Author: Eric Gilliam

2020 Democratic Primary Over 20 candidates have already thrown their hat in the ring for the Democratic primary. Many of them are making a concerted effort to lay out increasingly progressive platforms to establish themselves as exciting candidates who represent the future of the party. This trend is coming on the heels of the surprising amount of support garnered by Bernie Sanders, an avowed democratic-socialist, in the Democratic Primary in 2016. Looking at Voter Survey data from previous elections, it seems this strategy is blindly hopeful at best. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders should not be seen as the Democrats answer to their Trump problem. Candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden or Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana seem to be just what the party needs. They will likely support much more tempered economic policies which would support investment in, rather than redistribution to, working people. The data indicate that these are the candidates on which the smart money should be placed to appeal to swing votes in swing states.

How to Win An Election The candidate who can best appeal to the middle voter will generally win a two party election. This is called the median voter theorem. If there was a voter base of four candy-loving children and three sensible adults, and they were told to vote on candy consumption policies, a policy supported by all three adults and none of the children could never win out. The adults would have to get behind some kind of compromise policy which could be supported by the child who loved candy the least. This child is the median voter. In the wake of Trump’s election, it seems that many party supporters refuse to learn the lessons of recent history. They must come to terms with who these median voters are. Party loyalists are allowing themselves to believe that the answer is to retreat further left towards platforms like those of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren. If this continues, the next election might prove as unkind to the party as the previous one. I look to the Voter Survey to demonstrate why this is the case. The VOTER Survey surveys 8,000 voters on how they voted in both 2012 and 2016 along with other relevant questions. Researchers who ran the survey assigned a score for voters’ views on social and economic issues.

Who are the Median Voters in the US? The populist movement is a backlash by the ‘losers’ of globalization. This group does not support free trade or open borders and do not identify with the social values Democratic party. In this piece, ‘populist’ voters will be simply defined as those voters who express traditionally liberal economic views and traditionally conservative social views. Some readers might ponder, “Isn’t economically liberal and socially conservative a strange combination?” An ardently pro-Union, religious voter from Ohio is exactly the type of voter being referenced. The proportion of populist voters is even larger than the number of conservatives. This means something very important: if a candidate can appeal to this group of voters, while still maintaining most of their conservative or liberal base, then they will likely be the candidate who wins the median voter. That is, unless the Democratic party can find some way to make the liberals turn out in force in proportion to conservatives. However, this was a prediction which seemed to play out miserably in 2016. The presence of the Electoral College changes our conception of the median voters. The General Election is not won simply by popular vote, but, rather by winning the majority of the Electoral College. The Democratic candidate will be no better off if they win liberal states by 3% or 30%. To win the General Election, primary voters should consider the median voters in those states that are considered ‘swing states.’ Swing states are those states that could go either Democrat or Republican in the General Election and swing the election for or against a candidate. If we consider each of the states which flipped from voting for Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 as swing states, then the swing states for the upcoming election would be: Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states alone account for 99 of the possible 538 electoral votes. Aside from Florida, each of those states is in what is known as the ‘Rust Belt.’ This term is generally credited to the 1984 Democratic Presidential candidate Walter Mondale when he said that Reagan’s policies were, “turning our great industrial Midwest and the industrial base of this country into a rust bowl.” The term was soon changed from ‘rust bowl’ to ‘rust belt.’ ‘Rust Belt’ has become a symbolic name for a devastating economic hit to heavy industry in the region. It even makes reference to the ruin the 1930’s Dust Bowl brought on the southern plains by historic droughts. This economic devastation will be present in the region’s voting booths. Union jobs and religious faith were both staples of these communities. These ideals have been sidelined by the Democratic party, but they do not seem to have waned in importance in Rust Belt communities. These voters now have a golden opportunity to make their voices heard; all roads to the next Presidency lead through the Rust Belt. The median voters in these states will effectively be the kingmakers of the United States of America.

Ideologies of American Voters President Trump had the clear advantage among populist voters. The amount of red in the populist quadrant of the plot below demonstrates this. The plot displays how voters in each of the four ideological quadrants voted in the 2016 election. The sheer number of populist voters is likely striking to even the most ardent followers of American politics. It might seem strange that an economically liberal voter might prefer Donald Trump. After all, Donald Trump’s protectionist policies were a far cry from the more free market policies of Hillary Clinton. However, those who argue this point have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a ‘liberal’ economic policy is. Traditionally, leftist economic policies are policies geared towards working people and espouse regulations, such as protectionist policies, that benefit the working class. This is the definition of leftist economic policy being used in above chart. Given this understanding one can see why Donald Trump would be a candidate tailor made to win the populist quadrant. It also seems that the protectionist policies of Trump did not cost him a troubling number of conservative voters. Looking forward to 2020, the market for some kind of government intervention in the economy seems quite high and it would be a mistake for the Democratic party to once again run on a relatively laissez-faire trade platform which could be considered relatively conservative. However, it would also be a mistake to believe that the economic liberalism of the populists means they support policies of socialist-style redistributive income.

The Swing Voters The chart below demonstrates that the changes in populist voting were almost solely what swung the election for Trump. Many ardent liberals to believe that the new stream of borderline socialist candidates is perfect for winning back these voters. Out with the more laissez-faire economic policies of the Clinton campaign and in with free college and universal basic income. These are economic policies that are traditionally economically leftist, right? These policies will appeal to the populist voters, right? Right on the first account. Wrong on the second.

What the Median Voters Seem to Want While these policies are economically leftist, based on additional polling data they do not seem to be the kind of leftist economic policies which appeal to populists. Populists have been historically dependent on union jobs and have been suffering from job losses not just due to immigration, but primarily due to the productivity increases that come with increased automation. These groups seem like they would stand to benefit greatly from economic policies such as universal basic income. While this might be the case in theory, in practice these groups seem to be looking for far more than money in their bank accounts. They seem to be in search of the sense of pride and dignity that come with providing for one’s own family with an honest day’s work. Kenneth Scheve, a political scientist at Stanford University, and Matthew Slaughter, an economist at Dartmouth, conducted a survey of 5,000 adults from across the US and asked them to think about how the U.S. economy could better deliver good jobs and incomes in today’s world. They were given these options to choose from: “Implement policies that reduce international trade, prevent firms from going overseas, and decrease immigration,” “Adopt new policies that substantially tax those firms and individuals that benefit from globalization and then spend the new revenue on government income programs for everyone else,” or “Adopt new policies that substantially tax those firms and individuals that benefit from globalization and then spend the new revenue on programs—for example, training and education—that provide more people with greater opportunity to benefit from globalization.” Essentially, they were given the option of choosing between protectionism, social safety nets, or using taxation on the “winners of globalization” to reinvest in–rather than redistribute to–those workers who are being displaced. This reinvestment option garnered 45% of the vote, while the protectionist policy garnered 29%, and the social safety net option was favored by only 26% of respondents.