Marginal Versus Median Voters

In all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the election, one thing that has gone missing by some very smart people is that winning over median Trump voters is a waste of time: they are very unlikely to switch or even stay home.

It’s the marginal voters–those who either are on the fence or choosing between voting Democratic or not voting–who matter. In close elections, whether they be certain states in the electoral college or down ballot races, the margins matter. Democrats aren’t going to win Clay County, Kentucky–or KY for that matter. But we just needed a few more voters–about 100,000 out of over 13 million cast in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin–and Democrats win this election.

While #NotAll hastags make for great snark, they seem to have blinded some on the left to the idea that there are any white working class voters who can be reached. I can’t help but think if Clinton had closed with anti-Trump approaches like this, in those battleground states where the white working class is a significant force (just as in other states, other demographic groups are vital), maybe we would have won this thing:

And for the life of me, I don’t see how this is oppositional to combating racial and gender inequality.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Marginal Versus Median Voters

  1. Net Denizen says:

    I am especially alarmed at the denigration of people with differing views. There’s nothing quite like calling people morons after telling them they are deplorable to win someone over to your side….

  2. Chris G says:

    >And for the life of me, I don’t see how this is oppositional to combating racial and gender inequality.

    It’s not. In fact, it’s complementary to it.

Comments are closed.