|
*Disclaimer – these views do not necessarily reflect the majority of views at DU or GD 2004
The biggest factor turning out voters in record numbers is anger at George W Bush and an overwhelming desire to deny him another term in office. Finally, his promise to be a uniter has paid off – for his adversaries. A consensus has formed that we cannot afford nor tolerate another Bush term.
All of the candidates have distinct credentials and are qualified to be president. Any one of them would be better than another term with Bush, and all the consequences that would entail.
Those that participate in primaries as opposed to only general elections are generally more informed. They are not sheeple. They make informed choices based on their own set of criteria, observations and values. One factor many consider in their choice is electability. Electability and qualified are not mutually exclusive traits. All of the candidates are qualified; electability does not take on the negative connotation that it means an electable but otherwise unqualified empty shell as it does with some here. It means a well-qualified candidate who also has a good chance of beating Bush.
The war is not the major issue with the majority of the rank and file of the Democratic voters. Likewise, they are not making the IWR and PATRIOT Act a litmus test for their choice of candidates. And, they see Bush as responsible for the Iraq war, and for misrepresenting the intelligence and rushing to war. And rightly so. They are not holding the Senate responsible for this war because of the IWR. But as far as the war issue goes, they are not stuck in the past, but focused on the future, and on resolving the situation in Iraq.
People are more concerned about domestic issues. JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! The economy. The deficit. Health care. Medicare. Social Services. Retirement. Education.
Notably missing in the desires of the majority of rank and file of the Democratic voters is a desire to radically restructure the Democratic Party. I’d venture to say it’s probably not even on most of their radar screens. It is most unrealistic to think the majority would ever agree to sacrifice their needs and priorities for an altruistic goal of a competing minority to purify the Party.
I can only speculate on why people have voted for the candidates that they have. Surely there is some merit to the bandwagon effect, everybody wants to align him/herself with a winner, but that cannot explain it all. In past primaries, there has never been a case where the candidate that one the first one has won most or all of the rest of them. Nor has there ever been such a streak of wins like this time either. And the bandwagon effect doesn’t explain how the first win came about either. Out of nowhere, it would seem, because he wasn’t the perceived front-runner at the time.
It would be interesting to see data on the past half dozen primaries or so. I don’t know how to find such data. If anyone reading this knows how to search for that and wants to post it in this thread that would be great. Just for the sake of curiosity.
It would also be interesting to see data or hear from someone who has actually managed a campaign. What kinds of things are done to bring a campaign from behind? Kerry had a major ground force at work in Iowa and numerous face-to-face meetings with groups of voters. I don’t know what else he did, but his campaign was retooled into a more effective one after a disappointing year previously. What did the Edwards campaign do to come from behind and make such an impressive showing in WI a couple days ago? What did the Clinton campaign do after 12 losses to finally turn things around and win the nomination in 1992?
Inquiring minds want to know.
|