“Affordability” has now been embraced even by politicians who haven’t pushed a shopping cart since the Clinton administration. A record 89 percent of Americans say government corruption is widespread. And even mainstream liberal media is declaring that populism is dominating politics right now — so much so that Politico has an entire section devoted to the topic.
But when it comes to winning swing voters, it’s not enough to speak like an elite-hating, anti-corruption populist whose number one priority is household costs. A key new study concludes that if you want to reach past your base, it will also behoove you to speak in concrete terms, to avoid sermonizing, and to steer clear of words you wouldn’t use in polite company.
Kicking the Tires
Based on a survey of 6,100 respondents, the study by the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative (RUBI) and the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP) entitled “Kitchen Table Messaging for the Populist Era” kicks the tires on the populism-aspiring, affordability-fueled, corruption-attuned vehicle the Democratic Party is driving into the November midterms.
The researchers tested thirteen economic populist messages, some written by the study’s authors and others adapted from real-world Democratic candidates and progressive messaging outfits. To make sure the exercise didn’t take place in a vacuum, each respondent first heard a Republican attack message modeled on what’s in frequent rotation on the GOP playlist right now, then rated three of the Democratic messages.
RUBI and CWCP paid particular attention to the roughly one-quarter of the population deemed persuadable — theoretically willing to consider dancing with a Democratic candidate. This group is made up of three subsets: those who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 but are not planning to vote Republican in 2028 (“Trump waverers”), likely voters who haven’t decided which party to back in this November’s congressional races (“undecideds”), and those who identify as independents and don’t lean toward either party (“independents”). The survey also included an oversample of 1,100 rural respondents.
Respondents rated how likely they would be to vote for each candidate on a five-point scale. The researchers then subtracted the share who said they were unlikely to vote for the candidate from the share who said they were likely to, producing a “net vote intent” score for each message.
The upshot is that prioritizing affordability, assailing corrupt politics, and going against the establishment all sound great to voters. But if Democrats stumble over the message, they may find themselves rejected at the ballot box.
What Works and What Tanks
The study sorts the populism messaging Democrats are running with these days into three genres: “kitchen-table” messages, which name rising costs, assign blame, and promise action; “divide-and-conquer” messages, which lecture voters on how elites maintain power by setting groups against each other; and “anti-Trump/oligarchy” messages, which blame Trump or billionaires (or both) for the affordability crisis and much else.
And it turns out the latter two — in which the candidates lambast their rivals (whom these swing voters may have voted for in the past) as well as the machinations of sophisticated political operatives — are both underwater relative to the GOP’s standard lines of attack.
“Divide-and-conquer” is a real loser, generating an 8-point net vote intent deficit relative to the Republican messaging. “Anti-Trump/oligarchy” won’t do a candidate any favors either, creating a 4-point deficit.
“Kitchen-table” messaging, meanwhile, swings on-the-fence voters up to 15 points in Democrats’ favor, as demonstrated by the top-testing message:
Most people just want to work hard, get ahead, and give their kids a better shot — and they should be able to. But the cost of rent, groceries, and health care keeps going up faster than working families can keep up, and paychecks just aren’t stretching the way they used to. I’m going to bring those costs down for working people, make sure the biggest corporations pay their fair share, and crack down on corruption and the people who game the system for themselves. Hard work should pay off again — that’s the American way.
Contrast this with the following clunker, which swung persuadable voters 18 points the other way, toward the Republican candidate:
Every family, of every color and background, deserves to have what we need. But today, Republicans spread lies to keep us divided while they abduct our neighbors, start wars abroad and jack up prices. If you want to know who took your money, it’s the people with all the money. And if billionaires and Republicans can talk you into thinking Black people and new immigrants are to blame for your hard times, they will keep getting away with it. The many — white, Black, and brown — can take on the money by voting for leaders who will fund our futures and respect our freedoms.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Assuming all else about them is equal, or at least unknown, which of these two speakers sounds more convincing? The one with the human-to-human approach, who stresses the dignity of work, talks about family, and promises to bring your costs down? Or the one who talks about the color of other people’s skin, denigrates a party you maybe once voted for, and has apparently decided you’re a charity case?
How to Win On-the-Fence Voters
The report closes with a handy checklist for Democratic suitors. Candidates, the researchers advise, should unite people around a shared, household-level vision, lead with concrete costs, call out corruption and promise to fix it, frame their messaging around hard work, and name real people and real numbers.
They should not broaden their anti-corruption mission into all-out class war, build their message around explaining the opposition’s divide-and-conquer tactics, make Trump the main story, or use vulgar words.
That last piece of advice may seem counterintuitive to aspiring populists. The focus-group memo does indicate that showing passion is key to conveying sincerity and connecting with voters. And there’s no question Americans are more tolerant of four-letter words than they were a generation ago.
But in the researchers’ testing, clean language beat profanity with Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike. And as Seth Moulton learned in this month’s Massachusetts Senate primary, where his salty language didn’t spare him a roughly 30-point drubbing by Ed Markey, turning up the volume doesn’t make the tune you picked any catchier.
The Immigration Question
One more thing to bear in mind: the best score any message earned with any of the three persuadable groups came from one of the GOP lines. Among Trump waverers, the following Republican immigration message posted a net vote intent score of +56, topping every Democratic message:
Washington threw our borders wide open and you are footing the bill. Over a million people who broke our laws are living in comfort on the taxpayer’s dime while veterans sleep on park benches. I will secure the border, end the taxpayer handouts, and put American families first.
For perspective, across the full sample this was the third least effective of all fifteen messages tested, with a net score of just +13 — 37 points behind the best-performing Democratic message. But it still landed in positive territory, and any Democrat hoping to pick up Trump voters who are drifting away from the GOP has to figure out a way to speak to the concerns behind it in a humane and compelling way.