Recent presidential election coverage depicts the candidates as being in a literal race. Headlines like “Harris Triples Trump’s Fundraising” and “Harris Rattled Trump and Dominated Debate” are common. But the neck-in-neck narrative obfuscates the reality of the competition - Harris doesn’t need to convince voters that she’s better than Trump; she needs to convince them that she’s better than whatever else they could be doing on election night.
The idea that there are a bunch of voters out there who can’t decide between Harris and Trump is a myth. In reality, there are very few undecided voters, especially in battleground states. For example, in response to recent polls, only 1-5% of Pennsylvanians identified as undecided or independent. Polls of Georgia and North Carolina voters reflected similar numbers.
Instead of appealing to undecided voters, Harris should focus on those who aren’t sure they will vote at all. In 2020, only 66.6% of eligible Americans voted in the Presidential Election. That number represents a lot of critical votes up for grabs, with voters in tossup states coming out at rates like 68.2% in Georgia, 70.1% in Pennsylvania, 72.8% in North Carolina, 73.5% in Michigan, 68.6% in Arizona, 75.3% in Wisconsin, and 66.1% in Nevada.
The outlook for this election’s voter turnout is no better. According to a recent Pennsylvania poll, 8% of respondents reported that they are not likely to vote for president. In a Georgia poll, 15% indicated that they are less than “very likely” to vote. That number was 11% in North Carolina, 19% in Nevada, and 14% in Arizona.
If Harris could win-over those on the fence about casting votes, she would have the election in the bag.
We saw something similar play out in 2020 where Biden’s Georgia win was attributed to efforts to mobilize voters who would not otherwise have voted. Former State Senator Stacey Abrams, who helmed the movement, strategized that Democrats could win more races by expanding their coalition to include disengaged voters of color, as opposed to focusing on persuading undecided, moderate, often white voters. Her organization registered more than 800,000 new voters, focusing on young and minority populations. Recognizing that registry is not enough to ensure participation, she combined registration with education, teaching voters about the issues at stake, voter suppression, and election logistics.
Harris should borrow Abram’s formula - “registration + education” - and apply it nationally. In practice, this would look like her campaign partnering with local Democratic organizations to register as many voters as possible, especially among groups that historically vote blue. They don’t have long, as the cutoff date to register to vote in the 2024 elections is fast-approaching. The deadline varies by state, with the earliest being South Carolina’s in-person registration ending on October 4.
For the education piece, Harris’ campaign should emphasize issues that directly affect average Americans, giving voters a sense of stake in the outcome. Articulating a causal relation between elected representatives and policies on health care, public education, and gun control can combat the sentiment that the outcome of the election doesn’t matter.
Messaging aimed at battleground states should remind voters that elections can be won by slim margins. Every vote matters.
Harris’ team should also work with local groups to raise awareness for accommodations available to voters, such as transportation, mail-in options, and time off work. Removing obstacles to voting makes the endeavor less cumbersome.
Perhaps a better analogy for the election is a recruitment effort. The objective should be registering as many low-propensity voters as possible and persuading them to cast ballots. It’s important for Harris’s campaign to maintain that perspective in order to avoid wasting resources to win over the few undecided voters. They would be better spent capturing the goldmine of voters who aren’t set on going to the polls at all.
Comments