EL

I think the idea that there is fundamental tension between those objectives has never been substantiated, at least with regard to messaging and platform decisions (as opposed to resource allocation). Obviously, it’s impossible to discuss the categories of “swing voters” and “nonvoters” without generalizing. These are rough constructs. But in the aggregate, the two groups have much in common politically.

They tend to be less educated and politically engaged than strong partisans. And since ideological coherence tends to be a learned trait — the connection between the ideas that abortion should be banned, immigration should be reduced, and health care should be a privilege is not dictated by logic, but by the elite signaling of conservative politicians and intellectuals — Americans who pay little attention to politics tend to have heterodox views, whether they are Democratic-leaning nonvoters or genuine independents who show up at the polls every election.

Some progressives assume that, since Democratic-leaning nonvoters are disproportionately nonwhite, messaging that emphasizes the most racially coded issues in our politics — such as criminal justice or immigration reform — is a uniquely potent tool for mobilizing them. And since the median Rust Belt swing voter (a non-college-educated white person) tends to be more predisposed to progressive positions on health care or taxation than immigration or policing, some on the Left conclude that there is this fundamental tension.

But the evidence for that premise has not been strong. Most of the time, “the economy,” “jobs,” and “health care” are more common “top issues” for voters of all racial groups than those we code as racial justice issues.

This does not mean that such issues aren’t vitally important, or that we should triangulate on them. The reasons why centering such issues in campaign messaging may be inexpedient are the same ones for why they’re morally urgent to address once in power: the people most affected by our heinous immigration and carceral systems do not have voting rights.

But if the question is, “What issues or messages should a Democratic candidate center if they wish to maximize their vote share?” the available evidence suggests the answer is about the same, whether one believes it more expedient to target swing voters or nonvoters. In general, both groups of voters tend to be more sympathetic to the Left on — and avowedly concerned with — “pocketbook” issues. This is slightly less true than in previous cycles, due to a growing number of fiscally conservative swing voters in suburban areas. But that contingent still accounts for a minority of swing voters.

One story you could tell about why Sanders polls so much better in hypothetical general election polls of battleground states than centrist punditry would predict — and why he would in fact be a strong general election candidate — is that his anti-establishment persona appeals to nonvoters and swing voters alike.

For a certain category of rural Wisconsin voter, the fact that Bernie has identified as an “independent” who’s critical of both parties is more relatable than his identification as a “democratic socialist” is alienating. Separately, although Sanders is now campaigning on a radical platform, his gift for message discipline, and communicating clearly on health care and inequality, may enable him increase the salience of those issues in a general election campaign.