Hi Mike, I am a geography professor and among topics I teach are geodemographics, but I don't know a ton about how political campaigns use such data. At this point in the race, are campaigns looking at the neighborhood level (voting wards, Census blocks) or targeting broader areas (MSA's, counties, maybe Census Tracts) with how they roll out a ground game? At what level of granularity do you cease seeing a return on analytical effort?
Wow! What a great question. That’s why I love the people who subscribe here.
The campaigns have always been looking at neighborhood, precinct and census tract levels - only the media and pundits don’t. The ground games all
Start building in those MSA’s and precincts with the greatest ‘shifts’ or are targeting as demographic opportunities. These remain the longest focus because they’re trying to ‘persuade’ voters here.
There is a good reason to focus in other areas for ‘mobilization’. Those areas are where your strongest supporters live and ground game is built to turn out higher rates of these voters than would otherwise happen. This is that 1-3% increase you hear about with a good ground game.
Truth is I don’t believe you can get more than maybe 1% higher turnout with the best ground operation but in a race like this it matters.
Thanks, Mike, I'm reading that in a close election, the granularity is what matters. I imagine there are some great, expensive, proprietary databases being deployed. Election result maps are some of the most fun to make (when they're made well...) Thanks for all the info you're putting out.
Hey Mike, really glad to be hearing from you more frequently to help me make sense of the election and all that’s happening. Your calm helps me remain calm. Also, glad to hear you’re busy. I see you “don’t have plans s but you have concepts” 🤪 of a documentary. Glad I can follow you here cuz Twitter was killing me!!
Mike, so appreciate your hard work explaining so much that is happening for us during this election, especially during such a busy week for you. It’s a pleasure to support your work. Best to you with the ongoing book tour & looking forward to your next update.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I still fail to comprehend the underlying drivers of the strong Latino support for Trump.
His immigration policies would result in, at best, 2nd class citizenship status for Latinos. A cessation of all immigration (Trump doesn't even pretend that legal immigration for non-Whites will be an option) would impart a body blow to the economy.
His abortion position already has disproportionate impact on Latino women and families.
Trump's position on entitlements, minimum wages, and worker's protections again would disproportionately disadvantage Latino families.
Check it out! As a hispanic woman from a family that votes Republican, I can attest to the truth this article states.
When Kamala visited the Texas border in 2021 (and not even the right part of the border) I remember listening to her speech and cringing. She simply didn’t get it. Not sure what people she had coaching her about this part of the country, but they were way off base. Mike’s work with George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign was much more on point. There’s a chapter in his new book that covers that as well. Totally recommend The Latino Century if you haven’t read it yet. I think Harris has different advisors now, and I also think they listen to Mike. It explains why (I think) they may be getting it now.
So illuminating! Absolutely you must witness history in South Carolina.
BTW, the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument in DC has records of the National Women’s Party and their campaign for women’s suffrage. They have scholars on staff I believe. Don’t know if they have the kinds of data you need, but it might be worth asking. Very cool place to visit, of course.
Hi Mike, I am a geography professor and among topics I teach are geodemographics, but I don't know a ton about how political campaigns use such data. At this point in the race, are campaigns looking at the neighborhood level (voting wards, Census blocks) or targeting broader areas (MSA's, counties, maybe Census Tracts) with how they roll out a ground game? At what level of granularity do you cease seeing a return on analytical effort?
Wow! What a great question. That’s why I love the people who subscribe here.
The campaigns have always been looking at neighborhood, precinct and census tract levels - only the media and pundits don’t. The ground games all
Start building in those MSA’s and precincts with the greatest ‘shifts’ or are targeting as demographic opportunities. These remain the longest focus because they’re trying to ‘persuade’ voters here.
There is a good reason to focus in other areas for ‘mobilization’. Those areas are where your strongest supporters live and ground game is built to turn out higher rates of these voters than would otherwise happen. This is that 1-3% increase you hear about with a good ground game.
Truth is I don’t believe you can get more than maybe 1% higher turnout with the best ground operation but in a race like this it matters.
Hope that helps
Thanks, Mike, I'm reading that in a close election, the granularity is what matters. I imagine there are some great, expensive, proprietary databases being deployed. Election result maps are some of the most fun to make (when they're made well...) Thanks for all the info you're putting out.
Hey Mike, really glad to be hearing from you more frequently to help me make sense of the election and all that’s happening. Your calm helps me remain calm. Also, glad to hear you’re busy. I see you “don’t have plans s but you have concepts” 🤪 of a documentary. Glad I can follow you here cuz Twitter was killing me!!
Loving all the new stuff
Welcome! Hoping to spend most of my time here writing in greater detail. Planning on posting a lot of content. You were warned!
Mike, so appreciate your hard work explaining so much that is happening for us during this election, especially during such a busy week for you. It’s a pleasure to support your work. Best to you with the ongoing book tour & looking forward to your next update.
I appreciate the analysis.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I still fail to comprehend the underlying drivers of the strong Latino support for Trump.
His immigration policies would result in, at best, 2nd class citizenship status for Latinos. A cessation of all immigration (Trump doesn't even pretend that legal immigration for non-Whites will be an option) would impart a body blow to the economy.
His abortion position already has disproportionate impact on Latino women and families.
Trump's position on entitlements, minimum wages, and worker's protections again would disproportionately disadvantage Latino families.
What am I missing?
Hi hw-
Mike hits the nail on the head explaining why Latinos vote Republican in The Daily Chela substack piece- Madrid: Moving Beyond Racial Identity
https://open.substack.com/pub/dailychela/p/madrid-moving-beyond-racial-identity?r=1r6229&utm_medium=ios
Check it out! As a hispanic woman from a family that votes Republican, I can attest to the truth this article states.
When Kamala visited the Texas border in 2021 (and not even the right part of the border) I remember listening to her speech and cringing. She simply didn’t get it. Not sure what people she had coaching her about this part of the country, but they were way off base. Mike’s work with George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign was much more on point. There’s a chapter in his new book that covers that as well. Totally recommend The Latino Century if you haven’t read it yet. I think Harris has different advisors now, and I also think they listen to Mike. It explains why (I think) they may be getting it now.
Thank you for the thoughtful, informative response.
So illuminating! Absolutely you must witness history in South Carolina.
BTW, the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument in DC has records of the National Women’s Party and their campaign for women’s suffrage. They have scholars on staff I believe. Don’t know if they have the kinds of data you need, but it might be worth asking. Very cool place to visit, of course.