Here’s Proof NY Swing Voters Want Solutions, Not Just Tough-on-Crime and Harsh Immigration Rhetoric.

There is a deeply-rooted media and political narrative that insists tough-on-crime and tough-on-immigration messages are what works with most voters. This line of thinking encourages members of both major parties to adopt this messaging if they want to win elections in swing districts.

But the NYCLU now has new polling data that shows this narrative has it exactly backwards – New York politicians don’t have to run from their own shadows. What voters in swing districts want most are supports and resources.

The prevailing political logic that calls for more police, jails, and shunning immigrants has been around for what seems like forever. There was a brief window of progress in New York, when the State Legislature passed historic bail reform legislation in 2019. That legislation sought to reduce the number of people held in jail simply because of how much money they have in their bank account. There were other reforms, like Raise the Age, discovery reform, and the HALT Solitary Confinement Act. And, with the uprisings for racial justice in 2020, the press and politicians began speaking as though they understood we had a responsibility to fund communities and not just cops.

But the backtracking was swift. The state legislature rolled back bail reform three times over the last five years at the Governor’s urging.

Much of the narrative that insists tough-on-crime and tough-on-immigration messages are the only way to talk about these issues is based on thin evidence.

Since coming into office in 2022, Mayor Eric Adams has assailed the bail laws, discovery, solitary and Raise the Age reforms, and has called for more police — and more aggressive police action — than we’ve seen in years.

The message from Hochul, Adams, and other New York politicians has been clear: Only cops and jails are political winners.

Since 2022, New York has also experienced around 200,000 migrants arriving in New York City to escape persecution and in search of a better life for themselves and their families. Adams and Gov. Hochul, have called for harsh immigration crackdowns at the federal level and Adams even warned that migrants would “destroy” New York City.

Democrats at the national level broadly became convinced they had to tack right on immigration.

Many of them backed a bill in Congress this year that would codify much of President Trump’s draconian immigration agenda. Gov. Hochul supported the legislation as did then New York Congressional candidate Tom Suozzi. When Suozzi won his special election race, the media and politicos broadly portrayed his victory as a roadmap for other Democrats for how to talk about immigration.

But the NYCLU just released polling conducted for us by Lake Research Partners that shows solutions-oriented messages beat tough-on-crime and immigration messages with voters in two sample battleground congressional districts, NY-19 (Catskills, Hudson Valley, Southern Tier and Finger Lakes regions) and NY-22 (Syracuse, Utica, Rome).

Messages that called for tackling the root causes of crime by investing in affordable housing, mental health treatment, quality schools, and good jobs and not expecting police to solve every social problem by locking people up were viewed favorably by 71 percent of survey respondents.

Majorities of voters across the two districts indicate they would be more likely to vote for their member of congress for taking this position (63 percent would be more likely to vote for such a candidate compared to just nine percent who would be less likely).

Contrasting investments that make communities safer with the $200 billion the U.S. spends every year to put people behind bars resonates with 62 percent of voters.

The survey also showed a plurality would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate if they supported a balanced and humane approach to immigration—including ensuring that states have the resources they need to welcome new arrivals, and DREAMers and that other longtime residents have a roadmap to citizenship (49 percent would be more likely to vote for such a candidate compared to 34 percent who would be less likely).

Similarly, 61 percent of voters responded favorably to an immigration message that said “People who are immigrants work hard, pay taxes, build and own small businesses, and fill jobs in industries facing worker shortages. Hard-working Americans, including immigrant workers, have fueled the country’s economic comeback. We need a balanced approach to immigration that addresses the challenges at the border and includes pathways to citizenship for DREAMers and other longtime residents.”

Critically, a Democratic candidate’s solutions-oriented argument on public safety beats tough-on-crime and fear-based framings of the debate by a Republican candidate. It also outperforms a Democratic candidate’s tough-on-crime messaging.

In a head-to-head between a Democratic candidate’s solutions-oriented message on public safety and a Republican candidate’s fear-based and tough-on-crime message, the Democrat beats the Republican 36 percent to 32 percent, with the remaining third of voters (33 percent) undecided or opting for another candidate. But in a head-to-head between a Democratic candidate’s tough-on-crime message and a Republican candidate’s fear-based and tough-on-crime message, the Republican candidate wins by a whopping 17 points: 35 percent to 18 percent, with 48 percent undecided or opting for another candidate.

The wholistic safety message also generates greater intensity of support which could help to drive up voter turnout, and it performs well with independent voters.

The survey shows that the status quo messaging isn’t working for Democrats. What voters in these districts have heard to date is making them more likely to vote Republican today, with 42 percent of voters saying they are more likely to vote for Republicans compared to 27 percent who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Much of the narrative that insists tough-on-crime and tough-on-immigration messages are the only way to talk about these issues is based on thin evidence. A candidate who uses this rhetoric wins and thus, it must be because they used this messaging, or so the story goes. But this logic is simplistic and often ignores other factors that play a role in successful campaigns.

Our survey results offer real, verifiable, and statistically sound proof that solutions-oriented messages work, and they work as well or better than the alternative in battle ground areas. New York politicians would be wise to take note.

Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey via phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached 600 likely voters across New York’s 19th and 22nd Congressional Districts. The survey was conducted March 14 – March 21, 2024. The margin of error is +/-4.0 percent.