Newsflash: the nature of our political systm gives us 2 political parties,

[closeupready]

which represent people who want to preserve the status quo, and those who want change.

Seeking a "middle ground" is a losing strategy in our system, as it compromises the interests of your base, keeping them home on Election Day, keeping them from giving money and getting the vote out because they don't care.

More of this triangulation nonsense will result in more Democratic losses.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Behold the power of triangulation!

The Republicans do it all the time.

- We still have abortion, and they scarcely mentioned it during their last televised convention.
- We still have affirmative action.

Also, from experience, I've found that you never know what makes the kind of "base" who stay home rather than vote do that, so they're not worth pursuing because you never know if you've got them. On the other hand, you can see that polls sway all the time, both election polls and the presidential approval rating, so the middle is what's convincable.

[closeupready]

2. Do you mean, the middle is undecided?

I don't think that's true at all. People who are firmly in the center but always vote Republican are going to continue to vote Republican no matter how much pandering/compromising/triangulation dems do. In other words, put a dem and a puke side by side, let them present identical positions on the issues, and such a voter will vote puke.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Uh, that doesn't explain...

...why the polls sway the way they do. You've just made a bunch of assertions, but it still doesn't explain the data and observations.

[blondeatlast]

8. Precisely. Many middle ground Repubs are Rs only on the surface.

Sit 'em down and discuss the issues and they will be Dems more than likely.

I live in a red state with Right-to-Work laws. I can speak from experience here.

[Jai4WKC08]

9. People who "always vote Republican"

Cannot be considered "firmly in the center." Not by the way I define "center" anyway. Maybe you mean something different?

Oh, I'll grant there may be some exceptions. One-issue voters for the most part. In the center on everything except one issue, but that issue is so important to them, that it off-sets all the rest. Like some of the anti-abortion folks (altho most of them fall into the religious right, which can't even SEE the center from where they're at). I agree there's not much point in courting those people at a national level. At local and state, it may be possible.

But I think LoZo is right. The majority of the center is undecided as to party, altho they may or may not have strong views about individual candidates depending on how well informed they are. And since the vast majority of voters are NOT informed, the ones in the center vacilate between the two sides, some until the moment they walk into the voting booth.

Being undecided is part of what being in the center means. They tend to vote against whichever candidate seems the most extreme, to the right or left, rather than voting for the other one. Unless they just happen to have some reason to (like being from the same state, or the charisma thing). That's why negative political ads are more effective than positive ones.

[Q]

4. The RWingers never intended to directly attack...

...abortion and affirmative action. The DLC is doing that job for them behind the scenes with their 'third way' politics that concedes issues to the Right in order to appeal to the mythical 'swing' voter.

And...by the way...

Do you actually BELIEVE polls done by the same media that helped put GWB in office?

[LoZoccolo]

5. The same ones that put his approval at around 40%?

Yes.

[ClassWarrior]

6. You are so correct. Learn more about this in "Don't Think of an Elephant."

A book by linguist George Lakoff. Inexpensive, an easy read, and it'll forever change how you think about persuasive politics.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

7. Welcome to DU! Excellent post.

We like to think that only the Democrats pander to the middle, but it isn't so. That's why the Rs consistently run on agenda hiding issues like gay marriage.

The country would be in much better shape if both parties would state their case and force the mushy middle to decide (they'd vote their pocketbooks, as in Democratic, every time).

:toast:

[closeupready]

10. Thanks!

and yes, you're also correct.

And let me flesh out a little bit something: it's well-known that many people vote based not upon the issues but based upon other factors: 'my union said to vote this way'; 'my church told me to vote this way'; 'i'm not going to vote this year because i don't like either one'; 'my husband told me to vote for bush'.

Two identical candidates identically rejecting pulling out from Iraq. What's the difference? voters will wonder, and they will revert to the above sources for inspiration as to how to vote.

But when the Dem candidate says, pull out of Iraq and the puke says no, you're giving the 13% of voters on the right who agree with cindy sheehan (if the poll about 63% of Americans generally agreeing with her is accurate) a reason to vote dem for a change. When the puke says (essentially) more of the same with regard to health insurance and the dem says "universal coverage", I daresay you're giving people who don't think much about voting and don't have health insurance but want it, a real reason to vote dem.