What G. Elliott Morris, Rachel Bitecofer, Steven Fish, Anat Shenker‑Osorio, Jonah Berger Reveal About Winning Messages
Another letter...
Dear _____________
I am a constituent in Pittsburgh who has been following recent work on political behavior and messaging, and I am writing to urge you and your colleagues to adopt a bolder, values‑driven approach to the 2026 midterms rather than a cautious “don’t offend” strategy aimed at a mythical median voter. In a highly polarized environment, the most promising path is to energize and expand the coalition of decent, moral people across the spectrum by clearly naming the harms of Trumpism and contrasting them with a rule‑of‑law, pro‑democracy, pro‑dignity alternative.
To explain this, I want to briefly introduce several thinkers whose research and practice bear directly on campaign strategy: G. Elliott Morris, Rachel Bitecofer, M. Steven Fish, Anat Shenker‑Osorio, and Jonah Berger.
G. Elliott Morris: Data and the limits of “move to the middle”
G. Elliott Morris is a prominent election analyst and pollster who has served as Senior Data Journalist at The Economist and as Editorial Director of Data Analytics for ABC News, where he oversaw FiveThirtyEight’s coverage and election‑forecasting operation. His work emphasizes careful disaggregation of public opinion rather than relying on vague notions of “the center.” He has shown that on immigration, in particular, topline claims that the public is “with Trump” badly misread what people actually support when you specify policies.
When polls separate abstract “border security” from concrete proposals for mass deportations and sweeping raids, support for Trump‑style measures drops sharply, including among some Trump voters. At the same time, multiple surveys show enduring majority support—often bipartisan—for offering long‑term undocumented immigrants a path to legal status and even citizenship if they meet basic conditions like no serious crimes and paying taxes. A 2017 CNN poll, for example, found that 90% of respondents—including 87% of Republicans—backed allowing undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for years, spoke English, had jobs, and were willing to pay back taxes to remain and work toward citizenship. More recent national and swing‑state surveys similarly find that 60–67% of Americans prefer a structured path to citizenship over mass deportation for people who have been here for some years, have not committed serious crimes, and pay penalties and back taxes, with majority support in every major battleground state and even narrow Republican majorities in several of them.
Morris’s broader point is that conventional talk of a single “median voter” obscures this nuance: voters are not clamoring for blanket expulsions; many are comfortable with humane, rules‑based integration of long‑settled immigrants while rejecting indiscriminate, police‑state tactics. A consultant’s instinct to “move right” or go silent on immigration, simply because “immigration” polls as a Republican strength at a superficial level, thus runs directly against a deeper reality: there is substantial room to attack Trump’s deportation agenda as both unpopular and un‑American, and to pair that critique with a pragmatic, popular path‑to‑citizenship framework that aligns with what majorities across parties actually say they want.
Rachel Bitecofer: Turnout, negative partisanship, and the myth of the swing voter
Rachel Bitecofer is a political scientist and election forecaster best known for her theory of “negative partisanship” and her book Hit ’Em Where It Hurts. Her core claim is that modern U.S. elections are driven far more by turnout among partisan coalitions than by large numbers of ideologically centrist “swing voters.”
According to Bitecofer, most Americans are now anchored to one party or the other by deep affective and identity‑based attachments. The key variation between elections is which parts of each coalition are motivated enough to vote. She argues that Democrats perform best when they speak plainly about the harms and dangers posed by Republicans—particularly Trump and Trumpism—to people’s freedoms, safety, and material well‑being. “Negative partisanship” is not just a description of voter psychology; it can be a tool: clear contrasts and sharp warnings about the consequences of GOP power mobilize Democratic‑leaning voters and demobilize some potential Republican voters who are uneasy with extremism.
In this framework, messaging that is designed not to offend, or that focuses exclusively on bland, technocratic economic themes, underutilizes one of the most powerful turnout engines Democrats possess: anger, fear, and moral revulsion at lawless, corrupt, or cruel behavior by Trump and his allies. Bitecofer would urge you to assume that most committed Republicans will not “cross over,” but that many marginal and inconsistent voters can be moved either to show up for Democrats or stay home, depending on whether you give them a compelling negative story about what continued Trumpism means.
M. Steven Fish: High‑dominance politics against Trumpism
M. Steven Fish is a political scientist at UC Berkeley and the author of Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Democratic Party. Drawing on research about leadership and authoritarian movements, he argues that Trump’s distinctive appeal arises from a consistent “high‑dominance” style: he projects strength, attacks relentlessly, disregards norms, and rarely appears apologetic or defensive.
Fish’s argument is that Democrats cannot effectively counter Trumpism with soft, cautious, conciliatory messaging that signals fear of conflict. In his view, this style inadvertently reinforces the perception—especially among working‑class and less politically engaged voters—that Republicans are the stronger, more decisive party. He calls instead for “high‑dominance politics” from the pro‑democracy side: leaders who speak clearly, name abuses forthrightly, mock corruption and incompetence without flinching, and project confidence that Trumpism is not only dangerous but beatable.
Applied to issues like immigration enforcement, Fish’s approach would have Democrats say plainly that Trump’s mass raids are lawless, chaotic, and un‑American, that they break with the long‑standing practice of targeted enforcement against actual criminals that prior administrations of both parties followed, and that they belong in the same category as other abuses of power. This is not about mimicking Trump’s cruelty; it is about being unafraid to confront it in strong moral and rhetorical terms.
Anat Shenker‑Osorio: “Please all, please none” and values‑first persuasion
Anat Shenker‑Osorio is a messaging strategist and head of ASO Communications. Her work, based on extensive qualitative and quantitative testing, is especially critical of the instinct to craft messages that try to appeal to everyone. Her phrase “if you please all, you please none” captures a direct practical rebuttal to the median‑voter mentality.
In her research, messages that are stripped of moral clarity to avoid alienating anyone—what she calls “milk‑toast” messaging—consistently underperform. They do not inspire the base, they do not give persuadables a vivid sense of what is at stake, and they do not effectively isolate the true opposition. By contrast, the most effective messages:
- Start with a shared value
- Name the problem and the perpetrator
- Offer a solution or call to action
Her findings show that a strong message should actually anger the small fraction of immovable opponents, while increasing support among persuadables and your own base.
Jonah Berger: The “football field of ideas” and low‑reactance persuasion
Jonah Berger, a marketing professor at the Wharton School and author of The Catalyst, focuses on reducing psychological resistance to persuasion. He notes that people have a “zone of acceptance” where small shifts are possible and a “zone of rejection” where messages trigger reactance.
The strategic implication is to:
- Focus on voters closest to your position
- Make incremental asks
- Preserve people’s sense of autonomy through questions and contrasts
Applied to immigration enforcement, this means appealing to voters who want “order” but reject cruelty.
Putting it together: A different midterm messaging strategy
Taken together, these thinkers suggest:
- Stop chasing the fictional median voter
- Center turnout over persuasion
- Adopt a confident, high‑dominance moral stance
- Use values‑first messaging
- Focus on the movable middle
Democrats should speak clearly about how Trump’s tariffs, chaos, and deportation agenda harm families, raise costs, and violate long‑standing bipartisan norms.
I recognize that you have to represent a diverse constituency, and that there are always risks in speaking plainly. But the research and practice I have summarized here strongly suggest that the greater risk lies in under‑communicating the danger of Trumpism and relying on bland, inoffensive themes in the hope of not provoking anyone. The voters most likely to decide the 2026 elections are the ones who must be convinced that their values and safety are on the line — and that you are prepared to defend them with clarity and conviction.
I urge you to press your party’s leadership and campaign committees to build a midterm strategy that reflects these insights.
Sincerely,
CMHMD
References (APA style)
Berger, J. (2020). The catalyst: How to change anyone’s mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Bitecofer, R. (2024). Hit ’em where it hurts: How to beat Republicans at their own game. New York, NY: [Publisher].
Fish, M. S. (2024). Comeback: Routing Trumpism, reclaiming the Democratic Party. [City, State]: [Publisher].
Morris, G. E. (n.d.). Strength in Numbers [Substack newsletter]. Retrieved from https://www.gelliottmorris.com
Morris, G. E. (n.d.). Author bio. G. Elliott Morris. Retrieved from https://www.gelliottmorris.com/about
Pew Research Center. (2024, November 21). Most Americans say undocumented immigrants should be able to stay legally, but views differ by party and age. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org
Public Religion Research Institute. (2025, December 9). The new immigration crackdown: Where Americans stand. PRRI. Retrieved from https://www.prri.org
Program for Public Consultation. (2024, September 30). Swing state survey: Majorities favor path to citizenship over mass deportation while supporting stronger enforcement at the border. University of Maryland. Retrieved from https://publicconsultation.org
Schneider, W. (2017, March 16). Poll: Majority want a path toward citizenship for undocumented immigrants. CNN Politics. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com
Shenker‑Osorio, A. (2012). Don’t buy it: The trouble with talking nonsense about the economy. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Shenker‑Osorio, A. (n.d.). ASO Communications. Retrieved from https://www.asocommunications.com
Endnotes
- G. Elliott Morris’s biography, including his roles at The Economist and ABC News/FiveThirtyEight, is drawn from his professional site and Substack, Strength in Numbers.
- The discussion of disaggregated immigration opinion—distinguishing “border security” from mass deportations and raids—summarizes the kind of issue‑specific polling analysis Morris has highlighted in his newsletter work and public commentary.
- Evidence for broad support for a path to legal status and citizenship for long‑term undocumented immigrants comes from multiple surveys. A 2017 CNN poll found that around 90% of respondents, including large Republican majorities, supported a pathway for undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for years, spoke English, held jobs, and were willing to pay back taxes. More recent national and swing‑state surveys by Pew Research Center, PRRI, and the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation report roughly 60–67% support for a structured path to citizenship, even when contrasted explicitly with mass deportation, including majority support in key battleground states.
- The description of Rachel Bitecofer’s work, including her theory of “negative partisanship” and emphasis on turnout versus swing voters, is based on her book Hit ’Em Where It Hurts and related public commentary.
- The summary of M. Steven Fish’s argument about “high‑dominance politics” and Trump’s dominance style reflects key themes from his book Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Democratic Party and associated interviews.
- The characterization of Anat Shenker‑Osorio’s “please all, please none” critique, her values‑first messaging structure (shared value → problem and perpetrator → solution), and her findings on base/persuadable/opponent responses come from her book Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense About the Economy and her work at ASO Communications.
- The explanation of Jonah Berger’s “football field of ideas,” the concepts of “zone of acceptance” and “zone of rejection,” and the emphasis on reducing reactance and making incremental asks is drawn from his book The Catalyst: How to Change Anyone’s Mind and related talks/interviews.
- The overall strategic synthesis—arguing against a “don’t offend” median‑voter strategy and in favor of a turnout‑centric, values‑driven, high‑clarity approach—is an interpretation that integrates these authors’ commonly stated themes; responsibility for that synthesis lies with the letter’s author.
