Our new poll of 3,000 working class voters finds opportunities for Dems on the economy, if they stress the need to reward hard work, as Trump’s handling of the cost of living remains hugely unpopular.
These results are not surprising to me at all. Working-class voters tend to be more pragmatic than college-educated voters.
They want a growing economy that includes their families, not economic populism (which has a very poor trac record of promoting economic growth). Economic populism generally fires up college-educated voters who largely already vote Democratic.
Why are these focused on polling Trump supporters. No offense, but you should be polling and working on supporting your actual voters and swing voters. Recommend following Anat Shankar Oscorio (she’s on Substack) and reading The Persuaders by Anand Giridharadas (also on Substack). It specifically calls out how republicans use messaging that their supporters and swing voters approve of and that democrats hate. We need to move toward that model. Trying to please everyone HAS GOTTEN DEMS NO WHERE and will not serve them going forward.
The poll is not “focused on polling Trump supporters."
The article specifically states, “ The poll of 3,000 working class voters was taken across 21 states from August 18-27” and “ these self-identified working class voters supported President Trump by seven points in 2024.”
It is difficult to see how Democrats can be competitive on the federal level without significant gains from this group, particularly since the poll focuses on swing states.
They are not focused on Trump supporters. They are focused on working class people who are working hard to make a better life for themselves and their children. They have very practical concerns that Democrats have not focused on. To win back the working class we need to listen to them and provide solutions for their concerns.
Earle-Sears and Ramaswamy are ready to repeat the same tired line: “with hard work, faith, and freedom, every family can thrive.” That claim is one of the biggest lies told to Americans — especially Black Americans.
They’ve ignored mass job cuts and soaring prices that are squeezing families. Do you think Americans will be better off under leaders who cozy up to extremism and hate? No.
These candidates won’t build real support for people hit by job loss or hardship — they won’t challenge the status quo. Their loyalty is misplaced, tied to the illusion of grandeur for a single figure. That alignment would be harmful to the nation.
Vote NO on both. Vote for leaders who will serve everyone, not just one person.
At least Earle-Sears knows what a woman is. That's kinda basic. I mean, it only involves over half the population.
Abigail Spanberger not only doesn't know that, she's shockingly inarticulate, befuddled, and frankly not very bright. Her performance in yesterday's debate was a train wreck.
I live in Maryland, so I obviously can't vote in the Virginia election, but I'm following it.
Personally I don’t know what you mean about being a woman but I do know I don’t want someone who embraces racism as the normal. She can’t do anything for me.
But not just the immediate economy, but the fact that it’s impossible to get ahead for most people and that it’s rigged in favor of people who abuse it.
In the past, the Republicans focused on the welfare queen as the symbol, now we need to shift it to the Billionaire abusers, while focusing on how we make life better for everyone else.
It has been estimated that if we remain on the current economic trajectory that it will cost up to $5 million to live the American Dream (ie., house, car, college vacations, weddings and retirement). Essentially, young people won't have it.
The American Dream should be afforded to all. I believe that the fear however, is that in order to attract some, it means that others will be marginalized.
I agree with your assessments, and I believe that the Dems have been successful when they have embraced programming with equal effect for the public good (ie., New Deal). It has to have a clear vision and be translatable locally (eg national housing policy in to local housing builds).
It can't be done without everyone paying their fair share. And it might even be to the benefit of businesses. Public-private partnerships should be encouraged where possible.
You can also address issues in a corollary fashion without talking about identity politics. For example, "Should a person who's never served tell those who want to serve (or have) ...they can't?" It addresses all the demographics without saying a word.
Show visuals in commercial spots of destroyed crops and for sale signs on farms and ask the question in the voice over, "Do immigrants contribute to the economy?"
I think that you can see where I'm headed. We're in this together....
I actually don’t think democrats should try to win over working class voters. We have gone down that road. Over and over we have offered the working class the option of having unions, government sponsored building projects, support for small businesses and more. Over and over they have rejected those things in favor of religion and Christian nationalism, white supremacy, guns, and general bigotry. The working class are never going to vote for democrats. Democrats should quit wasting resources on the fairytale that they can win over the working class and focus on their priorities.
I couldn’t get a union in a blue state. I think this was part of the problem too. I saw a lot of corruption in education and never could speak about it until now. It was like a cult.
Many swing voters voted for Obama and then Trump, estimated at around 13% of his 2016 voters. They were overrepresented in swing states, amplifying their importance.
A LOT of Republicans and Republican leaners voted for Obama.
The bipartisan immigration bill was not actually what hard core immigration restrictionists wanted. That is a talking point, not an accurate analysis. What we have with Trump is fairly close to their ask. The actual middle ground on this is between the two. I can elaborate if you want.
Chips and IRA, per Brooking, have produced between 42k and 55k jobs so far, about a hundred times fewer than the data center boom. Pieces like rural Internet never happened.
Harris was NOT perceived as a centrist candidate by many swing voters. Neither was Walz.
I’m wondering if I’m operating with a different definition of populism?
“When Democrats talk about systemic change or lean on populist messaging, it is critical to focus on tangible actions that reduce people’s cost of living and make it easier for people who work hard to find success.”
My understanding is that the populist message is the tangible actions. Not the systemic change messaging.
It sounds like you are describing Sherrod Brown's approach, and he lost to Bernie Moreno, unfortunately. I know he's trying again, and more power to him, but what are you suggesting he does differently?
But they focused on them in policy and ended up creating a mess of sex-based and other protections in the process. These policy decisions have had profound effects on women, parents, children, the gay and lesbian community and more. Ignoring the problem they created will not make the problem go away. It will simply make voters feel dismissed, unheard and like Democrats don’t care about problems affecting them. Democrats ignored, dismissed, denied voter concerns about immigration, Biden’s age, crime, inflation and the economy and it alienated voters. Why do we think this time is different? They NEED to address this problem because it is a problem.
Agreed 100%. I remember waking up every morning asking Google, “When will the Democrats restore the definition of woman?” as Scotland and even the Supreme Court stood firm in protecting theirs. Watching them sink their own ship—dragging us all down—while twisting language into a weapon was painful. I’ve gone Independent, and it’ll take William Wallace himself to drag me back to that party of madness. Adult human female. We will never wheesht. Scotland has become the land of the free—now it’s America’s turn to be brave again.
These results are not surprising to me at all. Working-class voters tend to be more pragmatic than college-educated voters.
They want a growing economy that includes their families, not economic populism (which has a very poor trac record of promoting economic growth). Economic populism generally fires up college-educated voters who largely already vote Democratic.
Why are these focused on polling Trump supporters. No offense, but you should be polling and working on supporting your actual voters and swing voters. Recommend following Anat Shankar Oscorio (she’s on Substack) and reading The Persuaders by Anand Giridharadas (also on Substack). It specifically calls out how republicans use messaging that their supporters and swing voters approve of and that democrats hate. We need to move toward that model. Trying to please everyone HAS GOTTEN DEMS NO WHERE and will not serve them going forward.
The poll is not “focused on polling Trump supporters."
The article specifically states, “ The poll of 3,000 working class voters was taken across 21 states from August 18-27” and “ these self-identified working class voters supported President Trump by seven points in 2024.”
It is difficult to see how Democrats can be competitive on the federal level without significant gains from this group, particularly since the poll focuses on swing states.
They are not focused on Trump supporters. They are focused on working class people who are working hard to make a better life for themselves and their children. They have very practical concerns that Democrats have not focused on. To win back the working class we need to listen to them and provide solutions for their concerns.
Earle-Sears and Ramaswamy are ready to repeat the same tired line: “with hard work, faith, and freedom, every family can thrive.” That claim is one of the biggest lies told to Americans — especially Black Americans.
They’ve ignored mass job cuts and soaring prices that are squeezing families. Do you think Americans will be better off under leaders who cozy up to extremism and hate? No.
These candidates won’t build real support for people hit by job loss or hardship — they won’t challenge the status quo. Their loyalty is misplaced, tied to the illusion of grandeur for a single figure. That alignment would be harmful to the nation.
Vote NO on both. Vote for leaders who will serve everyone, not just one person.
No I don’t know what you mean can you explain it to me.
At least Earle-Sears knows what a woman is. That's kinda basic. I mean, it only involves over half the population.
Abigail Spanberger not only doesn't know that, she's shockingly inarticulate, befuddled, and frankly not very bright. Her performance in yesterday's debate was a train wreck.
I live in Maryland, so I obviously can't vote in the Virginia election, but I'm following it.
Personally I don’t know what you mean about being a woman but I do know I don’t want someone who embraces racism as the normal. She can’t do anything for me.
You don't know what I mean about being a woman??
Seriously? You don't know what a woman is?
So to summarize, it’s the economy, stupid!
But not just the immediate economy, but the fact that it’s impossible to get ahead for most people and that it’s rigged in favor of people who abuse it.
In the past, the Republicans focused on the welfare queen as the symbol, now we need to shift it to the Billionaire abusers, while focusing on how we make life better for everyone else.
It has been estimated that if we remain on the current economic trajectory that it will cost up to $5 million to live the American Dream (ie., house, car, college vacations, weddings and retirement). Essentially, young people won't have it.
The American Dream should be afforded to all. I believe that the fear however, is that in order to attract some, it means that others will be marginalized.
I agree with your assessments, and I believe that the Dems have been successful when they have embraced programming with equal effect for the public good (ie., New Deal). It has to have a clear vision and be translatable locally (eg national housing policy in to local housing builds).
It can't be done without everyone paying their fair share. And it might even be to the benefit of businesses. Public-private partnerships should be encouraged where possible.
You can also address issues in a corollary fashion without talking about identity politics. For example, "Should a person who's never served tell those who want to serve (or have) ...they can't?" It addresses all the demographics without saying a word.
Show visuals in commercial spots of destroyed crops and for sale signs on farms and ask the question in the voice over, "Do immigrants contribute to the economy?"
I think that you can see where I'm headed. We're in this together....
I actually don’t think democrats should try to win over working class voters. We have gone down that road. Over and over we have offered the working class the option of having unions, government sponsored building projects, support for small businesses and more. Over and over they have rejected those things in favor of religion and Christian nationalism, white supremacy, guns, and general bigotry. The working class are never going to vote for democrats. Democrats should quit wasting resources on the fairytale that they can win over the working class and focus on their priorities.
https://open.substack.com/pub/douglascarlton/p/the-myth-of-the-center?r=1tl5sg&utm_medium=ios
I couldn’t get a union in a blue state. I think this was part of the problem too. I saw a lot of corruption in education and never could speak about it until now. It was like a cult.
A lot of that is incorrect.
Many swing voters voted for Obama and then Trump, estimated at around 13% of his 2016 voters. They were overrepresented in swing states, amplifying their importance.
A LOT of Republicans and Republican leaners voted for Obama.
The bipartisan immigration bill was not actually what hard core immigration restrictionists wanted. That is a talking point, not an accurate analysis. What we have with Trump is fairly close to their ask. The actual middle ground on this is between the two. I can elaborate if you want.
Chips and IRA, per Brooking, have produced between 42k and 55k jobs so far, about a hundred times fewer than the data center boom. Pieces like rural Internet never happened.
Harris was NOT perceived as a centrist candidate by many swing voters. Neither was Walz.
FWIW.
I’m wondering if I’m operating with a different definition of populism?
“When Democrats talk about systemic change or lean on populist messaging, it is critical to focus on tangible actions that reduce people’s cost of living and make it easier for people who work hard to find success.”
My understanding is that the populist message is the tangible actions. Not the systemic change messaging.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sharonlawrence/p/issue-insights-federal-support-for?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=a5esd
Instead of all of these focus groups, get a clear platform and then do ehat leaders do, sell it!
It sounds like you are describing Sherrod Brown's approach, and he lost to Bernie Moreno, unfortunately. I know he's trying again, and more power to him, but what are you suggesting he does differently?
This poll must have only polled the white working class - the 2025 nom du jour of liberal elites.
But they focused on them in policy and ended up creating a mess of sex-based and other protections in the process. These policy decisions have had profound effects on women, parents, children, the gay and lesbian community and more. Ignoring the problem they created will not make the problem go away. It will simply make voters feel dismissed, unheard and like Democrats don’t care about problems affecting them. Democrats ignored, dismissed, denied voter concerns about immigration, Biden’s age, crime, inflation and the economy and it alienated voters. Why do we think this time is different? They NEED to address this problem because it is a problem.
Agreed 100%. I remember waking up every morning asking Google, “When will the Democrats restore the definition of woman?” as Scotland and even the Supreme Court stood firm in protecting theirs. Watching them sink their own ship—dragging us all down—while twisting language into a weapon was painful. I’ve gone Independent, and it’ll take William Wallace himself to drag me back to that party of madness. Adult human female. We will never wheesht. Scotland has become the land of the free—now it’s America’s turn to be brave again.
Amy, bingo!