If prior elections were decided by soccer moms, security moms, NASCAR dads, or even “the economy, stupid,” the 2016 presidential election will be determined by the NAs — the none of the above voters who have so far refused to support either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. For them, the election isn’t about mere dissatisfaction. It’s about rejection.
Comprising about 11% of the electorate in the critical swing states,
But, as a language and communications consultant, I’m listening to them very carefully, because they have become a distinct, determinative force in politics. Anger doesn’t begin to describe their personal outlook. Betrayal does.
They straddle both sides of the ideological spectrum. no trust in their elected officials, and no love, like or even tolerance for either of the presidential candidates thrust upon them.
After 10 years of failures by Washington, Wall Street and the parties they used to (somewhat) trust. For them, life is about survival, nothing more and nothing less.
They’re not the “low information” voters that conservative talk radio scorns. they blame America’s biggest institutions for the American peoples’ troubles, and they trust almost no one. Especially not the parties’ prospective nominees.
Two-thirds of the NA voters are women and more than a quarter are under age 30, compared with 18% of the electorate. These are struggling working class voters, the staple of the Democratic Party.
If elections were strictly about demographics, Clinton should be winning them. But she’s not.
Politically, they look more favorably on the Republicans. Just under half (49%) voted for Romney in 2012, while only 36% supported Obama — and they embrace conservatism over liberalism by better than 2 to 1 (45% to 21%).
If elections were strictly about party loyalty or ideology, Trump should be winning them. But he’s not.
Frank Luntz is an on-air contributor and analyst for CBS News and the Fox News Channel.