What is a party's base exactly?

[CTLawGuy]

The purpose of a political party is to represent the views and preferences of its base in government.

The base is the totality of the registered party members who vote in the party's primaries. Party members who are not the base are called "the elite" (elected officials and party bosses)

There are two major base groups:
1. The inner base (party activists, donors, and volunteers)
2. the outer base (primary voters who are not involved and who are less self-motivated, but still clearly prefer one party to the other)

The inner base is highly ideological and factionalized. They are highly interested in primary contests. They provide the money and volunteers that any candidate needs to win. They pick a candidate early and very rarely change their minds.


In the Democratic Party inner base there are the following factions:
DLC (ruling)
Clarkies
Deaniacs
Kucinichites

In the Republican Party:
Christian Fundy/Reaganites (coalition rule)(the Reaganites manipulate the fundies to secure their support)
McCainites
Buchananites (isolationists)


If America were a parliamentary system, each faction would be its own party.

The faction from which the presidential candidate or the chairman comes is considered the ruling faction, becuase they set the party platform and party strategy.

The outer base is not factionalized and tends to be less interested in primary contests. They tend to pay attention later in the season, change their minds often, and tend to gravitate to whomever is winning at the time (hence the momentum effect). In primary campaign lingo, they would be called "3"s (undecideds)

-----------------------------
It is the duty of every member of a party to select candidates that most represent their views, not the views of independents.

The reason independents are independents is that they are not ideological, but rather practical. They hold NO STRONG POLITICAL VIEWS, but rather vote for whomever they feel is better considering the current climate. In fact they often choose candidates based on silly criteria such as height, looks or "character". There are some independents who are intelligent and deliberate, however.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to pander to independents, since they have no cohesive views or principles. They want to be sold on a good platform that they can be convinced will help them.

Independents DO NOT like candidates who are vague and evasive. they prefer candidates who have strong conviction even if they don't always agree with them on everything.

----------------

The Republicans win for two reasons:
1. They keep enough of their base happy. They advocate positions that their base likes and advocate them openly. Since the base provides both $ and volunteer hours, this is very important to having a well-oiled Get Out the Vote machine.

2. They follow a strong party strategy. This means they run on positions that appeal to their base but couch them in terms that appeal to independents' practical sense. For example, if Bush wants tax cuts for the rich, he tries to convince independents that they also benefit. If the base wants to go to war in Iraq, he tells independents (less than honestly) how Iraq threatens us. by selling his ideas, he creates debate in a framework of ideas favorable to him (ex. tax cuts are good, soc. sec. is broken, ownership society)

This helps the republicans win, because it ensures
1. high volunteer participation
2. high donor participation
which in turn ensures
1. high base turnout
2. high level of independent support
3. high turnout of base + independent supporters

here's why the Democrats lose
1. The Dems run away from their base. The ruling DLC is hostile to most of the base and they bash the very activists they need to win. This year, the Democrats were saved from complete anihilation by "ABB"( the idea that the base would turn out for the Dem candidate no matter how it felt about him because only he can beat Bush). If the base is not motivated to work hard and donate $, then the GOTV machine suffers and the party suffers huge turnout disadvantages.

2. The Dems use the cautious party strategy. The logic of this is to widen the appeal of the party as far as possible, by pissing off as few people as possible. in order to do this, the message is as vague and nuanced as possible. the candidate takes few strong positions and tries to co-opt winning lines and popular positions of the other party, and works within the opponents conceptual framework. For example, George Bush's conceptual framework says that tax cuts are good for the economy. Rather than challenging that framework, Kerry tried to use it to his advantage. therefore, he pledged to keep the tax cuts for the middle class but not the rich.

the cautious party strategy makes the user look to be wishy-washy, which Independents do NOT like. they want to vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. The base also does not like it, because they have strong beliefs they feel are not being represented.
Both these things contribute to losses.

In summary:
strong party strategy: highlight differences, use own framework, sell to independents.
cautious party strategy: blur differences, work within opponents framework, pander to independents.

[The Doctor.]

1. A lot of Broad strokes in there...

So I can't completely agree.

Making the right connections needs to be factored in... Especially where it concerns specific companies.

But I think your take on independents isn't far off.

[CTLawGuy]

2. what do you mean?

Making the right connections needs to be factored in... Especially where it concerns specific companies.

[madfloridian]

3. I basically agree on the Democratic part.

They are not standing up for their traditional core principles.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

13. responses

1. I guess I agree... I was talking about a party's base as being those who vote in the primary. But a candidate's base consists of those who support him or her solidly, regardless of whether you are "right" or not.

2. Kerry did have a base, part of the DLC. He used "electability" and his Vietnam service to convince almost all the outer base to vote for him.

3. I never faulted money raising, but turnout and volunteer hours are still a factor.

[T Town Jake]

5. Excellent, well-thought-out analysis. I agree.

(n/t)

[Celeborn Skywalker]

6. Great post!

I agree with just about everything you said.

[Tinoire]

7. Very well put!

:toast:

[robbedvoter]

8. Ideally, a party represents a social segmant of the population

By catering to the middle class, the Dems are committing slow suicide.

[Q]

9. I disagree....

...that the "Deaniacs and Kucinichites" are part of the party's inner base. They are progressive outsiders. Those 'inside' are the DLC and those candidates vetted by them and Clinton.

[CTLawGuy]

12. you are confusing the concepts...

of "inner base" and "ruling faction"

The "inner base" is made up of the factions of different activist groups who participate in the primary. That is everyone who takes a strong interest in a Democratic candidate and highly participates in a primary, regardless of how much power they actually have.

the "ruling faction" is the faction that guides the party's platform as a whole, because the presidential candidate or chairman is from that faction. If Dean had won instead of Kerry, our platform and strategy would be very different.

[eridani]

15. Deaniacs and Kucitizens were indeed part of the inner base--

--this time, anyway. They provided much of the volunteer base willing to switch loyalties to Kerry in order to get Bush out, and were responsible for the huge increase in small donations that McAuliffe is now trying to take credit for. Both convinced progressive outsiders that it was worth joining the Dems to make the party into a real opposition party.

[Walt Starr]

10. Spot on!

And this Deaniac is close to bolting the Demco Loser Commission.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Nice analysis..too true.

The party bosses rely on the notion that there's no place for the progressives/leftists/liberals to go.

Hopefully, enough will leave the Democrats and join real progressive parties to teach them that pandering to the right has consequences.

[DemDogs]

14. Impossibly narrow and misleading view

I could hardly get further than breaking up the party into DLC (weakening), Clarkies (pretty small faction there), Deaniacs (louder than larger), and Kucinchites (like him, but small there, too). Geez, I guess I am not a Democrat in your view.

[Skittles]

16. they left out this fact

republicans pander to racists, homophobes, misogynists. It is much easier to court ignorance than it is to appeal to intelligent people who actually think for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

17. I happen to agree with what Will Pitt wrote about it a while back

(very well thought out post, Darboy!)

Pitt's thoughts from last year during the rough and tumble primaries on DU:

I hear a lot of stuff on DU about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I'm going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball's chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That's where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don't feel bad; I'm a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I'm out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn't stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, "OOOOkay...let's look elsewhere."

Point?

Stop waiting for the party to court you. They won't. Either roll up your sleeves and help clean out the Aegean stables, or bolt and do exactly what the party expects you to do...which is why they don't think of you as any kind of base.

[rman]

18. Are all those union members, women and blacks be pro-war?

How many do support the war now that it turned out there are no WMD's and the "liberation" is a huge mess?

Nor are these people right-wing, i'd guess.

They may not all be socialist-democrats or anarcho-syndicalists,
but it seems to me the left-wing anti-war base is pretty large.

[JetCityLiberal]

19. It seems pretty large to me as well

the left-wing anti-war base.

A heck of a lot bigger than those narrow minded self centered republican's pretending to be Democrats directing the DLC want to believe.

JetCityLiberal

[American Tragedy]

21. Humphrey and the Dems DESERVED to lose in 1968

They abandoned the anti-war base. If Humphrey had taken the right action and the most politically expedient action by openly opposing Johnson's foreign policy from the beginning, history would be very different.

My father and his friends and family, who were convinced that they would die in Vietnam, all rejected Humphrey for that, and I'm sure they weren't the only ones.

[IStriker]

22. Union members and women USED TO BE the base...

of the Democrat party especially in the northeast. Not any more. About 60% of union members whose numbers overall have dwindled appreciably and unmarried women, not all women, are today's base.

[American Tragedy]

20. I completely disagree with how you've subdivided the inner base

It shouldn't be divided according to something as transient as the primary candidates of last election. Whom we support as nominee is always relative to the political climate and individual circumstances. On a given election cycle, I may have advocated any of the men that you've listed, depending on who the Republicans were running, the issues and demographics of that year, and other vital factors. The candidate I choose is not necessarily a reflection of my beliefs so much as political expediency. If I ignored realism, I wouldn't even vote for Democrats most of the time.

You should have it more clearly delineated, according to something fairly consistent like a set of ideological patterns, socioeconomics, issues, etc.