Election strategy shifts from swing voters to partisan turnout

[UpInArms]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4072201.html

CHICHESTER, N.H. -- In a fundamental reassessment of presidential political strategy, White House and Democratic Party officials say that turning out the core Republican and Democratic voters will be more critical to next year's election than winning independent voters, long a prime target in national campaigns.

On this Labor Day weekend, 15 months before the general election, party strategists are building what are almost certain to be the most expensive and ambitious turn-out-the-vote operations in history, in a reflection of this calculation. In the 2002 congressional elections, the Republican Party did not begin assembling its turnout operation until four months before Election Day.

<snip>

"There's a realization, having looked at the past few elections, that the party that motivates their base -- that makes their base emotional and turn out -- has a much higher likelihood of success on Election Day," said Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser to Bush's reelection campaign.

Stanley Greenberg, the Democratic pollster who advised Bill Clinton when he won the presidency by appealing to swing voters 13 years ago, said: "I don't see a decline in independents. But what has happened is the partisans have dominated because their turnout is higher and they vote with greater and greater unity."

...more...

if this is accurate, then I do believe that the Dems have the 2004 elections to lose - because winning is theirs - I don't believe that the pukes can even get any true enthusiasm up for the * junta and its corrupt crew

[realFedUp]

1. I guess we'll be hearing a lot of "Onward, Christian Soldiers"

from the Bush Junta...maybe they can get a portable
Ten Commandments monument on wheels to fire up their
base.

[aquart]

2. What? You mean do the opposite of DLC preaching?

Gosh, that's a surprise. Or maybe not, considering how brilliantly they lost Congress.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Hmmmmmmmmm

If this is true, if Dem party officials are saying this, it bodes well for Dean to become more mainstreamed with the Dem party people who have been after him. Good stuff.

[The Magistrate]

17. Indeed, Mr. Pitt

So-called independent voters have latent party identifications. Though they claim to, and often feel that they do, make their decision by consideration of the candidate and issues, in fact, it is generally an emotional surge which sways them at last. The quantity of raw emotion a campaign can generate and the fervency of its supporters, is the decisive factor in swinging "swing" voters. They either are swung to their latent loyalties by sufficient arousal, or sit on their hands, feeling uninvolved.

[Upfront]

20. Don't Agree

It bodes well for the Dem party officials to become more mainstreamed with the Dean program. It looks like some of them are starting to get it. We dam well want our country back and Bush lite boot licking won't work. Go Dean

[jiacinto]

4. The base isn't enough to win

But you do need to get them AND the swing voters out in order to win.

[Dan]

6. The swing voters...

Well, the Democrats can't relax but lets look at the voter demographics:

The groups that voted for Bush in 2000 and do you think that they will vote for him in the 2004:
* Military Voters - and will the GOP demand that the military
absentee ballots be counted.
* Federal Workers
* Voters in Nevada (reference the potential nuclear cleanup
/ repository being proposed, which the Bush Admin said would
not be located there during the campaign.
* Those that believe the bs about being a compassionate con-
servative (some pro-choice voters that bought into that)..
* Moderate GOP voters that believed that Powell, etc. would be
a moderating influence and stablizing force for this admin.
* Veterans that now are seeing his proposals for on Veterans
issues.
* Teachers that may have believed the crap about the Texas
educational system - that was based on lies.
* Even Texans that are facing their own state hell as a direct
and indirect result of his policies and decisions (case in
point, ENRON workers that are restricted in what legal
actions and compensations that they can realize).
* Ethical people of all political persuasions - this groups
is an ethical nightmare;
* I concede that the morality group might vote for Bush in
2004, because it is possible that he and Laura don't have
sex.
* Greens that voted for Nader - how will they vote in the
future.
* The Jewish voters that voted for Buchanan (sic) might this
time choose to vote for a democrat.
* Arabic / Muslim voters that voted GOP - having seen their
young men targeted unfairly based on race/ethnicity will
they vote for him (ie from what I read approximately 90%
of the either Florida or Michigan Muslim community voted
for Bush.
* I would imagine a lot of older voters that lived through
WWII - and can appreciate this "pre-emtive doctrine" must
have some serious second thoughts about his foreign policy.
* But we also need some help from foreign governments - sadly
they will have to continue their policies of targeting
states where Bush has promoted trade policies to the ben-
efit of the states (because of potential votes).
* The Retired and Elderly (AARP) will they support the crap
of this admin? Especially now, people are slowly beginning
to understand and appreciate the impact of his having
spent and redistributed the wealth of this nation to the
already rich. Combined with his total indifference to the
nations masses.
* I don't know if our 51st and 52nd states will be allowed to
vote in 2004, but given his indifference to their economic
plights they might vote against him (Afganistan and Iraq)
for those that don't understand the purpose of empire build-
ing.
* NewYorkers that maybe now realize that he was and is willing
to gamble on the health of the workers (reference the EPA
issues right after 911) so that the Corporations can
continue business as usual.
* Need I ask about those workers that might see an increase
in the number of hours that they might be required to work
without OT in the future.
* The recently unemployed combined with the ripple effect of
high unemployment - and even worse, the loss of the ability
within the states to provide social programs to cushion the
effects of high unemployment.
* Those that preach the bs of self-reliance that no longer
have jobs, and now maybe, are beginning to appreciate that
self reliance is not valid when Federal policies made in
Washington create conditions that negate your personal
abilities to economically survive.
* Welfare workers that now are asked to work 40 hours per week
with less and less support to help them in the transition.

I guess I could continue, the only people that I can see that would want to vote for this asswipe in the whitehouse are people like the
the idiot that writes the editorial for the Seattle Times - and he is only writing it because of personal greed; Not because he has the best interest of the nation at heart.

Sorry if I rambled... I really dislike Bush. That asshole is going to cost my family a $2-4,000 campaign donation once the Dem settles on a candidate.

[jiacinto]

7. Believe me there are people who will vote for Bush

And there are more of them than you think.

[w4rma]

19. Yup. That's why we need to make sure they know whose fault their problems

stem from: Bush*

[Tansy_Gold]

21. 17%

I was gonna post this in another thread and then aborted it; didn't want to get in a flamefest. But now my blood pressure's up and I gotta vent.

From Jim Hightower's "Thieves in High Places," p. 105 --

"Mandate? Hold your tiny pony right there, George. The great majority of the people either didn't vote or voted against your autocratic, plutocratic regime. Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reports that in the <2002> congressional races, where Bush claims his mandate, only about one-third of eligible voters could stomach casting a ballot. And 15 percent voted for Democrats, while 1.1 percent voted for candidates from Libertarian, Green, Working Families, Independent, or other parties.
"So let's blow the foam off this beer. THE 'BIG MANDATE' THAT THE BUSHITES ARE CLAIMING FOR THEMSELVES COMES DOWN TO A PUNY 17 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE.
"That's the Republican base, not a juggernaut. It's the same 17 percent that they won twenty years ago in the midterm elections during the Reagan infatuation, and it's nearly three points less than they got in the '94 midterms when Newt Gingrich surged to power."

. . .

"But what are the Democrats going to do to break -- dare we dream? -- 15 percent? The group now controlling the party apparatus calls itself the Democratic Leadership Council. It's corporate-funded, has a Republican-lite agenda, and practices political minimalism. Forget the party's base, is the DLC's message -- instead appeal to a narrow strata of conservative-tilting soccer moms and office-park dads."

The DLC may have financed Clinton's election in 92, but I think far more credit is due to Clinton and his personality than anything else. He offered a dramatic contrast to the obnoxious, boring, and unpleasant Bush-41 in tough economic times, but Clinton didn't have the party support to get his agenda established AND he didn't have their support when the Arkansas Project shifted into high gear. All that bs could have been quashed, IF he had had the support of the party; even the DLC didn't come to his aid.

Gore, on the other hand, had DLC support and was squeaky clean when it came to sex scandals, but he simply didn't have the personality (and I'm speaking as someone who believed then and believes now Gore would have made one helluva better president than our awol asshole) to overcome the negatives, the biggest of which was the fact that the DLC had lost the Democratic base. It wasn't just Gore and it wasn't just Nader and it wasn't just the Baker team in Florida -- it was a combination of all those and more factors. But I firmly believe that had any one of those factors been removed -- had Gore appealed more to the Democratic base and less to the Repuke-lite soccer moms, etc -- we'd have a very different administration in power right now and a very, very different world.

The Repuke base is NOT that strong, Carlos. It consists of that aristocratic elite who is trying to take us back to the 1350's and the few benighted souls who may not be in that elite but have no problem being its lackeys and henchmen. What you and the other DLCers would have us do is, essentially, join them: support the big business and profit-before-people and the sanctity of private property rights folks and forget that labor creates ALL wealth and we all live together on a very public planet.

This was supposed to be a rant that let off some of the steam and brought my blood pressure down. I don't think it worked.

Tansy Gold, madder'n hell and not taking it any more

[UpInArms]

12. great list Dan!

in response to

* Arabic / Muslim voters that voted GOP - having seen their
young men targeted unfairly based on race/ethnicity will
they vote for him (ie from what I read approximately 90%
of the either Florida or Michigan Muslim community voted
for Bush.

I found this article http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030831_629.html

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks and the crackdown that followed, American Muslim leaders generally had come to believe they had made a mistake.

In 2000, they made their first unified endorsement in a presidential race, backing George W. Bush. Many thought he would take a harder line against Israel, and, based on statements he made while campaigning, would protect the rights of immigrants facing deportation.

Muslims say they were disappointed on both counts. Now, feeling the additional sting of being scrutinized in the domestic hunt for terrorists, they are mobilizing to express their anger at the polls in 2004.

...more...

[Arun29]

13. Dan: Exactly!

This is a very positive article for the base of the Dem party and DUers. 50% of eligible voters vote and nowhere near that number benefits from the war/fear/recession/military & oil investment axis . . . .

Bush gives the bulk of his tax cuts to the top 2% and he expects to drive his base with a "get out the vote" campaign? Sure, the $2,000 checks will roll in, but the $50 checks will out number them by close to 10 to 1, saying nothing of the fact that this will not all be about money.

Bush is eminently beatable. The choice comes down to 5 names for me, but we will stand by every one of them. Unless of course you are some kind of green party republican operative/ill-informed righteous person. Let's first watch Arnold go down . . .

[PAMod]

5. Great link...

this is what I have been thinking with regard to Dean's strategy during the primary season.

He has been criticized by some of the opposition on DU for engineering an anger driven crusade, but history has always shown that outrage/hate is a strong unifying tool.

IMHO, fire up the party faithful 'til the nomination is in the bag, then point the entire electorate to the future.

[legin]

8. I never fails to amaze me

how these fucking professional pollsters manage to come to their conclusions about one year after everybody else on the planet has.

[legin]

10. And

will there be an apology for letting Cynthia Mckinney dangle in the wind.....

...Perhaps ?

...Maybe ?

[AP]

9. I think there's another angle to this -- party identification vs loyalty

I've read that more and more people are registering independant. In some states, it's the largest block of voters. However, I've read as well, that many people do this, even though, when it comes down to it they vote according to expected Dem-Rep demographi cs. (With many Ind's breaking Democratic, in the way The Emerging Democratic Majority predicts.)

To make a long story short, even though a third of voters are calling themselves independant, and pretending, in some cases, until the last minute, that they're undecided, people still vote, predictably according to traditional Dem-Rep-3rd Party patterns/demographics. You may say that you're a college-educated, middle class child of an immigrant Californian Independant, but you're still going to vote for the Democrat 99 times out of 100.

Therefore, when people say they need to get out the base, what they're realizing is that they don't need a third strategy to attract Independants (who, although they behave a little differently in terms of party identification, are actually behaving predictable in terms of party loyalty). Candidates just need to do the same things they're doing for people who identify themselves as Democrats. That is NOT saying t he nominee doesn't have to have a platform that appeals to lot of people towards the middle of the bell-curve, becuase that's not only where most voters are located, it's where most of your own party members are located. Clinton energized a lot of the democratic base -- middle class and working class people -- because of "it's the economy, stupid" which some might see as moderation, but is, in fact, quite energizing during a Bush presidency.

Does that make sense?0

[Merlin]

11. Interesting observation.

You're saying, essentially, that the so-called independents are not really so independent, and that only a subset of them is truly "undecided". That seems to make sense. One would think by now the pollsters would have been able to put some numbers on this.

[AP]

14. Yeah, it's not like you have to appeal to Independants

by being a little Democratic and a little Republican (based on the apparently false presumption that people are calling themselves Ind because they share characteristics of both parties' philosophies). You get the Democratic-Independants by telling them you're a Democrat. (But the meaning of Democrat has shifted slightly, but is still pro-middle class, pro-opportunity, pro-diversity/tolerance).n

[The Magistrate]

18. An Excellent Comment, Mr. A.P.

You have put it in a nutshell, my friend.

[tedoll78]

15. I think..

for whomever is our nominee.. that we need to fire-up the base to the extreme. Get Democrat turnout maximized. Go door-to-door in districts where Gore won with more than 55% of the vote, and get those people registered and voting early (by absentee, if possible).

Then, via research, find-out what issues Independents have hang-ups on. When our candidate has his/her infomercials (I've been screaming for these since 2000), we should then address those issues with full clarity to the point where we can tip those Indys to our column. Infomercials worked for Perot, so they can work for us.

[farmboxer]

16. Republican Stradegy: Voting Machines, or Another

coup? Don't forget the Republican media.