It usually takes the intersection of two unrelated events to create the synchronistic moment of illumination that triggers one of my articles. In today’s case, it took three. The first was a breakfast with Florida 0-4 congressional candidate Michael Kirwan. Our discussion turned to the challenge of messaging when it comes to balancing the attention span of high- and low-information voters. When I suggested Michael is most effective when he takes the time to walk voters through an issue, he used the opportunity to throw a counterpunch. “Yes, for people like you. But you have to admit you are off the scale when it comes to high-information voters.” You cannot argue with that.
The second event was lunch with family friends in South Florida last Saturday when I was forced to once again talk a lifetime Democrat off the ledge. Despite polls showing as much as an 11-point lead for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections, he did not believe it. My reminder that the Trump coalition which resulted in his 2024 presidential victory now consisted solely of the 35 percent MAGA hardcore (now 32 percent according to Quinnipiac) made no difference. Nor did anything else. The conversation ended with his saying, “I hope you’re right.”
The final event was Wednesday’s lunch at a local restaurant with some fellow alta cockers, loosely translated as “old farts” in Yiddish. As we discussed the upcoming mid-terms, the patriarch at the table asked, “How do you keep up with all this stuff?” I did not hesitate. “It is the curse of holding three degrees in political science.”
When I realized all three individuals with whom I conversed held legitimate perspectives on the challenges for Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms, I knew my current answers were insufficient to allay their concerns. Democrats are rightly criticized for being elitists when they fail to tailor their message to get the attention of low-information voters. And Democratic hopes to turn a red state blue based on polling leads often evaporate on election day. (Can you say Beto O’Rourke? I knew you could.) And finally, data that statistically proves the economy historically does better during Democratic administrations has little, if any, impact on the average voter. As Robert Redford’s character in the 1972 film “The Candidate” reminds voters at every campaign stop, “There’s got to be a better way.”
And, as usual, the answer was right in front of me. Historical precedence. When was the last time the Democratic party navigated a similar situation in which it challenged an incumbent elected official who seemed to be in the driver’s seat? The 1982 presidential election when Bill Clinton challenged incumbent George H. W. Bush. And how did the Clinton campaign address the issue of high- versus low-information voters? Simple, they divided the messaging between the candidate and his surrogates.
Among the most visible surrogates was Bubba’s campaign manager James Carville who famously advised his client, “It’s the economy stupid.” And Carville had the receipts. Unemployment peaking at 10.8 percent. Twelve percent drop in factory output. A 50 percent surge in corporate bankruptcies. And tight money policies by the Federal Reserve Bank to fight inflation. Wall Street executives and high-information voters easily connected the dots.
However, Clinton delivered a much different four-word message. “I feel your pain.” Simple. Emotional. Personal.
I wish that’s all it would take this time around, but it is not. Unfortunately many Democrats make the task of flipping votes from red to blue harder than it should be. Despite all the tailwinds that suggest 2026 will be a good year the party, Democratic skepticism about the outcome in November is grounded in disrespect of the voters. “I don’t understand how [pick the GOP/MAGA voter demographic of your choice] keep voting against their own self-interest.” “The majority of voters are just plain ignorant.” I can hear the ghost of Dale Carnegie. “And you’re surprised you cannot make friends and influence people?”
Which brings me back to the question at lunch last Wednesday, “How do you keep up with all this stuff?” Because I have the luxury of time to do it. I am comfortably retired. The house and cars are paid for. Our daughter and her husband are financially independent of us. It gives me time to peruse the New York Times and any number of online resources. Simply put, being a low-information voter is not necessarily the individual’s fault. Their priority is raising a family, paying off the mortgage and car loans, worrying whether AI is going to replace them, etc. Without the luxury of time to gather information, much less connect the dots, you don’t have to condone their electoral choices, but you have to understand them.
In my imagination and entrepreneurship class at Miami University (Oxford, OH), I took students through the design process for the lunar module that took astronauts to the moon’s surface during the Apollo era. The content relied heavily on the book Moon Lander by the Northrup Grumman project manager Thomas J. Kelly. The “aha” moment associated with a weight problem in the original design which included four large windows and seats for the two astronauts came when one of the engineers asked Kelly, “Do the astronauts need seats?” The flight from the command module to the moon’s surface lasted 90 minutes, and at 1/6 the earth’s gravities, knees were sufficient shock absorbers for the landing. And the astronauts could sleep in hammocks. Standing up, they could positions themselves closer to two smaller, triangular windows providing the same field of vision as the four larger windows.
Kelly originally rejected the idea. He tells the engineering team, “I don’t see it.” The team had two choices. They could go back to the design lab and grouse about how their boss was an idiot. Or, as they did, take responsibility and said, “Let’s make him see it.” They worked through the night constructing a mock up of the seatless module. When Kelly had a chance to step inside the mockup, he realized it could work and signed off on the design.
Why do Democrats have this once in a generation opportunity to flip the switch? Because sound bites like “Make America Great Again” only work for so long. Except for the diehards addicted to a vision of America that never existed, more and more voters are saying, “I don’t see it.” Every Democratic candidate for office has the same options as the lunar module engineers. The winners will forego blaming the audience. Instead, they will understand it is their responsibility to “make voters see it.”
For example, if you want to sell universal health care, slogans like “Medicare for all” will not cut it. Take a lesson from the health insurance industry which produced the “Harry and Louise” commercials to defeat the Clinton health care proposal in 1993. In the 2026 version, a working class couple is again sitting at the kitchen table. “Harry” looks at his pay stub and complains about the percentage of his salary withheld for the new single-payer health system. “Louise” reminds him how much they paid for health insurance last year as well as the co-pays for most services. Then asks Harry, “You want to go back to the way it was.” “No, I see it now.”
When you trust the voter, you do not have to tell them I feel your pain. One, you do not have to reinforce what they already know. Two, if you have time to run for office you probably do not feel the pain the way they do. Three, they are no longer fooled by promises of a “great health care plan” in two weeks. Show them exactly what it could look like. And do not sugarcoat it. Be honest. It will not be free. If they ask, be prepared to explain how it gets funded. Also, make it an opportunity to address the income inequality issue. For example, contributions to the health care fund should apply to all income sources, not just payrolls and other earned income.
I often quote an acquaintance Kevin Gottlieb, a political science professor at Syracuse University, who explained the value of protests. “When politicians feel the heat, they see the light.” Maybe there is a corollary for electoral behavior. “When voters feel the pain, they see the light.” It does not, however, relieve candidates of the responsibility to focus that light in the correct direction.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP