Are swing and moderate voters more important than progressive voters?

[Bushknew]

It seems the democratic leadership still believes so.

One of the reasons why I think Dems lost in 2000 was their "where else are they going to go attitude."

Well, they went with Nader.

Do swing and moderate voters really out number progressive voters anyway?

I and many of my friends wanted to vote for Nader but didnÕt, we voted against Bush.

Meaning, there were a lot of false positive democratic votes being counted on election 2000.

Let the swing and moderate voters decide on whether to vote Dem or repug instead
of your base deciding on Green or Dem.

A party is nothing without its principles, a party can not please everyone.

Conservatives say this what we stand for, take it or leave it.

Dems should do the same, make the swing and moderate voters decide and not your base!

Come back home, come back home to the left.

[Ohio Dem]

1. Very important.

More important than the left? No. Needed to win an election? Yes.

[Bushknew]

9. Question is, what issues sell these swing and moderates to the Dem party?

And is it worth and necessary to move the entire Democratic party to the right to get these voters?

Do we have enough voters/electoral votes within our base to win without these
swing and moderate voters?

[Catt03]

23. Depends on what "move right" means

As for me, I would compromise on issues and I consider myself a liberal.

For example, I hate that guns are so easy to purchase and would be very happy to outlaw guns in the US. However, I am willing to accept that this issue is off the table and can accept reluctantly that my stance is a lose issue.

About the only thing I am not willing to compromise on is Roe V Wade.

[WilliamPitt]

2. You're wrong about what the Democratic leadership thinks

Feeling like an outsider, and maybe secretly enjoying that status, does not make you an outsider.

P.S. The 'you' above was not directed at you personally, Bushknew.

-----

Political Parties Shift Emphasis to Core Voters
By Adam Nagourney
New York Times

http://truthout.org/docs_03/090203G.shtml

Monday 01 September 2003

CHICHESTER, N.H., Aug. 30 — In a fundamental reassessment of presidential political strategy, White House and Democratic Party officials say that turning out core Republican and Democratic voters will be more critical to next year's election than winning independent voters, long a prime target in national campaigns.

On this Labor Day weekend, 15 months before the general election, party strategists are already building what are almost certain to be the most expensive and ambitious turn-out-the-vote operations in history, in a reflection of this calculation. In the 2002 Congressional elections, the Republican Party did not begin assembling its turnout operation until four months before Election Day.

The activity reflects a new view of a political landscape changed because of what each party sees as an increasingly polarized and evenly divided electorate. Americans who move between parties — known as swing voters — are being overshadowed by a growing and very motivated base of Republican and Democratic loyalists.

"There's a realization, having looked at the past few elections, that the party that motivates their base — that makes their base emotional and turn out — has a much higher likelihood of success on Election Day," Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, said in an interview.

Stanley Greenberg, the Democratic pollster who advised Bill Clinton when he won by appealing to swing voters 11 years ago, said: "Things have changed over the decade since 1992. The partisans are much more polarized. And turnout has actually gone up because the partisans have turned out in much greater numbers and in greater unity."

"I don't see a decline in independents," Mr. Greenberg added. "But what has happened is the partisans have dominated because their turnout is higher and they vote with greater and greater unity."

[Terwilliger]

5. so what will that mean in terms of policy change?

anything?

[Bushknew]

7. I hope your right and not just lip service

Actions will speak louder than words.

They shouldnÕt be afraid to be liberal.

[KaraokeKarlton]

3. All voters are equally as important...even the radicals on both sides

Perhaps swing voters are more influential in elections only because without enough of them, your side is toast. It's important to try to find a fair balance between swing voters and progressives. I think the biggest problem with this whole issue is that many progressives have the "all or nothing" mentality. They're impossible to please while still appealing enough to the swing voters to win elections. I susupect there's some frustration with progressives for just that reason...an unwillingness to make any sacrifices at all...even if the alternative is a million times worse than making that sacrifice would be.

[Mairead]

13. "while still appealing enough to the swing voters to win elections"

many progressives have the "all or nothing" mentality. They're impossible to please while still appealing enough to the swing voters to win elections. I susupect there's some frustration with progressives for just that reason...an unwillingness to make any sacrifices at all

You've got it backwards. The reality is that 'moderates' have the Republican mentality. They want soft-Republican policies with a Democratic label, and are eager to shift blame leftward, claiming the left have an 'all or nothing', 'impossible to please' mentality that's 'unwilling to make any sacrifices at all' when in fact it is they who are constantly moaning and digging in their heels. That's destructive of the Democrats, so I have to wonder whether it's not calculatedly so, just as the nominal switch in party affiliation was by that woman in Florida who designed the Jews-for-Buchanan ballot--with her switch, they could claim that the ballot was 'designed by a Democrat' and 'approved by both parties' when in fact it was designed by a Republican and approved by 2 Republicans. What a nifty deal! For them.

[Blue_Chill]

16. eh?

I am a moderate, thought not a swing voter, and I do not want repug lite with a democratic label. I want policy that makes sense instead of idealistic nonsense that has never been shown to work.

Moderates want the country to run so that we can live our lives in peace, make our own choices. We do not want radical idealists from either side taking over and making our choices for us.

[Terwilliger]

4. I'd love to

let's see if that happens

[lancemurdoch]

6. who votes?

I saw an analysis recently that said the wealthiest 20% of Americans are half of the voters, and the poorest 80% are the other half of voters.

I don't look at winning elections as a be-all, end-all, I think they're just one of the tactics to get to a better society for working people. I think organizing people into unions is another.

If I was an apolitical technician like Dick Morris, and you asked me what to do, I might say to appeal more to that wealthiest 20% who votes. But when being a Democrat is just one part of your political being, I think you would say that attempting to enfranchise more of that 80% into voting, or participating in control of their own society is perhaps as equally important as winning elections. In fact, comparing it to the Dick Morris types is patronizing. I think the party that stands for working people, and which includes "identity" issues as well (feminism, equality for African-Americans, anti-homophobia) should simply be an empty vessel for the needs of such peoples - be it the Democrats or whatever.

[depakid]

8. I agree pandering to the right to get so called "swing voters"

is VERY bad strategy and it'll cost Democratic candidates elections next year if they continue to do it.

I really hope that what's been passing for Democratic "leadership" lately has finally gotten it through their collectively dense heads that in poll after poll, strong progressive stands are more popular and in many cases far more popular than conservative positions.

Worse than pandering to the right for swing votes is seeming wishy washy- not standing for anything at all- which is again something that Democratic candidates have been doing for over 10 years now- and losing.

Not only are they elections, but they're losing people like me and many others to the Green Party. Witness the shadow conventions. What's more, they are turning off a HUGE portion of the electorate that doesn't bother to vote at all anymore. Those are the people the Dems should be going after, because in so doing- in standing for something- in empowering people and giving them a reason to register and vote- they'll create the sort of contagious hope and enthusiasm that will also win over those mythical swing voters.

Thus far, the only candidate who seems both able to understand and accomplish this is... (drum roll) Howard Dean.

[Iverson]

10. Everyone's vote is important.

Do not forget the non-voting majority either.

[AP]

11. Here's how they weren't important in 2000

Nationwide, 90% of the voters who preferred Nader (which was a surpringly large number for a four person race--18%, roughly) ended up voting for Gore in the end. When the race was tight, those voters ended up going with Gore even though Gore did absolutely nothing to appeal to those voters in the final days. Gore went after senior citizens by talking about a drug plan for the last two weeks (clearly, he thought Florida was winnable.) And I'll bet you the bulk of the 10% that remained with Nader were voters in CA and NY where there was no chance that Gore was going to lose.

So, the lesson is, in a tight race, people who would prefer the most liberal person running, are willing to go with their second choice if they think it will make a difference in the final outcome.

And another important thing to note is that, for voters to be able to make this calculation, they have to have good information about whether their candidate is close in the polls. I believe the polls had Gore down in FL anyway, but this shows the importance of accurate information prior to election day.

[Bushknew]

15. But many people voted for Nader in Florida

So I think the moral for the story is retain your liberal base.

[REP]

12. My Naive Idea

I cannot help but think that the goals of the Democratic Party - jobs, peace, prosperity, healthcare and fairness - are the goal of the swing and moderate voters. I think there's a lot of progressives out there who don't realize that they're progressive yet.

Another problem, which many including Al Franken have pointed out - ideas that are pitched at the "underclass" "poor" "working poor" etc aren't often received well because so many have bought into the idea that they're just not rich YET, and one day they're gonna want that capital gains tax cut, etc. We need to get better at getting out the message of "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat!" Harshing the buzz of "rich someday" won't fly, but if we keep hammering that they way things are now, the Republicans are doing all they can to keep people from getting rich, we might reach more swing votes.

[Q]

14. The 'goal' of the Democratic party should be to...

...represent Democrats. Otherwise...why bother at all with a two party system?

[reachout]

18. Three little letters

IRV

I would really like to live in an America with proportional representation, but I realize it is something that will not happen in my lifetime. Instant Runoff Voting is however a reasonably attainable goal.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would have already quitely started to push this reform all over the place. It would solve all of this center-left bickering. The vast majority of Green voters would happily put the Dem as their second choice in a preferential voting system. Yes it would get some Greens elected. It would also get quite a few more Democrats elected.

A center-left coalition is necessary to move this country back from the extreme right, but there are plenty of people like me who will not vote for center to right candidates as their first choice. I think IRV would free up a lot of wasted energy and would actually start moving politics in this country in a more positive progressive direction.

Democrats could continue to focus on their center to center-left base and Greens could stay busy keeping the left active. There are really a lot of lefties out here in America who feel so disenfranchised by the two-party system they just don't vote.

[Blue_Chill]

17. You can't win an election without both moderates and leftwingers

So neither is more important then the other. It's both or you lose.

[buddhamama]

19. we the people are important

politicians represent the citizens.

more focus on the non-voter and under presented citizens and issues wuld be refreshing.

[uptohere]

20. all voters are important

but there are more centrist/swing voters and the elections are won and lost by attracting more of them than the other guy.

[slackmaster]

21. They surely are important in California

Here are the voter registration stats as of August 8, 2003:

Voter registrations by party:

Democrats 44.1%
Republicans 35.3%
Other 5.0%
Declined to state 15.7%

Source: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/regstats_08-08-03.pdf

Republicans + independents = MAJORITY irrespective of what third party voters do.

[birdman]

22. You can't win without both wings of the party

Send the moderates and swings to the other side
and you wind up with marginalized 20% of the electorate.

Principles don't win elections coalitions do. If you can't
appeal to both wings of the party and a bunch of those shallow
swing voters you lose. And the principles of a politician
who loses have zero value.