It's the fence sitters who will decide this election. That's the essence, in my view the very heart of the by now widely commented endorsement letter written by Michael Moore (you can read it
here.)
I don't want to focus on the merits of Michael Moore and/or the weight of his endorsement here; plenty of topics on that doing the rounds on DU already.
Besides, I'm a hard-core MM fan, his 2000 Nader endorsement notwithstanding... :evilgrin:
One may or may not acknowledge Michael's ability to hit on raw but ignored nerves. One may or may not agree with the points he makes; the thing is, he always
has a good point (even in the 2000 elections, as much as I regret his stance then.)
Where I'm going here is this: agree or disagree with his conclusion (i.e., his endorsement of Wes Clark) I believe he has a very good point when he states that it's the fence sitters who will decide this election.
Again, just to avoid pointless repetitions of plenty of existing discussions here on DU: let's forget who made that statement, and let's also leave aside what candidate the author prefers.
Think about it. About
half of the citizens eligible to vote habitually waivers that right. If we, as opponents of the current administration, manage to engage
just one of every ten of those non-voters, we'll have effectively increased the number of voters against Bush by a whopping 20%.
Now, let's reverse that logic, think for a moment about the devastating, disenfranchising and disengaging effect negative ("attack") campaigns have.
Now you have the very reason for the GOP's impending mud blitz, to be unleashed by the coalition of the chilling that we saw engaged the last time. To the GOP, non-voters are just as good as Bush voters. In some population groups, any degree of success in their efforts to drain votes will have a
disproportionately larger effect of benefiting Bush.
I derive the following conclusions from this:
- Going negative before the primaries is tantamount to doing Bush's bidding;
- A major effort to get out the vote (GOTV) is necessary, now even more than in 2000;
- Instead of trying to convince those most likely supporting the Democratic nominee, we should work hard to convince the "fence sitters" "undecided" and "swing voters" - among independents, and yes: among republicans, especially the moderate conservatives ("Barry Goldwater" types)
I'll go deeper into #1 in a bit. As to #2, that involves seeking eligible, unregistered voters - especially in communities that have most to lose with another term of Bush, i.e.: practically every "minority" group. With respect to #3, that implies spending a bit less time bickering among declared supporters, and engaging more people out there, in real life. I'm doing that as much as I can, and does it feel
great to hear people admitting that they were wrong to vote for Bush, but that they'll get it right this time by voting for the Democratic nominee!
We seek to deny Bush a 2nd term. Even Joe Lieberman (sorry Michael) would be immensely preferable over Bush. We want to get rid of this viciously destructive regime, and to do that we need to give people a reason for hope in the alternative, a new and solidly grounded belief that change for the better is just a matter of showing up at the ballot box.
And that basic message is at odds with acrimonious, negative attack tactics. That's why going negative among Democratic contenders will have a dramatically negative impact on those who are willing to hear "our" arguments, it puts a loaded gun right in the RNC's hands, primed and aimed right at our most valuable support base.
As Michael Moore said: it's the fence sitters who will decide this election.
But that's my view - I'm curious what others make of it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
