voters, research shows that having an actual conversation is crucial. Canvassing seems to work best when voters who don’t care much about politics engage in a genuine conversation about why voting is important. So, when canvassers rush through scripted interactions, just trying to cram their message into voters’ minds, the impacts they leave are minimal — voters might as well have been sitting through a television ad. On the other hand, research has consistently found that authentic interpersonal exchanges usually have sizable impacts.
So when I say 100,000,000 for America, I mean this: we mobilize for victory by REPEATED, SUBSTANTIVE, PERSONAL, and SINCERE interaction with at least 100 million American voters. It is my conviction that this will be the foundation for a sweeping victory in 2020.
I will have MANY more suggestions in the days ahead. The task will not be easy. And no, we cannot rely SOLELY on canvassing, although I have come to the conclusion that phone calls are useless, even counterproductive.
We’re gonna have to leave it all on the field. This is going to take everything we’ve got. And here’s the punchline: WE HAVE TO START NOW. WE CANNOT WAIT UNTIL 2020.
II.
In the first action diary in this series, above, I set out two bold objectives for us, the loyal base of the Democratic Party:
1. To PERSONALLY contact, in a face-to-face manner, at least 100 million voters in the run-up to the 2020 election. I am of the conviction that sincere, non-scripted canvassing, is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal, and I am convinced this is the key to not only reclaiming the White House from the corrupt, treasonous criminal that occupies it now, but is the key to winning the Senate, expanding our majority in the House, winning more governor’s mansions, and increasing our numbers in the state legislatures and local governments.
2. To expand the number of votes for the Democratic candidate for president from 65,000,000 to 85,000,000.
Too ambitious? Not at all. Let’s look at the demographics involved, and see where we can corral large numbers of votes.
First, to state the obvious, elections are snapshots in time. The composition of the electorate is very fluid. In comparing the electorates of 2016, 2018, and the potential electorate of 2020, we have to remember some basics. First, some voters from 2016 or 2018 have died. Others have moved (or will have moved) and will not be eligible. Some have become disillusioned and have given up on the political process. And still others have opted to take other forms of action, ones that don’t involve voting. Most importantly, there is an enormous reserve of people who didn’t vote in 2016 or who didn’t vote in 2018. The numbers are striking. As I pointed out in the first action diary, in 2016, voter turnout (according to Pew Research) was 61.4%. This means there were over 86 million adults who did NOT vote. In 2018, voter turnout was about 50%, great for a midterm (and great for us!) but that left over 100 million potential votes on the table. If we are to meet the goal of getting at least 85,000,000 people to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, we have the potential to do so. There is a HUGE potential Democratic vote out there.
Who are the non-voters?
Again, the invaluable Pew Research has some information about this. These data are from 2014, a year we suffered a heavy defeat:
They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.
They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%).
They’re less affluent and less educated. Nearly half of nonvoters (46%) have family incomes less than $30,000, compared with 19% of likely voters. Most nonvoters (54%) have not attended college; 72% of likely voters have completed at least some college.
Do I have your attention now? I hope so. And this should REALLY get your attention. Here’s the headline, from Fortune from 9 August 2018:
Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says
The crux of the article:
The study researchers also expanded on the demographic and political distinctions between voters and voter-eligible nonvoters. They noted that compared with validated votes, “nonvoters were more likely to be younger, less educated, less affluent, and nonwhite.”
The study includes a lot of granular statistics, some of which easily stand alone. For example, “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters,” [my emphasis] the researchers noted. An increase in under-30 voters in key swing states could have cinched the election for popular vote winner Hillary Clinton.
I hope you’re convinced that the effort I’m proposing will be worth it. Read on, and let’s see where we can expand our playing field.
OUR VOTING GROUP TARGETS
According to Pew Research (right here), in 2018, this was how the vote for Democratic candidates for the House broke down. I have highlighted our priority targets in bold, and I sometimes have added 2016 turnout data to Pew’s data.
% of the group that voted Democratic:
A. By Gender, “Race”, Ethnicity, Education (Among White Voters)
Men 47% [Turnout in 2016: 59.3%] 48% of 2016 Electorate
Women 59% [Turnout in 2016: 63.3%] 52% of 2016 Electorate
Whites 44% [Turnout in 2016: 65.3%] SHARE OF 2016 VOTE: 73.3%
Blacks 90% [Turnout in 2016: 59.6%] SHARE OF 2016 VOTE: 12.9%
Hispanics 69% [Turnout in 2016: 47.6%] SHARE OF 2016 VOTE: 7.4%
Asians 77% [Turnout in 2016: 49.3%] Counted as Part of Non Hispanic, Other races, SHARE OF 2016 VOTE 5.5%
White men 39%
White women 49% (tied with the Republicans)
College-educated White women 59%
Non-college White women 42%
College-educated White men 47% (compared to 51% Republican)
Non-college men 32%
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS: Of the approximately 137,000,000 people who voted in 2016:
--About 65.76 million were men
--About 71.24 million were women
--About 100.4 million were white
--About 17.7 million were black
--About 10.1 million were Hispanic
--About 7.5 million were Asians and others (numbers don’t quite add up to 137 million because of rounding)
IF OUR CANDIDATE GOT THE SHARE OF VOTES DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATES GOT IN 2018, WITH THE SAME TURNOUT MODEL AS IN 2016, THAT CANDIDATE WOULD GET 73,000,000 VOTES.
In 2020, with 50% of men voting Democratic, and 63% of women voting Democratic, on a turnout of 150 million, with 48% of the electorate male and 52% female, our candidate would get 85,000,000 votes.
B. By Age
Now let’s zero in on Democratic vote percentages in 2018 by age:
18-29 67% [Turnout in 2018 31%; turnout in 2016 51%] 19% of total vote in 2016
30-44 58% [Turnout in 2016: 58.7%] 25% of total vote in 2016
45-64 49% (Close!) [Turnout in 2016: 66.6%] 40% of total vote in 2016
65+ 48% (Surprising!) [Turnout in 2016: 70.9%] 16% of total vote in 2016
If we can get a 150 million turnout in 2020, let’s see what would happen under the following scenario:
18-29 year olds making up 22% of the voters, at 67% Democratic = 22,110,000
30-44 year olds making up 30% of the voters, at 58% Democratic = 26,100,000
45-64 year olds making up 35% of the voters, at 49% Democratic = 25,725,000
65+ year olds making up 13% of the voters, at 48% Democratic = 9,360,000
That would add up to 83,295,000 Democratic votes. Definitely in the ballpark, and definitely DOABLE.
C. By religion
The data are located here.
Protestant/Other [non-Catholic] Christian: 42%
Catholic: 50%
Jewish: 79%
Other faiths: 70%
Religiously unaffiliated: 70%
Evangelicals 22%
D. By Place of Residence
According to data accumulated by Data for Progress (which was in graphic form, making it hard to get precise numbers), in 2018 the Democrats won about 67% of the urban vote, about 55% of the suburban vote, and over 40% of the rural vote.
Suburban voters moved SUBSTANTIALLY in our direction in 2018. From 538:
So how exactly did the suburbs help make a Democratic majority possible? Using CityLab’s neighborhood density categorizations, we can place all 435 districts into six groups that range from “Pure Rural” to “Pure Urban” and get a sense of which types of seats mattered most to Democrats. The two categories we’re most interested in are “Sparse Suburban” and “Dense Suburban.” “Sparse Suburban” covers districts in outer-ring suburbs at the edge of major metropolitan areas, like the Virginia 10th, which sits outside of Washington, D.C. “Dense Suburban” districts, on the other hand, are those where people are packed in more tightly in mostly inner-ring suburbs and some urban areas, like the California 25th, which falls in the Los Angeles metro area. And as the table below shows, Democrats are poised for a net gain of 27 seats from these two categories, which is four more than they needed to gain a majority.2 In other words, 75 percent of Democrats’ gains came from these predominantly suburban districts.
And the received wisdom that we are out of the running in rural areas is false. FromWashington Monthly:
For most pundits and journalists, Democrats’ successful Election Night was marred by a rural disaster. The New York Times wrote that “the Democratic collapse in rural areas that began to plague their candidates under President Obama worsened.” Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp argued that “Democratic inroads in the suburbs were offset by huge Republican gains in rural areas.” The Hill summarized such thinking by claiming that “rural voters stormed to the polls in virtually unprecedented numbers, delivering once again for the president they voted for in 2016.” That article quoted Oklahoma GOP representative Tom Cole, who said, “Rural America’s much more Republican than ever before.”
They’re wrong. On the whole, Democrats performed better in rural areas during these midterms than in 2016, which helped the party win some of its most consequential victories.
According to the most recent data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES)—a political science survey of more than 50,000 people conducted around election time—roughly five percent of rural Trump voters cast their ballots for a Democrat running for a House seat. That’s not a huge gain, and as Tufts political science professor and CCES co-director Brian Schaffner told me, it was smaller than Democratic improvements in urban and suburban regions. But a five percent improvement is far from meaningless, and a preliminary breakdown of the returns in three critical contests suggests that, in some parts of America, the rural shift to Democratic candidates was even larger. In some races, it ultimately made the difference.
E. By Economic Status
Data are from the CNN Exit Poll
Democratic share of the vote by income:
Under $30,000 (17% of voters) 63%
$30k-$50k (21% of voters) 57%
$50k-$100k (29% of voters) 52%
$100-$200k (25% of voters) 47% (!)
$200k or more (9% of voters) 47% (!)
Yes, more affluent and better educated voters moved toward us in 2018.
In short, in almost every demographic category, the Democrats made gains, often significant ones. The goal of getting 85 million Democratic presidential votes is REACHABLE and REALISTIC.
A major opportunity for us: White, non-evangelical women:
Take a look here:
White evangelical women without a college degree give Trump a 68 percent job approval rating, while those with a degree give him a much lower, though still positive 51 percent approval rating. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval among white, non-evangelical women without a college degree is 35 percent, just five points higher than the 30 percent approval rating he gets from white, non-evangelical college-educated women …
First, stop assuming that all white, non-college voters are core Trump supporters. Trump’s base is evangelical white voters, regardless of education level. Second, white non-evangelical, non-college women are the ultimate swing voters.
The Trump-McConnell Shutdown Has Eroded Trump’s Support
Take a look at this:
It’s day 27 of the government shutdown, and a new NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll suggests that Trump’s base is losing faith. Over the last month, Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 39 percent overall, a trend driven by losses in demographics where he is typically strong. Forty-two percent of white suburban men say they approve of the president’s performance, down from 51 percent in December. White men without college degrees have always been more likely to support Trump, but the president’s approval rating declined by six points among this group. Even white Evangelicals, typically Trump’s most fervent supporters, are beginning to break away from him. Seventy-three percent approved of Trump in December, but 66 percent said the same in January — and only 58 percent said they would “definitely” vote for him again in 2020. In 2016, recall, Trump won 81 percent of the white Evangelical vote.
SUMMARY:
We have a historic opportunity. We can not only make 2020 a year of decisive Democratic victory, we can achieve a political realignment that will put the Republican Party on the road to extinction. It will require us to increase turnout in the following groups, WHILE NOT WRITING OFF OR IGNORING OTHERS (this is key!):
Women, especially college educated suburban women and non-evangelical white women
Catholic, Jewish, other religions, and religiously non-affiliated
Voters 18-44 years of age
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other non-white/non-Anglo groups
Voters under $100,000 per year in household income
College-educated men
Independents
And bear this in mind: if we peel off only 10% of Trump’s 2016 vote, that transforms a Democratic lead of 3,000,000 into a Democratic lead of over 15,000,000.
We can make substantial inroads among
Men
Non-evangelical Protestants
More affluent voters
Older voters
Rural voters
We will not write off almost half the country!
IF WE REACH OUT TO AT LEAST 100,000,000 VOTERS ON A FACE-TO-FACE BASIS, WE WILL WIN!
