David Shor

This article is about the American political consultant. For the television writer, see David Shore.

David Shor (born 1991)^[1] is an American data scientist and political consultant known for analyzing political polls.^[2] He serves as head of data science with Blue Rose Research^[1] in New York City,^[3] and is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.^[4] A self-described socialist, Shor has been described as a center-left "data guru" and advised a number of liberal political action committees during the 2020 United States elections.^[5][6][7][8] He operated the Future Forward PAC, the Harris campaign's main Super PAC and leading fundraising vehicle, along with Anita Dunn and Kara Swisher in the 2024 presidential election.^[9]

David Shor
Born	1991 (age 33–34)
Nationality	American
Alma mater	Florida International University
Occupations	Data scientist political consultant
Employers	Civis Analytics OpenLabs Blue Rose Research
Political party	Democratic Party

Early life

Shor grew up in Miami, Florida, in a Sephardic Jewish family of Moroccan origins.^[10] Shor's parents were born in Israel and his brother served in the Israel Defense Forces' Golani Brigade. He has said that his mother is a Haaretz subscriber.^[11]

He holds a mathematics degree from Florida International University.^[12] Shor was a precocious child and gifted in mathematics, starting his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 and finishing at the age of 17.^[13] Shor was awarded the Math in Moscow scholarship in fall 2009.^[14]

Career

Shor joined the Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign at the age of 20,^[15] working on the Chicago-based team that tracked internal and external polls and developed forecasts.^[16] The team Shor worked with developed a polling forecasting model, known as "The Golden Report",^[17] that projected Obama's vote share within one percentage point in eight of the nine battleground states.^[18] New York Magazine described Shor as the "in-house Nate Silver" of the Obama campaign.^[5][11]

(((David Shor))) @davidshor

Post-MLK-assasination [sic] race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. http://omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf

May 28, 2020^[19]

Shor then worked as a senior data scientist with Civis Analytics in Chicago^[13] for seven years,^[20] where he operated the company's web-based survey.^[21] On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted a summary of an academic study by Omar Wasow, a black political scientist at Princeton University, that argued riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination likely tipped the 1968 presidential election in Richard Nixon's favor.^[22] Some critics argued that Shor's tweet, which was posted during the height of the George Floyd protests, could be interpreted as criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.^[23] Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor's tweet threatened their safety."^[24] Shor apologized for the tweet on May 29, and he was fired from Civis Analytics a few days later.^[24]

Shor's firing has been cited as an example of "the excesses of so-called cancel culture."^[25][26] Political scientist and journalist Yascha Mounk wrote that Shor had been "punished for doing something that most wouldn't even consider objectionable."^[27] Vox editor and columnist Matthew Yglesias condemned the idea "that it's categorically wrong for a person – or at least a white person – to criticize on tactical or other grounds anything being done in the name of racial justice," which he claimed was common among Shor's progressive critics.^[28]

Since 2020, his work at Blue Rose Research aims to develop a data-based model to predict the outcome of future elections on the basis of simulations, designed in particular to advise the Democratic Party in campaign strategies.^[29] Shor is an advocate for what he terms "popularism", the idea that Democrats should campaign on a strategy of focusing on issues that enjoy electoral popularity, such as supporting specific economic issues over polarizing social and cultural issues.^[29][30] Some political analysts, including Michael Podhorzer, have criticized his work for a lack of transparency regarding his methods and data sources.^[29]

Shor has prominently argued since the 2024 election that Gen Z is the most conservative generation in decades, even more than Baby Boomers which makes its electorally necessary for Democrats to moderate. Jean M. Twenge has criticized this argument on the grounds that it's based on a single year's data and that most long-term and other available evidence contradicts it. She further argues that 2024's swing may been a "one-off event" as a result of Gen Z's anti-establishment attitudes and that they are more liberal than other generations on specific issues and less likely to identify as conservative.^[31]