President-elect Donald Trump’s margin of victory was greatest among those who consume little or no news. “Americans with less formal education tend to rely more on friends and family for election information, while those with higher education and income are more likely to prefer the news media,” one report found.
Other studies and literature have confirmed the prevalence of low-information (also sometimes categorized as “ignorant” or “disengaged” voters) who know shockingly little about government, policy and their fellow Americans (e.g., wildly overestimating the size of some groups, assessing the state of the economy, understanding basic facts about the Constitution).
Moreover, political reporters and pundits — who cannot fathom someone might never read a newspaper or know the three branches of government — consistently overestimate voters’ knowledge. They nag politicians (as they did with Vice President Kamala Harris) to provide reams of policy detail that these voters never hear — or care to learn about. Pundits’ pleas were especially misplaced considering Harris needed to appeal to the very voters whose policy knowledge and interest was the lowest.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
The problem is getting worse over time, as the Washington Monthly pointed out in March:
This does not mean that voters don’t learn about candidates during the campaign or cannot be stirred on issues near and dear to them. After all, when seniors hear about potential cuts in Medicare or Social Security, you hear a chorus of protests.
Simply put, only a certain stratum of Americans prioritize learning about politics. That poses a problem for Democrats who love to flash their policy credentials and often rely on substantive arguments (e.g., tariffs are effectively the same as a sales tax). Democrats are missing a large and increasingly critical segment of voters.
There is a vast range of literature about how voters who know little about the issues develop “shortcuts” to identify candidates. They take clues such as the politicians’ profession (e.g., business mogul), party image (Democrats defend voting rights) and viral moments (Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone!”) to decide who they prefer.
Democrats might pine for a country of high-information voters fostered by civics education and responsible social media platforms that elevate truthful policy statements. However, they shouldn’t hold their breath. Even if those efforts might make a difference at the margins (more likely improving the acuity of already-informed voters), the mass of low-information voters will remain happily oblivious to policy and political details.
Still, Democrats can do a much better job of reaching less politically engaged voters. For starters, they need to reduce and simplify the values that define the party (e.g., protecting the little guy, letting you choose your own life) and pound away at them for years, using every medium available (podcasts, nonpolitical TV shows, social media, etc.).
Second, Democrats would be wise to frame Trump and Republicans in direct, clear terms, which they can emphasize daily (e.g., the culture of corruption, the party of fat cats, reckless with your health and security). Each time Trump and his Republican acolytes do something that fits into one of these categories, Democrats must highlight their behavior and amplify it (requiring more facility with online influencing and new media).
ADVERTISING
For example: Nominating an anti-vaccination mandates, loony conspiracy theorist for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shows reckless disregard for Americans’ health; or Republicans recklessly passed forced-birth laws that resulted in women’s deaths and serious health incidents. They are not looking out for you and your family.
And finally, Democrats must be scrupulous in tying Republicans to the consequences of their policies. Controlling the White House and both houses means Republicans will not have the luxury of blaming others (although they will try). If voters do not understand how bad policy choices are impacting their lives, they will have no reason to hold Republicans accountable.
In sum, Democrats certainly need to keep coming up with good policy ideas and selling them to voters who care about such things. But they also need spend more time and effort improving communication with everyone else. Shaping shortcuts to help voters understand the fundamental differences between candidates should be a priority.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) declared, “It is important to do these background checks, and the FBI has done this [for decades].” She continued, “It’s just been routine that they have been the one that has handled it. You don’t go to an outside private investigator, right?” After all, she pointed out, “If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process.” She expressed her firm belief that a thorough vetting is a requirement for Cabinet nominees.
Sounding somewhat less adamant, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) added, “The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement.” Maybe she should insist on it. Even Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), remarked that while Trump might choose to supplement the investigation with a private firm, he “sure wouldn’t leave it” entirely in private hands.
Murkowksi, who voted to convict Trump in the second impeachment trail and voted against confirming Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (but in favor of Trump’s other two right-wing nominees) might be the most independent-minded Republican remaining in the Senate. If she sticks to her guns on FBI background checks and takes the hard votes against absurd nominees and policies, she can preserve her reputation as a maverick. She might even inspire a few of her colleagues to show some spine.
Other studies and literature have confirmed the prevalence of low-information (also sometimes categorized as “ignorant” or “disengaged” voters) who know shockingly little about government, policy and their fellow Americans (e.g., wildly overestimating the size of some groups, assessing the state of the economy, understanding basic facts about the Constitution).
Moreover, political reporters and pundits — who cannot fathom someone might never read a newspaper or know the three branches of government — consistently overestimate voters’ knowledge. They nag politicians (as they did with Vice President Kamala Harris) to provide reams of policy detail that these voters never hear — or care to learn about. Pundits’ pleas were especially misplaced considering Harris needed to appeal to the very voters whose policy knowledge and interest was the lowest.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
The problem is getting worse over time, as the Washington Monthly pointed out in March:
We shouldn’t be surprised when most Americans can’t name a Supreme Court justice or when they’re shocked to learn that Obamacare is the same thing as the Affordable Care Act, upon which they rely. (One wonders what is the point of asking such voters their view on policy issues — or which candidate does better on handling an issue — when they do not follow political news.)
This does not mean that voters don’t learn about candidates during the campaign or cannot be stirred on issues near and dear to them. After all, when seniors hear about potential cuts in Medicare or Social Security, you hear a chorus of protests.
Simply put, only a certain stratum of Americans prioritize learning about politics. That poses a problem for Democrats who love to flash their policy credentials and often rely on substantive arguments (e.g., tariffs are effectively the same as a sales tax). Democrats are missing a large and increasingly critical segment of voters.
There is a vast range of literature about how voters who know little about the issues develop “shortcuts” to identify candidates. They take clues such as the politicians’ profession (e.g., business mogul), party image (Democrats defend voting rights) and viral moments (Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone!”) to decide who they prefer.
Democrats might pine for a country of high-information voters fostered by civics education and responsible social media platforms that elevate truthful policy statements. However, they shouldn’t hold their breath. Even if those efforts might make a difference at the margins (more likely improving the acuity of already-informed voters), the mass of low-information voters will remain happily oblivious to policy and political details.
Still, Democrats can do a much better job of reaching less politically engaged voters. For starters, they need to reduce and simplify the values that define the party (e.g., protecting the little guy, letting you choose your own life) and pound away at them for years, using every medium available (podcasts, nonpolitical TV shows, social media, etc.).
Second, Democrats would be wise to frame Trump and Republicans in direct, clear terms, which they can emphasize daily (e.g., the culture of corruption, the party of fat cats, reckless with your health and security). Each time Trump and his Republican acolytes do something that fits into one of these categories, Democrats must highlight their behavior and amplify it (requiring more facility with online influencing and new media).
ADVERTISING
For example: Nominating an anti-vaccination mandates, loony conspiracy theorist for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shows reckless disregard for Americans’ health; or Republicans recklessly passed forced-birth laws that resulted in women’s deaths and serious health incidents. They are not looking out for you and your family.
And finally, Democrats must be scrupulous in tying Republicans to the consequences of their policies. Controlling the White House and both houses means Republicans will not have the luxury of blaming others (although they will try). If voters do not understand how bad policy choices are impacting their lives, they will have no reason to hold Republicans accountable.
In sum, Democrats certainly need to keep coming up with good policy ideas and selling them to voters who care about such things. But they also need spend more time and effort improving communication with everyone else. Shaping shortcuts to help voters understand the fundamental differences between candidates should be a priority.
Distinguished persons of the week
Republicans generally seem inclined to allow Trump to expand executive power and empower a grab-bag of unqualified, extreme characters. But at least a few senators appear interested in preserving the Senate’s constitutional power — and obligation — to provide “advice and consent,” a critical part of our system of checks and balances.Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) declared, “It is important to do these background checks, and the FBI has done this [for decades].” She continued, “It’s just been routine that they have been the one that has handled it. You don’t go to an outside private investigator, right?” After all, she pointed out, “If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process.” She expressed her firm belief that a thorough vetting is a requirement for Cabinet nominees.
Sounding somewhat less adamant, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) added, “The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement.” Maybe she should insist on it. Even Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), remarked that while Trump might choose to supplement the investigation with a private firm, he “sure wouldn’t leave it” entirely in private hands.
Murkowksi, who voted to convict Trump in the second impeachment trail and voted against confirming Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (but in favor of Trump’s other two right-wing nominees) might be the most independent-minded Republican remaining in the Senate. If she sticks to her guns on FBI background checks and takes the hard votes against absurd nominees and policies, she can preserve her reputation as a maverick. She might even inspire a few of her colleagues to show some spine.
