Democrats Need to Change Their Messaging Heading Into 2020
It’s not a matter of what, but how.
The Progressive Teen Current Events Editor
I recently saw a new poll from the New York Times and Sienna College, and the results were frightening. The poll essentially found that while the leading Democratic candidates such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders lead President Trump in 1 on 1 match-ups for the national popular vote, that picture changes significantly when you look at the few swing states who will decide next year’s election in the Electoral College. According to the poll, in states such as North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, and my home state of Pennsylvania, the margins of victory grow significantly slimmer, with President Trump either winning in most states in 1 on 1 contests with any top polling candidate, or trailing within the margin of error. As a Democrat who considers the possibility of a second term for President Trump to be catastrophic, I began to wonder, what can the Democratic presidential candidates do to change those numbers and sure up victory in 2020?
Ultimately, I believe that simple rhetoric is one easy solution to this problem. The majority of Americans do not identify as progressive, or even liberal, meaning any viable candidate for president needs to appeal to voters who don’t fall into these categories. This is especially true in swing states, which ultimately decide the election. It isn’t enough to lean into the liberal base for the Democrats; a party-wide coalition that ultimately inspires independents and even some anti-Trump conservatives as well is the ultimate answer.
Despite the need for such a broad coalition, the messaging and rhetoric being embraced by a number of leading candidates like Warren and Sanders is turning off many prospective voters who are fed up with President Trump, but who may not be willing to go all in on some of the candidates more progressive policies. From climate change to healthcare, many of the Democrats are embracing archaic and ineffective messaging about important issues, and it is time to look what isn’t working and what has brought Democrats recent success on a national level.
For ineffective messaging, look no further than climate change. I’m a member of Gen. Z, and I think it’s somewhat ironic that my same peers who are embracing “ok boomer” are still using the same messaging about climate change from 20 to 30 years ago to describe an issue that has been presented as a sort of modern crusade for young people. Greta Thunberg may be only 16, but her rhetorical tactics are essentially the same as those used by 71-year-old former Vice President Al Gore.
Scare tactics and shaming those who engage in policies that harm the environment haven’t worked to significantly inspire action on the broad basis needed to actually solve climate change; in fact, it has arguably alienated more voters than those gained. However, we still see that the majority of the top Democrats running for president continue to embrace this rhetoric despite the United States being yet to make significant structural reforms and ultimately failing to really address climate change. While every other country on Earth is a member of the Paris Climate Accords, a significant portion of Americans support a president who recently regressed and formally began the process of removing the US from this groundbreaking agreement. Obviously, something isn’t working.
Democrats need to ask themselves who are they targeting when it comes to messaging on climate change, and a host of other important issues. There are many moderates who as of today won’t consider any Democrat besides former Vice President Biden simply because they don’t agree with the seemingly radical progressive stances of candidates like Warren or Sanders. (Entrepreneur Andrew Yang’s coalition that stretches beyond traditional ideological divides is a whole different story). Progressives are already going to vote for pretty much any Democrat over Donald Trump; it’s those undecided voters who may go either way that Democratic candidates need to target. Warren and Sanders should not compromise their progressive agendas to appeal to the masses; however, they should modify their rhetoric to make it more palpable, and ultimately make them more electable.
One example of a simple rhetorical change that could make progressive policies more appealing to moderates comes with one of the hallmarks of proposed progressive change: Medicare for All. With the prospect of a looming recession reducing American’s overall faith in the economy, Democrats are ignoring a vital pro-business spin on Medicare for All. American employers are projected to spend about $1 trillion on healthcare plans going into 2020, or about a quarter of all health care spending in the United States. With the world’s increasingly globalized economy, American companies are now and have been competing against corporations from countries like China, the United Kingdom, and Germany, all of which have some sort of universal or single-payer healthcare system; this means that international competitors aren’t paying significant sums on employee healthcare, while American companies are. If the United States were to adopt a Medicare For All type system, not only would this program lower costs for the average consumer, but for corporations as well. That’s now $1 trillion that could be funneled back into innovation, lowering prices on products for consumers, or increasing employee paychecks. Medicare for All completely eliminates this burden on businesses, all while seeing ultimately better care for the American people. It’s a win-win.
This argument unites the need for Medicare for All with the concerns of business-minded Americans, yet it is absent from the messaging of a huge portion of 2020 candidates. Why? Well, it is seemingly because they are just trying to appeal to their respective bases. However, it’s not just Progressives, or even Democrats who will be voting in 2020: its moderates and independents, Republicans and conservatives, too. It is time for Democrats to stop trying to appeal to the left of the party but to try and actually create a viable coalition to not only win the primary and the presidency, but ultimately majorities in the House and Senate so these vitally needed reforms can become not just talking points, but reality.
The common argument for vigorously supporting progressive policies is that it will inspire the Democrat’s base from the left, but is that even true? Recent successes for the Democrats, namely 2018’s so-called “Blue Wave” Midterm Elections, don’t necessarily support that argument. An analysis from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics found that even when controlling for other factors, Democratic candidates who supported Medicare for All fared worse in the general elections compared to fellow Democrats who did not. 72% of Democratic House Candidates who do not support Medicare for All won their races, while a mere 45% of Democrats who do support it did. Congressional districts that Democrats picked up in 2018, particularly those in swing states and which went for President Trump in 2016, should be exactly the voters that the Democrats’ nominee targets. However, these voters have already indicated that they are not receptive to a candidate who vehemently supports Medicare for All. Broadly going after progressive policies is not the path to victory in 2020.
As the old adage goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.” It’s time for Democrats to stop the insanity. From climate change to Medicare for All, the majority of Americans have yet to adopt progressive views on these issues. Instead of continuing to force ineffective messaging down their throats, let’s instead look to how we as a party can make these progressive policies more appealing to moderates, independents, or even conservatives. This doesn’t mean changing the policies themselves, simply how they are presented to the general public. For the sake of America, change the messaging or face the unfortunate possibility of having Trump in the White House until 2025.
