Throughout the last 50 years, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic racial and demographic transition that has resulted in a much more diverse racial and cultural makeup. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by 2032, people of color will be the majority of the American working class. This shift should bode well with members of the Democratic Party, as 80 percent of minorities identify as Democrats, relative to only 11 percent as Republicans and nine percent as independents. However, despite these trends, the Grand Old Party continues to hold both chambers of national congress, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislatures, and 31 governor’s mansions.

Despite having a demographic advantage among a growing number of minority voters, why is it that Democrats seem to lose so many elections? They have prioritized the wrong campaign strategy for too long. Democrats waste millions of dollars on unproductive advertisements that do not mobilize the necessary number of minorities on election day. The data backs this up: When turnout is high on election day, Democrats win. When turnout is low on election day ― as in 2010 and in 2014 elections ― Democrats lose. Yet, while data significantly points to turnout as the key to a successful campaign, operatives in many Democratic campaigns have instead chosen to focus on advertisement to persuade undecided voters in traditional swing states. Instead, campaign operations should modernize and focus on the more labor-intensive work of turning out minority voters who statistically vote less frequently, according to a Jan. 10, 2014 piece in the Atlantic.

Most Democratic campaigns focus on television advertisement. This is clear by the spending in 2012 and 2014 races where 80 percent of Democratic Senate campaign spending went to television ads. This extends to today. Since 2016, the Clinton Campaign and her allied super PACS have spent nearly $128 million on advertising. This may be a successful winning strategy due to Donald Trump’s extreme weakness as a candidate and large disapproval numbers by minorities, but this approach impair down-ballot democratic candidates who do not have such a weak opponent. Moderate Republicans may cast their votes for Clinton to oppose a radical Trump, but these voters will not vote against the incumbent Republican senator which they supported in 2010, thus weakening Democratic presence in the crucial Senate. Thus, Americans may end up with a Democratic president but a Republican national congress that will provide barriers and obstacles to any progressive legislation.

For decades, the target of television ads has been independent or undecided voters who have yet to make a choice on the election. Yet, studies have shown that independent and undecided voters are rapidly decreasing. According to a June 23 Vox article, voters are more polarized than they have been in any other election in the last 60 years and approximately only five percent of voters ― or about six million people ― are swing voters. These minorities often vote Democrat; however, there are many socioeconomic obstacles associated with voting. This is evident by the number of eligible minority voters who did not go out to the polls in 2012 to vote ― 25 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Although large portions of campaign budgets are spent on ads, studies have shown that television advertising is ineffective in modern elections. A May 18 study by Harvard political scientists Ryan Enos and Anthony Fowler looked at the influence of identical ads broadcasted into neighboring areas. One area received the traditional voter turnout services ― neighborhood canvassing, phone calls and direct mail ― while the other area did not. The result was that the region with the additional grassroots efforts received a seven percent higher turnout rate than the neighboring community. This may not seem like a large margin, but consider that President Barack Obama’s average battleground state margin of victory was around 4 percent in 2012.

Over two decades of research points to voter turnout as more crucial in winning elections. Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota has been using voter turnout approaches to hone a winning strategy for Democrats. He has won his elections by increasing voter turnout by focusing on personal contact. He has strategized hundreds of volunteers to canvass on his behalf and organized a “souls to the polls” program where local churchgoers are picked up after church and driven to polling places. Rep. Ellison has even worked to get the polls open on Sunday, so more working class individuals are able to vote on election day. He has won re-election since 2006 as a result of these successful strategies.

A permanent and organized system can be easily established to mobilize voters for a fraction of the cost it takes to bomb viewers with television ads. Lisa Bedolla, author of “Latino Politics,” has developed an online civic web that organizes voters by organizing campaign staff members and local volunteer leaders ― especially mothers, who she believes are crucial building blocks to form healthy voting habits in families that traditionally lack the motivation to vote. In battleground states such as Nevada, where Obama only won by 66,000 votes in 2012, Bedolla believes she can mobilize over 100,000 Latino voters at the cost of only $3.1 million. In comparison, the Clinton Campaign spent $2.5 million in ads in Nevada in just June alone, according to a June 28 NBC article.

It is time for Democrats to more effectively spend funds, specifically in crucial states such as Florida, Nevada and Ohio. In 2016, we have to direct resources to what we know will be successful: mobilizing minority voters to actually go out and vote on election days.