Is wooing the center worth alienating the base?

[drdigi420]

On one hand, the center swing votes are very attractive.

On the other, having half the base stay home because the alternative is just more of the same, just not quite as bad, doesn't seem like a winning strategy either.

[Iverson]

1. What availeth it ...

... to gain the world and lose your soul?

[DoNotRefill]

21. And what's the point...

of keeping ideologically pure if it guarantees you're unelectable?

That way, you can sit back, out of office, and complain, while the "moderates" gut everything you value...

[Iverson]

22. Here's a completely new idea.

I was saving this for publication in a refereed journal, but what the heck!
(ahem)
Maybe there are other choices besides complete ideological purity and selling out.

Whoa, I hope everyone was sitting down!

This insistence upon only two extremes is tiresome, as is the predictable questioning of the motives ...
"That way, you can sit back, out of office, and complain, ..."
... of those who argue against discarding the base.

Have a bipartisan day.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Being Realistic

There are a lot more people in the center that at the far left or far right, that's why it is wise to court the center.

[LeahMira]

25. The Center???

There are a lot more people in the center that at the far left or far right, that's why it is wise to court the center.


By any objective standard, "the center" in the U.S. has moved right. People talk about "the left" as if they were talking about a bunch of red-eyed radicals but "the left" in the U.S. would be seen as moderate in Canada or any of the western European nations.

I see no reason to court right wingers. I certainly see no reason to become right wingers simply because our political climate has become so skewed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. By your definition

That means most of the U.S. is now conservative. I don't agree. The center moves depending on how they are swayed. Face it, Bill Clinton did a nice job of swaying them our way. But, in general, we don't excel there.

[LeahMira]

51. I disagree.

That means most of the U.S. is now conservative.

Most of them are. We have no leftist candidate in the Democratic party and no significant leftist group in the U.S.

Face it, Bill Clinton did a nice job of swaying them our way.

Really? I don't think so at all. He simply held on to most of the ground that had been gained, in civil rights especially, but he did nothing to pull things to the left. You think NAFTA is leftist? You think "Don't ask, don't tell" is leftist? Sheesh? It's about as conservative right of center as you get.

The center moves depending on how they are swayed.

Sure, but I did say comparatively. The U.S. is way to the right of other western nations. Our "center" may look "center" to us, but philosophically or ideologically or by an objective standard, it's shifting from a little right-wing to ultra-right-wing.

[GreenArrow]

29. If you can't beat 'em join 'em

is a purely pragmatic philosophy. Personally, I find it repellent and agree completely with your observations.

[JohnLocke]

2. Yes.

[Cat Atomic]

3. Ask George in November.

He just shit on his base this week with his immigration proposals, and they're angry about it. I think it's going to end up costing him the election, personally. Assuing he doesn't steal it with electronic voting.

[meti57b]

8. I think they'll forgive him. Where else are they going to go.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. It depends on what you mean by "base"

If you mean minorities and the poor, the number of votes is not that large, those populations don't really have any illusions about the voting process, or the Democratic party in particular.

The grandchildren of the people who might have had such illusions forty years ago have either been subsumed into the justice system, or are more concerned with getting the rent paid and the lights back on to have a lot of interest in the doings of people with discretionary income.

[drdigi420]

6. base = democratic wing of the democratic party

not just minorities, but anyone that believes in helping the less fortunate, govt out of our personal lives, more regulation for corrupt corporations

going to the center leaves a lot of people dissillusioned by the party, going to the left energizes the core and gets more of them to the polls

going to the center does pick up attractive swing voters, tho

so, which strategy is a winner?

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. I think the situation has gone a little beyond that

While minorities are sharply over-represented in the ranks of the poor, whether peoples' faith traditions include a strong belief in the election process is more likely to depend on economics than ethnicity.

Politics, Inc. is a business just like anything else.

Only one candidate has even mentioned the words "Living Wage," and he is considered by "mainstream" Democrats to be unelectable.

For the disenfranchised, things have passed the point where a political solution is realistic.

[mazzarro]

11. I guess minorities should not bother with voting - we are the group

that is "taken for granted by the Democratic Party" and we have no impact whatsoever on the ins-and-outs of the party!

If you mean minorities and the poor, the number of votes is not that large, those populations don't really have any illusions about the voting process, or the Democratic party in particular.

Thanks a lot for enlightening me - I was of the opinion that my vote is still sort after! Silly me!

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. I'm sure both parties are glad to get any votes they can get

As I said, it is more of an economic question than one of ethnicity. Having the poor vote in large numbers would not be in the interest of the politicians of either party, nor the corporations that help them with their careers.

At the end of the day, however, Diebold's is the only vote that counts.

[Kanary]

48. Please remember this post the next time there are complaints

about poor people and minorities not voting, eh?

"If you mean minorities and the poor, the number of votes is not that large, those populations don't really have any
illusions about the voting process, or the Democratic party in particular."

Everytime there are angry posts about how poor folk don't vote, or how important it is to register them, I bring up that the party has basically turned it's back on them. Here it is in print, and I hope this sinks in this time.

Kanary, heading out to that ice floe.......

[wuushew]

5. I don't see how swing voters can exist in a polarized country

you either like shrub or not. Lets focus on getting out the vote and making sure disenfranchisement does not occur ala FL 2000.

[mlawson]

18. Those are the ones you see on TV, two days before the election,

worrying aloud over the most minute of points, obviously confused beyond help by "issues". I suspect that most of these hapless people wind up voting for whom they LIKE best, or looks or which one is tallest, or talks the best, or etc. etc.

Are you sure you want all of the people to vote????

[irishman53]

9. the Center.

The word for it in the sixties was Imperialism and today the words are economic globalization. Whatever the words used, it is the same attempt at worldwide domination by an economic system which favors all who adhere to, and who are also in, one particular group; namely white heterosexual men who are supportive of/ or at least amenable to, having a military that can, and will commit murder, mayhem and destruction whenever and wherever they need to, in the interest of keeping this hetero sexist culture of the Western world and it's people dominant and in control of all the major resources needed, such as timber, minerals, grazing land, Oil, Water etc., so as to consume much more than anyone else in the world while others die from poverty and disease. They will pray for them but they will also say that they are responsible for their own deaths and one thing you can be sure of, one thing they will never do, and that is cooperate with them to create a better world for all. Such talk is nonsense to them. Is that the center you wonder about wooing? It is here that you will also see most of the present front runners in the Democratic Party as well. Oh, they would not say of course that they are all for this kind of horrible domination of the world stuff but that is where they come from in the final analysis. All those front runners have earned their credentials and if the media pays attention to them then you know they are in the boy's club all right. There is no nice way to dominate the world militarily and economically.

If that nice way of doing it is what you believe then what you want is another Clinton. You want someone who sounds progressive but is as firmly entrenched in the world of the high, rich and mighty as George W Bush is today. Then the man you want is Dean who is the next Bill Clinton in the making. He says he wants to do this or do that progressive kind of policy but, Oh, you know, in today's political climate, you have to compromise or get nothing. One subject Bill Clinton never compromised on was the economic globalization issue. Did you notice this? Just so he could get that piece of legislation through, he pulled out all the pork he could find and laid it all out for our pig eating Congress and simply insisted they eat up.

The question to me doesn't have to do with whether or not the Democratic Party should woo the center as much as it is the people must demand the Democratic Party come back into the brand of progressive economic policies it once championed in the days of FDR and the New Deal. It must stop cold in it's tracks the militarism in America which calls for a New World Order and it must stop cold dead the instruments of domination today or namely the economic globalization movement of the WTO, the IMF et al who fully intend to suck the world dry of every last resource until we are all destroyed by their unremitting greed.

I have looked at all the candidates and the closest to what I am saying is Dennis Kucinich and you can see how much the media pays attention to him.

Sorry to be so long winded but this is my first post.

[dawgman]

10. wow what a first post! Welcome to DU. Stick around for a while

[newyawker99]

31. Hi irishman53!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Padraig18]

12. Need wooing the two groups be mutually-exclusive?

I see no reason that a platform cannot be established which is sufficiently acceptable to both groups.

[cryofan]

14. dean appeals to both center AND the base, huh?

What he does is govern from the center and deceive the base while campaigning...

[Padraig18]

16. Did my post even MENTION Dean?

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

15. Because the True Believers

believe that the Party has to cater to THEM and THEM ALONE, and to hell with anyone else.

I think the problem has more to do with semantics than anything else - all a Republican has to do is start shouting "liberal!" or "socialist!" or "he's raising taxes!" or some other equally idiotic catchphrase, and, for some reason, most Democrats get to jelly-spined to fight back.

[Padraig18]

17. That's one reason I like my candidate

MY candidate has a spine!:)

[dfong63]

13. no

the repubs win by keeping their base loyal. dems should learn from their example.

[maggrwaggr]

19. Listen up: you don't know who/what "the center" is.

Hell, I used to be one of those "center" voters.

Now I'm here. Now I'm angry. Now I'm a full believer in LIHOP/MIHOP.

There's your fucking "center" for you.

The LAST thing the "center" wants is to be PANDERED to.

Fuck that. The only way you're gonna win the center is to tell them the TRUTH.

The center are good decent people who don't trust politicians because they all seem a little creepy.

If you get them riled up you'll win in a landslide.

We are in a PERFECT opportunity to get them riled up because, well, there's a HELL of a lot to be mad about right now.

I say if the Dumbocratic party panders to the center in 2004, it will be the death of the Dumbocratic party.

[Speed8098]

23. "Dumbocratic party.???"

Uh, in case you missed it, WE ARE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

And I don't appreciate your denigration.

We need to appeal to the entire spectrum of the party, from the far left to the center. How is that pandering?

I'll not name any candidates here, but we have one man who appeals to that spectrum and he is the ONE candidate that can beat shrubbie and his minions.

Debate is good, I love it, but calling us the dumbocratic party smacks of freeperism and has no place at DU.

[Deja Q]

26. We're the ...

Democrat party.

Just as they are the Republican party.

How come "Democrat" must be followed by the suffix "ic"?

How does the Republicanic party sound? :crazy:

Or the Greenic party?! :eyes:

It's a petty argument, but if a silly designation takes precedence over a core, valid question or content, then you're damn right I'm going to slink down to the same petty level and respond.

[Iverson]

30. a suggestion

adjectives:
- Democratic
- Green
- Republican
- Libertarian
etc.

[Q]

27. You shouldn't accuse another longtime DUer of being a 'freeper'...

- Of course...the party doesn't like to be called 'dumb'...but they can't exactly be called 'smart' either as they lose or are cheated out of elections and do nothing about it.

- And for some odd reason...more and more Americans are simply staying home rather than bothering to vote. Could it be that they don't see a clear distinction between the parties on many of the issues?

[drdigi420]

33. i dont think they called the other a freeper

they just stated the freeperness of the sentiments expressed

there is a large difference

[info being]

38. I totally agree. Center = Uninformed. We need a candidate to INFORM

and create a movement based on truth and justice. Appeal to the 99% of Americans who have been disalusioned with a candidate worthy of our faith (Dennis) and we have a landslide.

[Kanary]

49. Very well said, maggrwaggr!!

Yeah, there's a lot of stupidity in the populace, but there are also a lot of people who respond to the TRUTH. Amazing, eh?

People are soooo tired of being deceived, and would welcome the opportunity to support and vote for someone who is actually courageous enough to be honest and straightforward.

The Dems have certainly lost a lot of ground (and many people suffered!) by trying to "woe" the "center". Pick a leader who actually leads, and has the integrity to say it like it is, and you'll find a lot of that "center" gravitating to the leader.

Kanary

[WilliamPitt]

32. Yes. Winning is a good thing.

Whatever alienation the base feels will be more than soothed by having a Democrat in office they can push with effect.

[drdigi420]

35. Im not sure that wooing the center is a winning policy

firing up the base to get out the vote seems to be much more effective, especially considering the turnout for Nader

i find a lot of likely democrat voters feeling that there is no real difference between the parties, which is why they don't bother to vote.

these are the voters we need to hang on to, losing 2 voters to gain 1 can't be a winning strategy

if the democrats would return to what it really means to be a democrat, instead of just being another arm of the corporate interests, more voters would feel their vote made a difference.

[MadHound]

41. Ooo, just like the base was soothed by Clinton?

You know, when he started shipping well paying(Union) manufacturing jobs overseas with NAFTA. Was the base soothed when he endorsed media monopoly with the '96 Telecom Act? Was the base soothed by Clinton's ramp up of the War on Drugs? Was the base soothed by Clinton's welfare "reform"

Hell no, the base was betrayed and pissed off, we still are. Clinton talked a good Democratic game, but by his actions he proofed himself to be a 'Pug. Please, a real Dem, like Truman, would have simply ordered gays to be accepted into the military(like Truman did integrating the Army). Instead Clinton came up with the abomination known as don't ask, don't tell.

God save us from another Dem like Clinton. What we need is a strong, true to their roots Dem, one who will do what is right, not what is politically expedient.

God forbid we get another wishy washy spineless Dem who is beholden to corporate interests. It will not only be the undoing of the Democratic party, it will be a mortal failure for this country.

[Cleita]

34. The center will vote for Bush or a third party candidate

no matter what carrots are dangled in front of them.

[economic justice]

40. I disagree

They went with Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996. They also were with Gore, just not to the extent that Clinton controlled the center. A "purist" that will please the far left here at DU just can't win. The "center" is the swing vote as to whether we win or lose. Simple as that. (If history is any guide.)

[Cleita]

45. Yes, but they voted for Bush more than Gore in 2000,

so if historical example is followed, they will vote for Bush again especially if Rove pulls a political rabbit out of his hat like the "popular war time President" one.

[Silverhair]

36. The Base is NOT strong enough to win elections by itself.

Everything else logically follows from that truth.

[economic justice]

39. Exactly right

That is so very true and history has shown us that time and time again.

[Iverson]

44. ... and some illogical things too.

Here's one that's just a laugh riot! (hee hee, hyuk)
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Let's (guffaw) ignore 'em altogether (bfffff ha ha ha ha!) because they can't win an election by themselves!

(BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA! OH GOD I CAN'T STAND IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOO HOO HOO HOO!!)
(gasp, gasp)
...

[info being]

37. This year we have the luxury of getting a true Liberal elected

It will be our last chance in decades, and we have the right guy - DK.

[Silverhair]

46. You are smoking some strong stuff. Maybe you better ease off a

bit and reconnect with reality.

[economic justice]

42. One argument

To me, one argument blows the "alternative is just more of the same, just not quite as bad," thinking out of the water:

Bush vs Gore vs Nader 2000

Do you have ANY doubt that life would be VERY different with President Gore?

[Iverson]

43. Yes, let's explore that.

Gore won Florida and the election, yet Bush was inaugurated. Let's ask the Congressional Black Caucus about this sterling example of adequate commitment to democratic principles, hm?

[economic justice]

50. I agree

No doubt about that.....what's the point though? I think Florida was a sham too. Gore didn't run as a leftist. He would have been what the poster calls an alternative that would just be "more of the same." I disagree, life would be much different under Gore. Until close to the end of the campaign, Gore w/ Lieberman ran a very centrist campaign. His turn left cost him his OWN state! Florida shouldn't have been an issue with so much economic success, etc. At any rate, I don't see how your comment and mine differ?

[hellhathnofury]

47. No.

For every centrist vote you'll pick you'll lose 1.5 votes of your base.

[arewethereyet]

52. why not keep both ?

Carter did it, Clinton did it. Edwards can do it too.

[onecitizen]

53. IMO NO.........

I'm sick of swing voters!