Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Contrarian: Bringing a Survey to a Gun Fight - "Pollingism" has failed Democrats and voters.
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/bringing-a-survey-to-a-gun-fight There are two different ideas about what it takes to achieve political victory, but only one gets real airtime. This model views voters as rational actors, making electoral decisions based on their conscious issue preferences. Pollingism, as I’ve coined it, assumes said preferences are static, discernible via testing, and hold ultimate sway over voting behavior. Pollingism views the political task as winning elections and treats the work of governance as something to be hashed out later.
Pollingism proponents believe that data “shows what voters really think, not what people who work in politics wish they thought.” (Nevermind that folks making this claim work in politics.) In their minds, the data have set them free from their biases, including holding fixed stances on right and wrong. The trouble with this is that data aren’t conjured but rather solicited. In other words, you only get answers to the questions you ask. And you only get reactions to the ads you produce. And you only assess impacts in the artificial environments you construct.
An alternative worldview understands voters as social beings, driven by unconscious cues. The refrains of friends, family, and trusted messengers, as well as voters’ identities, hold the greatest sway in their actions. Political persuasion happens through offline interactions, persistent media narratives, and social movements, as well as formal campaigns. This approach, which I call Magnetism, proceeds from the notion that if you want people to come to your cause, you must be attractive. This requires having a cause to which to draw people. And it also means having a polarity that distinguishes you from your opposition. For Magnetism to work, you meet people at the place of their broadly shared values, not their podcast-promoted prejudices.
In short, strategic campaigns begin by asking the question: How do I force the issues and conversations that most benefit my side to the fore?
Pollingism proponents believe that data “shows what voters really think, not what people who work in politics wish they thought.” (Nevermind that folks making this claim work in politics.) In their minds, the data have set them free from their biases, including holding fixed stances on right and wrong. The trouble with this is that data aren’t conjured but rather solicited. In other words, you only get answers to the questions you ask. And you only get reactions to the ads you produce. And you only assess impacts in the artificial environments you construct.
An alternative worldview understands voters as social beings, driven by unconscious cues. The refrains of friends, family, and trusted messengers, as well as voters’ identities, hold the greatest sway in their actions. Political persuasion happens through offline interactions, persistent media narratives, and social movements, as well as formal campaigns. This approach, which I call Magnetism, proceeds from the notion that if you want people to come to your cause, you must be attractive. This requires having a cause to which to draw people. And it also means having a polarity that distinguishes you from your opposition. For Magnetism to work, you meet people at the place of their broadly shared values, not their podcast-promoted prejudices.
In short, strategic campaigns begin by asking the question: How do I force the issues and conversations that most benefit my side to the fore?
Much, much more challenging the status quo conventional political wisdom of Dem campaign strategy for the last 40 years at link.