It's time to put this myth to rest: Appealing to independents is the way to win elections.

[Laelth]

The idea that independents and so-called "centrist" voters are the keys to winning elections is a MYTH that has been killing the Democratic Party for years. The myth would be true if 100% of eligible voters voted in every election, but they don't. Fewer than 50% of Americans will vote in the 2010 mid-terms.

As the Republicans have shown, the way to win elections when there's a 50% turn-out is to mobilize your base. The Party needs to fight for its base's values, give them something to cheer about, smear the opposition (not flatter them), fight for legislation that the base wants, get the base excited, and that, in sum, will get the base out to vote.

Look at the math (and I'll use a Presidential contest as an example). Let's say we have 200 million eligible voters. Of those, 35% claim to be Democrats, i.e. 70 million. Let's say 35% claim to be independents, i.e. 70 million, and the remaining 30% claim to be Republicans, i.e. 60 million.

On average, only half of the eligible voters will vote, i.e. 100 million. That means you only need 50 million plus 1 votes to win. Well, we have 70 million self-identified Democrats. We have enough to win without courting any independents. If we can just get our people to the polls, we win.

To heck with the independents. We don't need them, and if we're perceived as "winning," we're going to get them, regardless. This is how the Republicans do it, and this explains their electoral successes despite the fact that we outnumber them. They get their people to the polls by appealing to their base. We, on the other hand, have a Party that prefers to appeal to independents (who don't give a darn because they have few core political values--that's why they're independents. They just want to be on the "winning team"). Instead of trying to appeal to its base, the Democratic Party is pissing us off, mightily.

I believe the majority of independents swing in favor of whichever side they think is "winning." I do not believe that they're driven by any broad political philosophy, and I think it's madness to try to "appeal" to them at the expense of your base. "Appealing to the middle" is killing the Democratic Party, and it will continue to do so until this myth is finally put to rest.

:dem:

-Laelth

[stray cat]

1. IF independents vote republican the dem loses

[Laelth]

2. That's not what the math above says.

Please look at the post again.

:dem:

-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Your 'math' is pretty meaningless

You assume you know how many people will vote in total before you work out who they'll vote for. Your claim that the 'majority of independents swing in favor of whichever side they think is "winning"' needs backing up with some proper research (purely anecdotally, I've never known anyone that dumb that they go to the bother of voting just for the internal feeling of "I voted for the winner").

If you want 'math', here's an alternative scenario, starting from your assumptions, but a little better based in the real world:

50% of the Democrats vote Democrat without further persuasion = 35 million
50% of the Republicans vote R without further persuasion = 30 million
Democrats targetting Democrats gets another 20% of the remaining Ds to vote D = 7 million
Republicans targetting Independents gets 20% of the Is to vote R = 14 million

Result:
D = 35 + 7 = 42 million
R = 30 + 14 = 44 million - winning.

Ignore the Independents, and you ignore the largest uncommitted group.

[Laelth]

24. I see what you're saying, even if you are rude about it.

But what my math suggests is that if enough Democrats vote (as opposed to the 50% you, assume without any supporting research I might add), then we can win without any independent voters at all.

:dem:

-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. No, you'll notice my scenario had 60% Dems and 50% Republicans voting

the difference is that I had the Rs picking up 20% of the Independent vote too.

If you don't get any Ind votes, then you need Dems to vote at twice the rate that Inds and Reps do, to be able to win. Another scenario:
90% Dem = 63 million
50% Ind + 50% Rep = 35 million + 30 million = 65 million

[Laelth]

75. You're right, of course, with those figures.

But I firmly believe that you'll pull enough independents to win if you show strength, resolve, and a willingness to fight for your core beliefs (or, as I am suggesting, those of your base). People admired Bush for his strength even when they disagreed with him, and many of them voted for him not because of his policy positions but because he appeared to stand for something.

I am simply not worried about the independents. If enough of your base votes, you can win without them. And if you're resolute, you will pull a lot of independent votes anyway.

As Harry Truman told us: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Alienating the base is not the way to win elections.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

3. What a stupid post.

Don't confuse idiot "Centrist" politicians with actual independents.

[Laelth]

4. And your brilliance is equally remarkable, not to mention your charming personality.

Don't confuse facts and history with your well-loved mythology.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

5. One of the first things one learns in college political science is that...

...the distribution of policy positions is a bell curve with the top of the curve being the political center. To win elections you have to control as much of the middle ass possible while at the same time not pissing off your base.

[Laelth]

10. I am familiar with the argument.

I just think it's wrong, and I think the Republicans have proven that it's wrong.

In 1988 (when I was VP for Programs for the College Democrats of Georgia), I had a chat with George Stephanopoulos (who was working for Clinton), and he made the same argument. I didn't have the guts to contradict him at the time, but I was skeptical. This political "wisdom" has been around for a long time, and, as I said above, it would be correct and would accurately apply if 100% of eligible voters actually voted.

But that's not what happens. When 50% vote, the math says it makes more sense to appeal to your base.

:dem:

-Laelth

[anonymous171]

11. Right. The goal then is to move the center to the left.

Which is not achieved by caving in to republicans.

[mikekohr]

35. You are correct in stating that the Republicans practice this tactic

But in doing so they have become a narrow, mean spirited, ideological pure party that brooks no deviation from the thought police of the radical right.

This may be a tactic that can win, but it is also a dangerous tactic for the party and certainly for the country.

mike kohr

[Laelth]

67. I am assuming that this post is directed at me, and so I will respond.

I recognize the dangers of ideological purity. I agree with your description of the Republican Party.

But we need to win. We've got to change course to avoid being slaughtered in the 2010 mid-terms. If a little ideological purity and red meat for the base can prevent our losing Congress, I say it's worth it. I do not believe that a more "pure" Democratic Party (a party that actually fights for the interests of working people as opposed to the interests of banks and insurance companies) will be as dangerous as the ideologically pure Republican Party we now see (which also fights for the interests of banks and insurance companies as opposed to the interests of working people).

:dem:

-Laelth

[mikekohr]

93. In your response we find common ground nt

[Atticus]

94. And, I could buy into that if we had the same "bell" that we had several decades ago.

The problem today is that the middle of our bell holds positions similar to the right fringe of our bell in the '60's and '70's. i.e., todays moderate is yesterday's "Blue Dog".

The Bell Curve argument has always operated from a position of fear and uncertainty: "Let's play it safe! Let's not piss off ANYbody!"

There was a time when the Democrats' only interest in "average" was in identifying it so it could be improved upoon. We never considered being satisfied with "average".

[Odin2005]

96. I never said that we shouldn't try to move the bell to the Left.

[DJ13]

6. "Courting the center" has always been an excuse to pander to corporate interests

Its the mirror image of the trickle down theory where many people believe if we just give corporations and the wealthy everything they want they will be generous and allow some bread crumbs to fall off the table to feed the rest of us.

This centrist crap in our party originates with the DLC, and we all know what they stand for.

[Individualist]

8. You nailed it.

The independents/center talking point is a DLC meme.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Ding ding ding. eom

[treestar]

49. to win you have to get most of the voters

go from the center out.

The Libertarian party does a great job with its base, its just that it's base is limited to the far end of one side.

We criticize the Republicans as irrelevant because they go further and further to the right, only appealing to a few voters on the right.

the 'base' is getting to be a tiresome meme if it means only those on the furthest extremes.

[Laelth]

92. Here's how Jefferson defined the party's base:

"The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the (aristocracy) should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279

That's a really big group. The "base" of the Democratic Party is not small at all. When the Democratic Party does things that clearly favor the wealthy, I say they are appealing to "centrists" and abandoning their base. On the other hand, I say that the Democratic Party is serving its base when it does things that clearly favor the working class, i.e. "the people." That's not too much to ask, is it? Shouldn't at least one of the two major parties advance the interests of the masses?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

81. Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Motown_Johnny]

7. If you want to win one election and then lose three, you are right

but as we have seen from the backlash after Rove used this exact logic the people you get to turn out for that one election can not be counted on to turn out on a regular basis



You need the people who vote in every election to be voting for your side. That means having moderates who vote regularly vote the way you need them to


Sorry, Fail.....

[anonymous171]

9. What? I'm pretty sure Rove's strategies won two national elections for the GOP.

[RC]

20. With the help of election fraud using electronic voting machines and

cleansed voter lists. There are some very underhanded ethical and legal issues involved here.

[anonymous171]

22. So? He won, we lost. In domestic politics, the ends justify the means. nt

[RC]

44. Does "Nation of Laws..." mean anything to you?

[anonymous171]

65. I'm tired of liberals playing the political martyr.

I want to WIN and force the GOP out of power for good. I do not care how it is achieved, as long as it involves the Democratic process.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. and we now have 60 Senators (kinda) and a huge majority in The House

as well as the White House

The backlash is historic


You need to count on the people who turn out on a regular basis to vote or you are selling out the future for short term gains.


Going "hard left" to get people to turn out for one election when you can't count on them to turn out again for other elections is simply alienating the people who turn out regularly.


Rove's tactics we a failure. It seriously damaged their party and if we do the same thing we will suffer the same damage.

[anonymous171]

30. Backlash that was generated by Bush's wars and the economy

Relying almost exclusively on backlash won't fucking help in the long run. Our goal should be to create a permanent majority of leftists, a political arena in which the most far right candidates support policies that today's actual democrats do. In other words, we need to shift the center. And you can't do that just by sitting around and waiting for the other side to fuck up.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. It is impossible to create a permanent majority of leftists, you need moderates

to create a permanent majority


You want the exact same thing that all the Tea Party nuts want, just that it should be extreme lefties that dictate policy to the rest of the world instead of the right wing.


You are allowing what you want to be true to dictate what you believe to be true. The truth is that if you want a permanent majority you need the moderates. Deal with it.



This is the kind of thinking that got Nader 2.74% in 2000 and put Bush into office to begin with

[anonymous171]

40. Actually I agree with you.

My point is that you need to stop treating "moderates" as though they have some kind of concrete political philosophy that can be pandered to. Moderates are simply people who occupy the middle of the political spectrum. Basically, they are political novices who are scared of extremes. The goal should be to make moderates MORE leftist, thereby shifting the entire spectrum over to the left.

Anyways, what's wrong with dominating the political scene? Politics is war. The goal is to destroy your opponent, not kiss their ass.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. nothing wrong with it, you just can't aim all your guns in one direction when you are surrounded

we need to keep the base happy so they will turn out, and we need to keep moderates happy so they will vote with us instead of against us.


I agree that a well informed voter is our best friend but most people just can't or won't understand what we are trying to do.


Incrementalism sux, but it is better than the alternative. Which is failure

[anonymous171]

56. There are ways to keep the moderates and the libs happy

Like Healthcare for all. Seriously, who doesn't like healthcare (besides the Senate I mean)?

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Sorry, but you fail. eom

[Motown_Johnny]

23. any explanation for that comment?

or are we practicing faith based politics?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Define what a moderate is, please.

Do they have meetings? A handshake? If I wanted to become one, or pass as one, what are the things that would define a 'moderate'. I see people use that word both in adjective form, as in 'moderate Democrats' and as a stand alone noun, as in 'moderates who vote regularly...' The word has to do with being opposed to 'extreme' views, and so those who use the term ought to be able to tell us what liberal views they see as 'extreme or undue'. This is important.
Is a 'moderate' simply half Republican? Is it like the libertarians who are Republicans who like pot? Or what?
What is the 'moderate' platform. What does 'moderate' mean? What does a 'moderate' Democrat think is so dang extreme about a liberal Democrat?
Or is it just a term of rhetorical art that is not to be pinned down? If it has no meaning, it is not a term of value to us.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. Honestly?

word games?



a moderate is someone who is opposed to the extreme views of both the right and the left


a moderate is someone who is considered a "swing voter" and who tends to split tickets


a moderate is someone who tends to look at each issue separately and not to make decisions based on an ideology





and no, there is no secret handshake

[Richardo]

14. The real MYTH is that there IS a unified Democratic base,

... and the sub-MYTH is that it's some ideologically pure coven of progressive thought. And the sub-myth of THAT is that this 'base' somehow resides among the deep-thinkers of the internet message boards.

1) You're using a national election as a model for the off-year electorate. There are no nationwide races being run. You have to look at each state or district's electoral makeup to determine a winning strategy. Red states and red-leaning districts will not elect Democrats of any stripe, and certainly not the most liberal.

2) Additionally, even on a national level, what was the most remarkable thing about the Dem turnout in 2008? The much greater participation of young and non-white voters. These groups are arguably the most likely to vote with the mythical liberal 'base' but historically they are also the least likely to vote at all. Therefore by definition they are NOT the base. The base is the reliable segment of voters who will show up even for the most mundane local, district or statewide election.

[Laelth]

25. If you are right, you're saying the Democratic Party has no core principles.

And, I'll admit, for the past 30 years, it appears that this has been true. If there are no unifying principles, then there's no unified party. In that world (this world) the Democratic Party stands for nothing.

That's not the Democratic Party I want to support. And I feel that if the Democratic Party started acting like the party of FDR with some core values, that the party would gain support and would win more elections.

Nobody wants to be a part of a party that stands for nothing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Motown_Johnny]

29. No, what he is saying is that we belong to no organized political party, we are Democrats

we have core principles but we do not all prioritize them in the same order. Nor do we agree on how those principles are best applied.

We Are Democrats

[crispini]

72. I totally agree.

I see this even in my local county party. One of my fellow activists characterized it as like being back in high school. You've got all different cliques of kids and they all have different ideas about how to do things. The miracle is that we manage to tolerate each other because we DO have some good basic core ideas. But we do have very different priorities and we get behind different people.

[xchrom]

15. Recommend

[Laelth]

88. Cheers!

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[crispini]

16. I think this is an oversimplification of electoral situations.

You're making some very broad generalizations here. The electoral math for each state or each district is very different. Now, I haven't looked at the details for MA, but you may very well be right there. However, when you're in a different district with a different breakdown, straightforward appeals to the base and GOTV work just won't work if you don't have a Democratic base in that district.

The devil is, as always, in the details.

[Laelth]

36. Of course the math is different in every district.

But I'd be willing to bet that in most of them (presuming 50% turn-out of Republicans and Independents in a mid-term election) there are enough self-identified Democrats to win without having to get a single "independent" vote. If the base is energized, and if enough of them vote, the Democrat can and probably will win.

GOTV efforts are not enough. Actually saying what the base wants to hear, and then doing the things that benefit working Americans, are the keys to producing voter turn-out. Pandering to the banks and the insurance companies is the way to suppress your own voter turn-out and insure that Democrats lose.

:dem:

-Laelth

[crispini]

71. Uh no.

Sorry. Ran a campaign in one of those districts, lost a race by 4000 straight Republican votes, and that was in a Presidential election year where the base was energized as hell.

It's called "gerrymandering" -- ever heard of it? Some seats are simply impossible to win because they're drawn that way.

[Laelth]

78. I admit that gerrymandering does happen.

But, unless you're 100 years old, I don't think you've seen the kind of "energized" base that I am referring to. I am talking about 1936, 1938 (and I'll even give you 1964, right after the Kennedy assassination). In those elections the people knew that if they voted for Democrats, they were going to get their values represented. They believed would get help. They believed the government would take progressive action.

These days, people don't believe they will get anything like that from Democrats (because they don't). The Democratic Party must actually deliver in order to energize its base.

:dem:

-Laelth

[crispini]

90. You don't think the Obama election represented an "energized" base?

I think the "base" has changed dramatically from those elections you're referring to. Specifically, working-class white people no longer vote exclusively Democratic. Period. And I don't believe that it's due to their lack of faith in Democrats. I believe it's due to the cultural brainwashing these voters have undergone at the hands of RW media in the last 10 years.

Like it or not, we live in very different political times than 1964. For one thing, I wasn't even BORN in 1964. And I'm freaking OLD, okay? So your comparison is very much irrelevant, it seems to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. They know it's not true. Obama didn't run as a centrist.

He ran as a left-leaning Democrat. He promised a public option and to bring jobs back to the U.S. The only area he was conservative in was his in his opinion that marriage was between a man and a woman.

[Arkana]

18. By your logic, Dennis Kucinich should be President right now because

we don't need anyone but the left to elect a President.

You realize, of course, how foolish that is.

[RC]

31. You realize of course the winner of the Democratic convention is pretty much

decided in advance. We the people are spoon fed what is needed for the proper selection of candidates in the primaries.

[Motown_Johnny]

32. I think I heard Hillary say that once

Oh wait.... no I didn't

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Seriously, that must be news to Hillary Clinton

Not to mention Ed Muskie, Scoop Jackson and all of the other establishment frontrunners who didn't get the nomination.

[treestar]

54. Abdicate all responsibility for the people

And all you have left is cynicism. If they people let themselves be led around by the nose, that's on them.

[Arkana]

79. What else does the CIA tell you through the fillings in your teeth?

[inna]

19. KR+4

:kick:

[noamnety]

28. I found your assumptions about independents off base and illogical.

"... they have few core political values--that's why they're independents. They just want to be on the "winning team""

Since these are people who specifically opted out of a team mentality, it's illogical to state that being on a winning team is their motivation.

I also find it off base to assume they are independents because they have few core political values. I've found some independents to be purely apathetic, and most that I run into are independent because neither party enacts policies that reflects their values.

I've run into far more democrats than independents willing to sacrifice core political values to be on the winning team.


----------
Here's my theory on winning elections:

Use empty slogans and convince people they are voting in The Most Important Election In Their Lifetime and that the challenger represents Change. (See Our Brand Is Crisis.)

[Laelth]

41. I admit that I did not do a full profile of the psychological mindset of independent voters.

My point was that with enough turn-out, we can win without them, so who cares what they think or why they vote the way they do?

:dem:

-Laelth

[noamnety]

51. I saw a post on DU a day or two ago

I wish I could remember who posted it. It rang true. Paraphrasing: The party (and DU) doesn't care about the independent voter until they lose an election, and then they scream that it is the fault of independent voters. Start a thread with the word Nader in the title and track the views, you'll get a good demonstration of that.

We tend to think republican vs. democrat. Wouldn't it be something if the politicians consistently voted people vs. corporations? Imagine if democrats did that.

[Laelth]

68. That would be a better world.

Thanks for the reply.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Bjorn Against]

34. We need independents, but independents are not the same thing as "centrists"

I am an independent and I am nowhere close to being "centrist", I sit to the left of Bernie Sanders who is also independent but not "centrist". The notion that all independents think alike and position themselves in the narrow ground between Democrats and Republicans is what the real myth is.

[PassingFair]

38. You read my mind!

The only people I know who identify
as "centrists" are DLC-type Democrats.

Independents are a mixed bag, but NONE
of them would self-identify as "centrists".

[Motown_Johnny]

47. Yes, but you are only about 2 or 3 % of the electorate, and there is no chance you will

vote for a 'puke


what is needed to win is the "swing voters" who can be convinced to vote one way this election and the other way the next election. That 5% (or so) in the middle are the ones who decide a great many elections.


Clearly, if you do not turn out your base for the other 46% of the vote you can never get to 51%. That should go without saying. That is the trick. Keeping the base happy while swinging the middle to your side.

Unfortunately, having a base with unrealistic expectations makes it impossible to keep them happy while appealing to the middle.

[treestar]

52. Your last sentence says it all

If the 'base' is equal to those on the farthest end, then those individuals know the cannot get everything they want soon.

[Bjorn Against]

59. These "swing voters" you speak of are usually not too concerned about issues

I don't want to speak about all "swing voters" because there are certainly exceptions, but the truth is the people who have trouble choosing a side are usually not real well informed about the issues and you are not going to win them over by moving to the right. They tend to vote on the basis of personality rather than politics, there are very few people who are die-hard "centrists" that will swing their vote either way on the basis of a well thought out analysis of the candidates stance on the issues. If they can't make up their mind on what side they are on that is most likely because they are fairly apathetic and really don't pay much attention to politics.

And I wouldn't dismiss people like me as being 2-3% of the population, I think our numbers are much bigger than you care to realize. While we won't vote Republican we will not automatically vote for anyone with a D behind their names either, you need more than a party label to win our vote.

[Peacetrain]

37. Bill Clinton won, Obama won, Kennedy won, Carter, Truman.. hmmmm how many purists have been elected?

I am not being snarky here.. Just a serious question. Can you point out to me, how many national canidates who have not moved to include a larger tent on the Democratic side have won?

The only reason little Bush won (is he did not the first time) and the second time was TERROR TERROR TERROR.. and how our side buckled when Kerry started taking heat.

[anonymous171]

42. Kennedy and Truman were way more leftist than Obama or Clinton.

[Peacetrain]

45. Do not mix up Bobbys later politics with Johns politics.. Kennedy and Truman were anything but left

[anonymous171]

53. Really?

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

[Peacetrain]

58. Really... HCR has been pushed by Teddy R and Nixon..

Truman and Kennedy were huge Hawks..

[anonymous171]

61. Yes, but back then they had an actual enemy.

So aggressive defense spending made some sense. Also, Truman was not talking about simple "reform." Unlike Obama, he was actively campaigning for an (actually strong) Public Option.

[Peacetrain]

62. You are making my point.. Truman and Kennedy both were anything but political purists..

[anonymous171]

63. Yes, but they were far more leftist than Obama or Clinton

Which was my original point.

[Peacetrain]

64. Nope..

Anon.. Truman by executive order.. put in loyalty oaths to ferret out communists so they would not get job...Kennedy had a democratic congress both sides, and did not get HCR passed.

They were not more "left" than Obama.

and my original question still stands..show me a doctrine purist who has taken the Presidency?..

[Individualist]

73. Exactly

Obama and Clinton are both to the right of Nixon.

[davsand]

43. The GOP is more homogenized. That is why that strategy works for them.

Your analysis is consistent for a low turnout race (and I agree with it in that scenario.) However, you cannot assume that the Dem party is anywhere near as cookie cutter as the current Republican party is. DU tends to be pretty far left in attitudes--we ARE self selecting, you know--but the REST of the Dem party is gonna fall someplace between DU and the Republicans. Those folks are the "base" you are talking about along with "the Kucinich voters."

The GOP has also been quite good at being able to ID the "wedge" issues and then co-opting them for their benefit. (Guns, Abortion, and Gay Marriage all come to mind fairly quickly...) Dems have met with a lot less success with our issues. There is a danger in using selected issues as your sole party ID because you then have a litmus test sort of thing going on. Dems have done a bit better with that, overall, but I still see an awful lot of "purity police" kind of stuff going on either here at DU or even in my local party.

My husband and I are local pols and we are both strongly IDd with the local labor unions. I've walked my share of pickets lines over the years, and I've walked the walk any number of other ways. I have also been active with any number of human rights organizations from GLBT issues to Choice to access to health care, to immigration issues.

I am also seen as a "conservative" Democrat locally--at least by a few Democrats. I can drive five miles to the next county, sit down in a local coffee shop with that county's Dem party chair and he'll sit and tease me about eating sprouts and hugging trees. HE thinks I'm about as liberal as a Dem can be. He's a retired union guy that came out of a different world. He respects me, however, just as I respect him. We work together very well, and I am proud of the relationship we have established. (Our counties share some state and federal level legislative seats, so we NEED that relationship.)

You have got to be very careful as a Dem when you start talking about and attempting to ID "the base." What, exactly defines a true Dem?



Laura

[Laelth]

57. I hear you, and I don't entirely disagree.

It is very difficult to nail down core issues and beliefs that might appeal to 90% of self-identified Democrats. I am a liberal in Georgia, and that means that for many of my neighbors I am a stark-raving leftist lunatic. My wife claims to be a socialist (and that means she's not safe here discussing politics with anyone but me).

But I am convinced that pandering to the insurance industry and the banks is not the way to win as a Democrat, even if we are a "big tent." I also believe that most voters do not vote on issues. They vote on a perception of strength and resolve. People admired Bush, even when they disagreed with him, because he stood for his principles and fought for them (even when they were wrong).

The Democratic Party needs to stand for something. If we are such a big tent that we stand for nothing, then I want out, and so do a lot of people like me. And that's what will happen if our leaders don't stand for anything (other than the financial interests of the banks and the insurance companies).

:dem:

-Laelth

[davsand]

76. I honestly think voter select candidates based on how they perceive them.

I'm not entirely sure that any given candidate's position on one or two issues is enough to sway the average voter. I do think there are specific hot button issues that some folks vote for (or against) but I have never been convinced that any given race was won by one issue or another. usually, it isa package of positions that rules the day. By way of example: as a Dem, are you gonna vote for a Republican simply because the Dem candidate is a member of NRA? (assuming that Dem is ok on all your other ideas of interest.) How about if that candidate is not an NRA member, but is rated badly by NARAL?

See what I mean?

Now, let's say that same NRA member Dem is somebody you have met and liked a lot. (Maybe he's an avid collector or maybe it is just a matter of principle for him...) If you liked this candidate and felt like you could talk to him you most likely would vote for him over a GOP pick because you felt you shared common ground on something. THAT is a case where the candidate and his persona trumps his positions.

You see voters go against their own interests ALL the time--especially in a lot of cases where there is one hot button issue that has been put forward by the GOP. The ONLY way to offset that is with candidate exposure and personal touch on the campaign trail. I am convinced that Dems do not win some races due to piss poor campaigns more than anything.

Yes, there IS a demographic you will never overcome, but I think any given race can be won or lost by how that race is worked nd the campaign is conducted.



Laura

[Laelth]

83. Thoughtful post. Thanks.

I think you have a much better handle on how independents vote than I do, so I will defer to you on that.

On the matter of guns, specifically, while I understand why many liberals favor gun control (works in other countries, so let's try it here), I think this is a big-time losing issue for the Democratic Party, and I am publicly pro-2nd Amendment.

But, honestly, I was suggesting in my OP that we can win without independents. In that respect, it doesn't really matter why they vote the way they do.

:dem:

-Laelth

[elocs]

46. I believe there are left leaning independents and right leaning independents

and probably not a large numbers of true independents because depending upon the issue or issues they might be more inclined to move to the left or the right if they do not already lean that way.

I also believe that the Democratic Party is not a truly unified party inasmuch as there are conservative Democrats who simply will not support the same issues as most of the rest of the party will support. Then, when they do not support the Democratic cause they therefore in reality end up supporting the Republican position.

The Republican party seems to be shifting and concentrating itself further to the right of its own side of the political spectrum. Republicans really look upon the conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, like the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but there are still too many differences between them for the hard right wingers to embrace them and sing "Kumbya". But just as with independent voters who lean right or those who will vote right based upon a specific issue, the Republicans will take all they can get.

Overall though Republicans are much more disciplined in holding their members in line than Democrats are. If the present situation were reversed and the GOP held the White House with the same majorities in Congress they would be rolling right over the Democrats and taking no prisoners.

I think there is a middle to be had for Democrats, those left leaning independents or true independents who might vote Democratic based upon the issues, but the trouble is that their beliefs are likely to diverge too far from what the left of the Democratic Party, the Progressives and Liberals, would find palatable--too conservative. The bottom line is that there needs to be a commonality that makes us Democrats, things that hold and bind us together even when we disagree on certain points and all of us, both Liberals and the Blue Dogs, need to stand together for the good of the Party.

I don't believe that as Democrats we gain the respect or support of independents by continual and endless compromise and bipartisanship to gain a bill, any bill, at any cost. People want to be part of a party that stands hard for things and even though they are grossly wrong Republicans are perceived by many as doing that.

[Laelth]

60. I agree, and I have argued something similar before.

Here, if you are interested: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/12

And I admit, I did not do a thorough, scientific analysis of the mind-set and voting patterns of independent voters, but the reason I didn't is because, for the purpose of this thread, it's irrelevant. My point was that with enough turn-out, we can win without any independent votes, so who cares what they think or why they vote the way they do?

:dem:

-Laelth

[elocs]

70. Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

I think that explains much.

[Laelth]

86. It does, but the Democratic Party will suffer if that doesn't change soon.

More here, if you're interested: http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/16/ma-sen-weve-seen-this-movie-before/

:dem:

-Laelth

[treestar]

48. That would be in the campaign

What happens while trying to govern is not completely controllable, since then you are forced to deal directly with others.

Are you claiming Coakley could win if she campaigned that she would join the filibuster because the bill is not for single payer?

[anonymous171]

66. A good politician governs to win. He/she does stuff that his constituents like

And will fuck up anyone who gets in his/her way. They don't aim for compromise. They aim for victory.

There should be little to no difference between how a politician campaigns and how they govern.

[treestar]

91. I don't see that

Maybe you can give an example, but if they are actually governing they have to deal with those other forces and other sources of power. They have to compromise. The voters get that to a point, besides, the voters are diverse.

They do want to get re-elected, which isn't that bad, it motivates them to do what they can that the majority of the voters will like.

[RBInMaine]

69. Hogshit analysis. Obama won because he won the swing voters. What planet are you on.

[Laelth]

74. You are such a pleasant person.

Who imparted those nice manners to you? I am sure your parents are proud.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Codeine]

77. His manners aside,

he's dead right.

[Laelth]

80. Or, he's dead wrong.

Not exactly a well-reasoned argument.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. By appealing to the right they lose the left. Actions have consequences. K&R

[Laelth]

84. Agreed. Good article on that very subject linked below.

Here, if you haven't seen it already: http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/16/ma-sen-weve-seen-this-movie-before/

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Agreed.

[Demeter]

87. EXACTLY!

If you can't convince your base, what makes you think you can sell it to the Independents?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

89. That makes zero sense.