Where the Votes Are - the 40/40/20 Rule

[dpbrown]

It can be shown with simple math that progressives will determine the outcome of the next election (one way or the other). Conservatives (and the "centrists" who want to dominate the Democratic Party) don't want you to understand this.

We start with the numbers from the 2000 election. (They're rounded off, of course. We all know Gore won.)

The 2000 election numbers:

50 million - Bush
50 million - Gore
3 million - Nader

Now, we could stop right here, easily enough ascertain by adding 50 million and 3 million to deduce from the fact that 53 million is BIGGER than 50 million that AMERICA VOTES FOR LIBERALS, but let's dig a little deeper.

Every election consultant worth his or her salt believes in the 40/40/20 rule - it's like a religion to them.

Applying that rule shows us that:

40 million - core Republicans for Bush
40 million - core Democrats for Gore
20 million - "independents" split between Gore and Bush

Splitting the "independents" shows us that:

10 million - independents for Bush
10 million - independents for Gore

We know the "core" is in the middle, because that's how a bell curve works. Applying the bell curve to the independents gives us:

5 million - independents for Bush who wished he were more "conservative"
5 million - independents for Bush who wished he were more "compassionate" - lol, okay, liberal
5 million - independents for Gore who wished he were more "conservative"
5 million - independents for Gore who wished he were more progressive, liberal, or populist

That's the way a bell curve works - I didn't invent this concept.

Now, Nader got 3 million votes. It's pretty safe to surmise that ALL the votes for Nader are lined up on the ONE SIDE of the Gore bell curve, isn't it?

So then we look at the bell curves, and the numbers:

5 million - wished Bush were more conservative - voted Bush
40 million - core Republicans, voted Bush
5 million - wished Bush were more "liberal" - voted Bush

5 million - wished Gore were more conservative - voted Gore
40 million - core Democrats, voted Gore
5 million - wished Gore were more progressive, liberal, populist - voted Gore
3 million - wished Gore were more progressive, liberal, populist - voted Nader

Now, again putting aside the simple math that 53 million beats 50 million any way you look at it, we look at another interesting phenomenon:

48 million - core Democrats, plus liberal-leaning independents, plus Nader voters
~~ NEARLY EQUALS ~~
50 million - conservative-leaning Bush voters, core Republicans, liberal-leaning Bush voters - EVERY BUSH VOTE

So where are the voters to cover that spread?

5 million - WHO ALREADY VOTED FOR GORE ONCE

So how many potential candidates can make it a race ONLY FOR FORMER GORE VOTERS?

Only one. The one that's already gotten the endorsement of the Green Party 2000 Vice Presidential candidate. The one who's already all BUT gotten the endorsement of the Green Party 2000 Presidential candidate. The one who takes his district with 74%. The one who takes 50% of the Republican vote in his district.

You guess which one.

We're living in the past if we think this is the time to elect a "centrist." A centrist will further split the progressive majority, while also fostering the renewed growth of the ranks of Republicans. Heck, look what Dean (a "centrist") did to Vermont - he took a 74% re-elect rate and whittled it down to 50.4% in 2000, before quitting in 2002 to "run for President" while the ranks of "progressives" and Republicans grew in Vermont until no Democrat could get elected, and his own Lt. Governor lost to the Republican in 2002 - Vermont is governed by a Republican and NO POSITION DEAN EVER HELD IN VERMONT IS IN DEMOCRATIC HANDS NOW.

If we want to watch the Greens grow as the Democrats abandon Democratic core principles, and the Republicans grow as they confidently assert that they make better Republicans than Democratic pretenders, then feel free to continue pushing for a President Dean.

Don't take my word for it, just look what he did to Vermont.

The key in 2004 is to beat the Republican theft spread - the Republicans will use black box voting, like they did in Georgia and Nebraska to steal the election if it's close.

I assert that the best way to beat the Republican theft spread is to start with 8 MILLION PROGRESSIVE VOTES IN YOUR POCKET before even going up against Bush - making the race a race SOLELY for former Gore voters.

Conservatives (scheming Republicans love this losing idea, too), and "core" Democratic activists, think that you can assure victory by making it a head-to-head race for 5 million previous Gore voters and 5 million previous Bush voters. While they're obviously entitled to their opinions, I fail to see the logic in thinking that 10 MILLION SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE is greater than 8 MILLION IN THE POCKET.

I mean, you'd have to be practically capable of believing that 50 million conservative votes versus 53 million progressive votes means "AMERICA DOES NOT VOTE FOR LIBERALS," to be taken in by that kind of fuzzy math.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[OhioStateProgressive]

1. this is so true(nt)

[Frances]

2. I think that personality has more to do with winning the votes

of "independents" than issues.

For example, I was talking with an "independent" here in California last week. He didn't like Jimmy Carter as President because Carter wore a sweater in the White House. He did like Reagan because he was charismatic. He did not like Gore because of Gore's personality. He does not like Bush because Bush is president as a result of being the son of a rich former president.

[dpbrown]

3. This phenomenon applies specially to "nonvoters"

And 80 million people didn't vote last time.

A populist like Paul Wellstone, or a charismatic like Jesse Ventura brings those people out.

It will remain to be seen whether a "belligerent centrist" can have the same effect.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

39. *blinking several times* Are you kidding me??

He didn't like Carter because he wore a freaking sweater in the WH??? Ooookaaaaay then! No offense, but the other party in your conversations sounds a little....wierd.:D

[helleborient]

4. This is dumb math, it seems to me,

And I ask one simple question...why do you assume that those who voted for Gore and thought he was just right (although he was significantly more centrist than Kucinich) would stick with a more leftist candidacy? They could be peeled off to vote to the right.

Basically, though, why I see it as dumb...

There are a huge number of people in this country who don't vote primarily on how liberal or conservative a candidate is.

They respond to what appeals to them gut-wise...it might be the look of the candidate, it might be a specific program like Dean's "Success By Six", it might be they've always wanted to vote for a Democrat but intense anti-gun rhetoric scared them off.

Boiling everything down to a one-dimensional liberal-conservative continuum is demeaning to the complexity of our nation, candidates, and people.

Where is Dennis Kucinich's organization?

Where is Dennis Kucinich's appeal to those who disagree with him on some issues?

Where is Dennis Kucinich's appeal to the mainstream?

I don't appreciate, and I know there are plenty of others who don't either, being bludgeoned mentally into supporting a candidate...You MUST support them or you are selling youself out, being duplicitous, hypocritical, etc, etc, etc

If you respond to that...that's fine, but I don't, and a lot of other people don't.

There is a very human flight instinct to being lectured...and I think Kucinich's supporters do inspire that at times.

Dennis Kucinich has a good message, in my opinion...but his negatives, for me, have little to do with policy...they have to do with experience and the skills I want to see for my president.

I don't believe a mayoral position, state legislature, and 6 years in Congress are sufficient preparation for the presidency.

I don't believe failure to hire individuals with professional skill and experience in running a national campaign bodes well for who might be hired to run the government in the future.

I believe head-on blasting is a great way to take on Diebold legally, but not a great way to negotiate with a possible hostile Congress to achieve results.

I want to see more job experience, and more results in Congress, and more ability to garner support for a presidential run from colleagues before I turn my support to Dennis Kucinich for President.

[Mairead]

5. "I don't believe a mayoral position, state legislature..."

But you obviously believe that the equivalent of city council (Vermont legislature) and mayoral (Vermont governor) experience is. Doesn't that discrepancy bother you?? The demographics of Vermont do not map at all well onto the demographics of the nation, either. That obviously doesn't bother you either. Why not? How do you rationalise that to yourself?

It should be obvious to you that the reason Kucinich isn't 'Senator and former Ohio Governor Kucinich' today is the fact that he was punished for standing up for the people. Why does his unique, demonstrated integrity make such a tiny impression on you when a guy who 'angrily' stands for the status quo is able to make such a large one? What is there about you that produces such a strange effect?

[OhioStateProgressive]

6. i got attacked for saying that before

Dennis was mayor of 600,000+ people

Dean was governor of 600,000+ people


and Cleveland was old style Ward politics

[helleborient]

8. If you ever really read my posts...

You may have noticed I cheerlead for the Kucinich campaign, I highly value Dennis Kucinich...but I do not believe he is the best option for President.

Your litmus test that supporting Dennis Kucinich as a valuable person in this country REQUIRES supporting his Presidential campaign is absurd.

It really matters not one iota what I would say about my support for Howard Dean...you would continue the ongoing attempt to bludgeon me into a different way of thinking. It's pointless for me to engage in that.

I have integrity. I'll go on with my life.

[Mairead]

26. "You may have noticed I cheerlead for the Kucinich campaign"

That's a funny thing for you to say. There've been several times that I've said approving words about something Dean has said or done. But there is no way on earth I'd try to claim to be a 'cheerleader' for his campaign. Cheerleaders are on the same team is those for whom they lead cheers.

Unless you switch candidates, please give yourself less credit.

[OhioStateProgressive]

27. in his defense

i posted an official poll showing Dennis within the MOE for the lead in Ohio...and I was flamed, and hellborient publicly stood up for me

[helleborient]

28. Is your preference for me to stop?

On second thought, no, I won't...your nasty attacks are demeaning to DK's campaign and I'll ignore them...it's part of integrity, you see.

And thank you OSP!

[dpbrown]

7. The "core" doesn't "switch" - that's the basis of the rule

This is the principle that all election consultants operate under.

The "core" will vote for the Democrat.

The independents who wished Gore were more conservative are the ones who are "potentially" susceptible to being wooed by the Republican.

That makes 5 million if the "core" follows the 40/40/20 rule.

If you make your base enough to the "left" to capture the Green vote (which only Kucinich will be able to do), then you can afford to LOSE 1.5 million previous Gore voters and still win the election.

No other candidate is able to stake out this position.

Dean won't take all the Greens, so his position is to try to convince Republican voters to vote for him instead.

The "centrist" Democrats want this to be the competitive battlefield, because if they win, it will give them a "legitimate" claim over the Democratic Party.

What progressive voters should understand, is that there is only ONE candidate who can place the entire "competitive battlefield" ONLY among former Gore voters.

That's a tremendous position of strength.

Kucinich can lose Gore voters and still win.

Every other candidate needs EVERY GORE VOTE PLUS enough former Bush voters to erase the black box margin of theft!

Nominating a "belligerent centrist" will place a huge burden on the Democrats to pull away from the "tie" they were forced into in 2000.

Kucinich is the best candidate to create a margin greater than the black box margin of theft, potentially beating Bush by up to 3 million votes - every one of them a previous Gore vote.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[helleborient]

9. So where is the success of DK's political consultant...?

We'll wait and see in Iowa I suppose.

[JohnKleeb]

10. I am still looking at the Iowa scoreboard

and guess what :D all 9 candiates are tied for first with 0%.

[helleborient]

11. Yep, exactly...

But there's one Dean supporter here who will probably more vociferously speak against a Kucinich candidacy while I'm in Iowa after this morning.

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. but, that is revenge, and revenge is wrong(nt)

[helleborient]

15. LOL - good try

It's more a case of not wanting to identify oneself with those who would attack personal integrity and personal life for a difference in opinion.

Being really tired of things like "What is wrong with you?"

The Left truly rises when people speak about and demonstrate a better way and urge others to join (a la MLK, Jr. and his key supporters)...not when intellectual and verbal violence is used in an attempt to bludgeon those who disagree into agreement.

[OhioStateProgressive]

22. I never attacked you(nt)

[helleborient]

23. But you did see it happen...is silence support? (n/t)

[OhioStateProgressive]

24. well, you are right, I am sorry

i will say I was blinded by the amount of silent support given for Kucinich bashing around here

my bad man, I don't think you are spineless or ignorant

[helleborient]

25. Thank you!

And the feeling is mutual...

[dpbrown]

14. The only thing the rule says is that you don't have to

The core will vote for the Democrat, so you don't have to use that as a rationale. The 8 million progressive independents will vote for Kucinich, so you don't have to base your opposition on that.

The battleground in a Kucinich candidacy is the previous Gore voter.

The battleground in a Dean candidacy is the previous Bush voter.

Who do you want to convince to vote for a Democrat this time around?

That's what you ought to base your opposition or support on.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[JohnKleeb]

16. shurg if thats your way so be it

:shrug: I dont get to be in Iowa that often :D or ever,

[helleborient]

18. Yep, I don't like nasty personal attacks...

Which I would think you understand.

Most likely, I won't be talking about Dennis Kucinich at all in Iowa...focusing on the positives of my chosen candidate.

Not hectoring people with "What is wrong with you?" "Where's your integrity?" "You are voting for the status quo!" and other such garbage.

My line would go more like - Are these some things you would like to see happen in this country? If so, please consider Howard Dean. That makes sense to me as a way to campaign successfully.

[JohnKleeb]

19. Well thats my message too

I tell people not to talk about Dean or the others but to talk about our messages. I've seen some pretty :puke: attacks on all sides believe me, if I hear my guy is an elf or gnome again or ugly or what not I am gonna kick some ass ;) kidding honestly but you think that people would be more reasonable than that. It goes all ways believe me.

[helleborient]

20. Total agreement! (n/t)

[JohnKleeb]

21. Thats what sets me off

You may not see it but its more disgust. Of all the candiates, I have seen Kucinich attacked most on his looks, its really childish, and thats what makes me angry but it speaks on them more so than I, so why should I care, not my fault people are immature. It goes all ways, no side completely guilty or innocent, some dont realize that. Also another peeve of mine is people saying that the nomination is all but won or only so and so can win the gen ed, that pisses me off. That could be why I get set off easily or get sad easy.

[dpbrown]

31. I'm only illustrating that progressives hold the cards here

People don't have to "settle" for someone who would ordinarily be their second choice, based on the application of the 40/40/20 rule.

That's what I've been trying to show here.

Of course, it's just a coincidence that Vermont under Dean showed just what people fear will happen nationally under further centrist consolidation:

A burgeoning progressive party and re-energized Republican Party able to take increasing numbers of voters and seats from Democrats until Democrats can't get elected anymore.

I don't want to hector anyone, but that's what happened in Vermont.

Do we want that nationally?

I don't know about you, but I don't.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

32. Psychologically speaking...

I've heard that if you point out where someone might not be quite as right as they thought they were, that you will often be met with a negative reaction. Regardless of the fact that you're trying to help them, some will plug their ears and, due to that ever-counterproductive tradition of saving face, ignore you.

Not saying that's what's happening here... just saying...

[dpbrown]

12. Right now it's the primary season, running up to the nomination

And the candidates are trying to convince members of the "core" as well as members of the "independents" who are participating in this process to support one candidate or another.

I think the point is that it's misleading for candidates or their supporters to misuse "electability" in order to get people to switch to a supposed stronger candidate before a single vote has been cast.

So it's not just DK's "political consultant" it's also Dean's consultant, and Kerry's consultant, and Gephardt's consultant - who are engaged in the process of convincing THIS bell curve to make a choice.

I contend that progressives will control the outcome of the general election one way or the other. Either they will "fall in line" with a less than stellar candidate chosen by the "centrists" or they will act NOW during the primaries to ensure that the progressive, who will be the stronger candidate in the general election, gets the nod.

If everyone who has ever said to themselves or someone else, "I agree more with DK but he can't get elected," would participate more fully in the process and make their voices heard clearly, all the numbers would change immediately.

People are being sold their "powerlessness" to select the best candidate in the false guise of "electability."

It obviously doesn't have to be this way. The rule proves the progressives' power.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[helleborient]

17. I haven't believed the comments about "electability" either...

If I did...I would be supporting Kerry now, most likely.

I switched to Howard Dean when he was the target of much of the "unelectable" rhetoric.

I simply don't think DK is the best candidate for President...that's it.

[dpbrown]

33. This is a thread about the 40/40/20 rule

So your personal belief system is not being challenged here.

I personally think that Kucinich is better on:

1. Ending the Death Penalty
2. The Pentagon and Accountability
3. Universal Single-payer health care
4. UN in US out of Iraq
5. Ending Halliburton's war profiteering
6. Federal law on gay unions
7. Getting out of NAFTA
8. Demilitarizing space
9. Litmus test on judges on Roe, and
10. Ending "Star Wars"

...than Howard Dean, or any of the other candidates.

Some people, on the other hand, favor:

1. Keeping the Death Penalty
2. Shoveling money into the Pentagon maw
3. Leaving 10 million uninsured and spending more money
4. Keeping the US in Iraq but getting help to "subdue" them
5. Helping Halliburton steal from the taxpayers
6. Letting states decide about gays
7. Watching NAFTA take our jobs
8. Ramping up for lasers in space
9. Standing by for the conservatization of our judiciary, and
10. Spending more money on a Reaganesque program that'll never work and won't keep us safe, anyway.

Naturally, people who dearly hold those positions already will not be as receptive to a Kucinich candidacy, since he will heal the nation of these sorts of ills.

But again, this thread is only about the 40/40/20 rule showing that progressives have the power to choose, nominate, and elect any candidate they choose.

If progressives give in to the nomination of a "centrist" who does not espouse their positions, they should know what they gave up that they did not have to.

That's really all it's about.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

40. I can answer that as someone who doesn't agree with

all of Kucinich's positions. Gun control is one I've actually been swayed to disagree with Dennis on by OTHER KUCINICH SUPPORTERS!(caps for emphasis, not shouting) Stem cell research and cloning is another I disagree strongly with him about.

Having listed at least important issues I disagree with him on, this is his appeal to me- I trust Kucinich to listen to the people he governs and consider rational arguments opposing his positions. I trust him to evaluate information logically, sensibly and reasonably and adjust his positions according to those evaluations. The bottom line is that I trust him more than any of the others despite some positions.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

29. Why don't you run for office....

Simple basic logic is one of your best suits....

[dpbrown]

30. LOL, thank you, would you vote for me?

I'd be privileged to have your support.

;-)

[Mick Knox]

34. Why oh Why Poor Us

Hello! Great site. First Time Poster!

Anyway, your numbers and arguments are compelling..but why can't we get it together if the numbers are as you have figure? My state has recently become a republican state :( and we are not doing well in the house or senate, or state elections.

WE WILL NOT SURVIVE FOUR MORE YEARS! This guy in the white house will have us fighting china, north korea, middle east.. who knows.. maybe all of them. Help *gasp*

your numbers sound great but I am not as optimistic as you. Especially.. and no offense to dean fans, if dean is our candidate... and with Bush getting his pockets stuffed with all those fat corporate dollars, and a fairly ignorant electorate all rah rah rah facist, how can he be beat?

Gooooooo Dennis! Hillary where are you?

Signed...

Looking for an excuse to be optimistic in 04...., USA

[redqueen]

36. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[diamondsoul]

41. We will, Zwade, we will get together.

Dennis made his case last night and beautifully, I might add. Moreover, Dennis has been moving up in the polls despite the dismissal of that fact by some, including the media. He's polling third in a large number of scientific polls behind Dean and Clark. If it continues, we're in this race to the very end and could very well be the winners.

What always keeps me going is the fact that if we win, the whole world wins with us.

[loyalsister]

35. Nope

"It's pretty safe to surmise that ALL the votes for Nader are lined up on the ONE SIDE of the Gore bell curve, isn't it?"
When anti-globalization dominates, and they're labor driven, you find people who I have talked to.
I have talked to a racist, and a pro gun anti-choice freak.

So, no. Your theory doesn't fit. They aren't all lined up. AND, Nader's misogynistic flaw was a disregard for women. Mr. "It wouldn't be a big deal if Roe vs. Wade were reversed. The legality would just go back to the states."
Yeah. Who really cares about the 13 year old firl in Mississippi who can't get to NY?

The leftist math doesn't fly. They were compromising but pretending they weren't. But it was just women they were willing to sacrifice- so who cares?

[redqueen]

37. You're right about people not being all together on everything

But given that this country is sinking into a job-loss 'recovery', I wouldn't be surprised if they put the other issues on the back burner.

Something about being faced with things like losing your home tends to put people's priorities in a different order.

[dpbrown]

38. Are you using people who DIDN'T vote Nader to show Nader?

Or are you saying that some or all the people who voted for Nader did so because they hated women?

Isn't it more likely (I don't know, I didn't vote for Nader), that people who voted for Nader were unaware of, or disregarded his comments on Roe? Were they part of his platform?

All the Greens I talked to were Birkenstock-wearing middle-class folks who liked what Nader seemed to aspire towards.

Anyway, I don't think that this essentially changes the Nader voter relationship to Gore.

Here's how I think it works.

Nader had his own "bell curve" and though MOST were "Green" voters who almost CERTAINLY were to the "left" of Gore, some were "Nader" voters who hated women.

That would put the Nader "spread" wider, but I'd have to see some pretty compelling evidence to convince me that his "core" was not to the left of Gore, including to the left of the people who "wished" they could have voted for Nader but voted for Gore instead.

Thanks for taking this crack at the logic, but I think even the anomaly you propose fits into the overall analysis by using the caveat that Nader had his own "core" just like Gore and Bush did.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[loyalsister]

42. Anti-nafta single issue voters

Nader appealed to them. They ignored a lot of the rest. My point is that his voters were spread out as much as any constituency.
I'm tired of people glorifying the Nader constituency as if there is some sort of Green liberal moral high ground. It's not there. Defections occur for all sorts of reasons. One example cited was that he was tired of the Dems selling out to special interests. The "special interest" he was referring to was the NAACP. They weren't ready to go Republican, but they weren't necessarily all leftist voters.

[dpbrown]

43. They weren't all, but most were

Anyway, the "low hump" bell curve works to characterize Nader/Green voters, even if a few of them weren't "to the left" of Gore.

Most of them still were.

The "balance" is still on the progressive side (Democrat/Green).

[redqueen]

44. Dan have you posted this in GD?

Just curious...

[dpbrown]

45. A kick for public financing!

https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php

The BFEE is the problem - Kucinich is the answer.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota