It's all about the swing voters why Democrats can't think straight

[bklyncowgirl]

You know, the 20% or so of the country who are supposedly up for grabs.

Democratic strategists are convinced that these swing voters do not like naked partisanship. Attacking Bush might turn some of these voters off, they argue. The same logic applies to the rather perplexing decision to remove the "Culture of Corruption" report from the house democratic website (well, that and the fact that some Democrats don't want that particular can of worms opened for their own--er--reasons)

They are also apparently still convinced that Bush is invulnerable on national security--particularly the wiretapping issue and believe that their best option is to change the subject.

The problem with this strategy is that by playing it "safe" they risk alienating the 50% or more people in the country who think that the Bush administration has become a disaster of epic proportions. They come off looking weak and frankly ridiculous. It also damages Howard Dean's plans to fund the DNC with small contributions and take the party off the corporate money machine--ordinary citizens aren't going to donate money to a party that refuses to stand up for what it believes in. (Come to think of it some of these strategists may think thats a good thing--they're none to fond of Dean either)

The Republicans in the meantime are playing hard to their base. Why not? It's worked in the past. So has attacking Democrats on their strengths. In 2000 the tarred Gore as cold distant and out of touch while promoting the Crawford Cowboy as a "compassionate conservative". In 2004 they slandered war hero John Kerry and successfully torpedoed any attempt to examine George Bush's dubious service record.

The Democrat's strategy of trying to be all things to all people and avoid rocking the boat has led the party to electoral disaster time after time, so of course, they're just going to keep on doing it until they get it right.

[electropop]

1. Why should we offer a choice between real Repug and sorta Repug?

If voters want corrupt, anti-Constitutional, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-middle class government, they can vote Repug. If they want something else, where are they goping to turn?

Dem "leaders:" Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!

[acmavm]

2. You are certainly the master of understatement...

'They come off looking weak and frankly ridiculous.'

The ARE weak and ridiculous. And totally without integrity, scruples, and morals. This is fish or cut bait time. Either stand up for what's right or get the hell out of public life. We don't need anymore quislings.

[Zenlitened]

3. Hits the nail right on the head. Well said.

I hate this idea of trying to mollify "swing voters," a group I think is largely imaginary, or at least vastly overstated in terms of numbers.

People want a message they can feel in the gut and in the heart, and understand in the mind. If they get such a message, they'll vote for it, for the candidate who's delivering it.

That means our Dem candidates have to stand up and speak powerfully and truthfully. Sure, some voters may turn away based on one point or another -- you can't please everyone. But I think, as you suggest, that the numbers of voters who get fired up to vote Dem will far, far outnumber the rest.

[bowens43]

4. IMO it's not an imaginary group.

They may not be an overly large group (they don't have to be) but swing voters decide the elections. The party faithful will always be the party faithful and neither side can win with just the party faithful.

That being said, the Dems do need to stand up for the party faithful's core beliefs. I feel that these beliefs will bring the swing voters to our side in November.

[CTLawGuy]

5. absolutely correct

the DLC and other conservative dems mistakenly think that swing voters respond the same way as other voters - they don't.


Why are they "swing" voters in the first place? Because they are non-ideological, but rather practical. If they were ideological,they would have formed their own party. Instead they look on a case by case basis as what candidate is best for them in their current circumstances.

THe Republicans understand swing voters. What they do is sell their conservative ideas to them. In 2000, Bush tried to push off conservatism as compassionate, and make it look moderate but in reality it wasn't. They played to their fundie base and drew swing voters in.

On the other hand, Dems treat swing voters as if they were ideological. They think "our base has nowhere to go and the base of swing voters is larger than ours, so let's get them." So instead of drawing swing voters to the Dem side, the dem candidates "stretch" to cover as wide a range of opinions as possible, by adopting Repug ideas they think are popular.

The more we stretch, the more people we try to keep happy, the less we actually stand for. This becomes necessary because as we stretch wider, we have more people we risk pissing off by taking a stand. Thus, we take no stands.

What we don't get is that we can influence swing voters to like our ideas, as long as we can match our ideas with their values.

Universal health care? Talk about how the swing voter won't have to worry about losing insurance when they switch jobs. Talk about how much more efficient it is than our current system, but DON'T shy away from it and think that will make you more palatable.

I think that swing voters really want a choice. They are upset because they see two candidates every election that are so annoyingly similar, at least in their minds. They don't want one strong candidate and a wimpier version of that guy. They want two strong candidates to choose from. That's why I think people don't vote. They are not ideological and they think that whoever they vote for, they will get the same result. We must fight this by taking a stand.

[CarlSheeler4U]

6. We stand for Our Consitution and the Vision of What America can be.

What's not to like on the left or the right?

[Mythsaje]

7. I think we should worry more about

disaffected and disinterested voters than the alleged "swing" voters. If they've been voting Repug for the past 6 years, presumably, they certainly haven't minded the Repug partisan politics.

A strong, coherent message to people who don't "do" politics but are as fed up with this nonsense as we are (and I've met more than a few. I used to work with several, for whom Katrina was the last straw) might well make a BIG difference. More of a difference than trying to play to a middle that's now almost universally against Bushco anyway.

Will they listen? Nuh-uh.

[FloridaPat]

8. Yea, that strategy really backfired for the repubs when they went after

Clinton. And it's really worked against the repubs since * got in office. NOT.