Why the "Cynical Independent" should vote Dem.

[skids]

Let's take a trip inside the mind of the "D or R there's no difference" crowd. This is a huge block of people in the US, and though one would guess they have low turnout rates their voice will still be important in the upcoming majority chairmanship election.

These people tune out what politicians say, to them it is all a pack of lies. These are the people that vote for checks and balances, who believe gridlock is a good thing, and are to blame for such phenomina as Republican Massachusetts governors. They are generally anti-tax, and harbor a sort of anarchistic belief system out of frustration with the government.

One would think, with Republicans in control of both houses and the executive branch we would have no problem, and Dems would coast in merely on their desire to check Republican power. That will probably be the case for some. However, there is a subset of these folks who won't admit it, but have a pro-Republican bias. Partly this can be attributed to the effectiveness of the Right Wing Noise Machine in demonizing Democrats -- the most effective tactic being that the noise machine utilizes the voices of so-called "non-political" or "guy on the street" testimonials. Which is why Republicans like astroturfing so much, and why they run "cowboy candidates."

How do we wring a Dem vote from this subgroup -- the "Democrats are just as corrupt or worse" crowd? Well, certainly, exposing in great detail the appalling depth and breadth of Republican corruption is a good first step. Here's another meme I think might be effective, and ways to express it (keeping in mind that we are trying to think in the fantasy-land of the uber-cynic)

"Dems are going to have their hands full rolling up the Republican corruption network for at least a year."

"Dems have been out of power so long it will take them a while to rebuild their own pay-for-play machine."

"Dems will have to fight to regain their influence even if they have a clear majority in both houses."

"Dems don't have the lockstep thing down -- the DLC/DNC divide will limit the level to which they can consolidate power, but they will do one thing effectively for sure: disassemble the Republican money machine."

As pro-gridlock voters, this promises them two things: a rollback of the consolidated one-party power they dislike, and something to prevent the "evil government" from moving fast on their plans. The pitfall of course is in overplaying it in a way that conveys a "Dems are incompetent" meme.

You can also see that these memes are not "pro-Dem" on the surface. This gives them two advantages -- one, cynics are less likely to tune them out; two, they are easier to dovetail onto the back of an opponent's right wing talking point (shill: "The Dems are divided" our guy: "Yes, they are united in wanting the Republican power block broken up, though."

One issue to use to illustrate this, not counting of course Republican scandals too numerous to count, is the K-Street Project -- how long it took to build, as a limiting estimate for a similar Dem initiative, and as an illustration of the highly organized nature of the Republican money machine.

What say you? Is this a meme worth pushing? Any other illustrative examples that would work well for it?

[Fresh_Start]

1. As a former 'it makes no difference' independent

you really don't understand what you're talking about.

We're not pro-gridlock, we're anti-extremist.
The extremists on both sides of the fence are appalling.

We are moderates through and through.

[skids]

2. I don't think I was talking about just moderates in general...

...more the cynical crowd. Would you say they don't exist in large numbers? They certainly seem to be easy enough to run into on the street for me.

[shifting_sands]

3. One Independent

You may have jumped to some erroneous conclusions regarding independents. For one, I have not found them to be pro-republican, and for two I have found them to be more loyal to the health of the Republic than to a party platform. They do believe in "check and balances" and recognize that both parties are subject to the excesses of power. In fact I believe that politics is the career path for psychopaths. No matter which party holds the reigns of power, they can and have gotten out of control and forgotten why they were there, if they ever knew why they were there or if we even know why we elected them. Many of these problems could be eliminated if there were a strong independent media and if we put at least a third of our defense budget into education (we would still be stronger than any other country) Independents aren't as likely to support corruption because it's become a "party" by product, nor do they paint the "party" with a broad brush as all good or all bad, they are a little more thoughtful in their "picks" to represent them.

Most of the independents I know are sick to death of the stupid arguments back and forth that have nothing to do with issues, Gore and Kerry tried to stick to issues and people accused them of being boring, because we are too interested in this country in who sleeps with whom, and if women are treating an unborn child in a proper manner in spite of the fact that the people concerned don't give a damn about the "born" child.

No, you have missed a few details about independents, mainly they can't give up their dream of a third party that can represent education, environment, social problems, the real issues of a sovereign country. Most of them aren't interested in "empire building," or who sleeps with whom. We are interested in non-consensual sex such as rape, sexual harassment, and predators of kids. Independents are far more complex in the reasons they vote and for whom than you've outlined.

[LWolf]

4. What say I:

I don't know if you've characterized the crowd you refer to accurately. You've probably described *some* of them, anyway. Still, I find myself, er...cynical about the memes you suggest. Here's my thinking:

...exposing in great detail the appalling depth and breadth of Republican corruption..

I think reluctant voters are already aware of this corruption. You'd be better off trying to convince them that the Ds, in their own way, are not equally corrupt. That's a tough sell.

"Dems are going to have their hands full rolling up the Republican corruption network for at least a year."

Voters who believe that the Dems are riddled with corruption themselves won't believe the "rolling up the network" thing. They are more likely to believe that the Dems will step in and take over the network for themselves.

"Dems will have to fight to regain their influence even if they have a clear majority in both houses."

Reluctant voter response: "And what deals will they make with what devils to do so?"

"Dems don't have the lockstep thing down -- the DLC/DNC divide will limit the level to which they can consolidate power, but they will do one thing effectively for sure: disassemble the Republican money machine."

First of all, I really disagree that these are "pro-gridlock voters." More on that later. As far as this meme goes, here's the response:

"The Dems in power DO have the lockstep thing down. They ridicule, marginalize, and disenfranchize those of their own who don't march as ordered, to the point that many flee to 3rd parties or don't vote at all. I know. I used to be one of them."

As to that group of voters that don't see any difference between D and R, I'll give you my take, for what it's worth. I understand them; sometimes I agree with them, in a limited way. Here's the thing; when they say there is "no difference," they don't mean that there is no difference on issues. They mean that there is no difference in the levels of corruption, or the enslavement to corporate interests. If you want to convince them of a difference, those are the differences you will have to address. The disenfranchised already believe that the Dems won't make any real progress on issues, but will do a lot of posturing while keeping their corporate masters happy; their leash is too short to actually enact universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, for example. They will simply soothe the masses by promising some version of universal "insurance," owned, of course, by those same corporate masters. That's gridlock, and that's what the reluctant or angry voter is rebelling against, not voting for.

If you really want to convince these voters to cast votes for Democrats, convince them that they are mistaken. That putting Democrats in power will actually mean that the Dems use that power to make real, non-corporate controlled changes. The first step: Don't tell them that all of those things that Dems won't commit to, and avoid talking about, or working on, NOW, will magically appear "AFTER" they are in power. People want to see some evidence of commitment BEFORE casting that vote. Cynics just won't buy that. Present them with some evidence, and present them with candidates that HAVE kept hope alive by standing up to corruption, inaction, and fascism the last 6 years. Some Democratic candidates outside the corporate mainstream would be a good start.

[skids]

5. Thanks.

It seems that I have touched a nerve and some people who are "heavily moderate" aren't going to bother to distinguish between the cynical crowd and the larger population of moderates. I thought I was pretty clear, but since you're the only one so far to recognize the distinction even though you don't necessarily agree with it, thank you for that. And the interesting reply.

I'll have to beg to disagree that there is no "pro-gridlock" crowd. I hear the meme promulgated all the time from multiple sources -- on the street, on the web, in the media. Again, for the benefit of others reading the thread I am not saying all Independents/Moderates are in this category.

I especially liked your point about the "show me" aspect -- the importance of having on hand solid examples of Dem committment to positive change.

[LWolf]

6. You're welcome.

When you ask what I think, I'll share my thinking, agreements and disagreements, but it's just my thinking. It's not like I represent the rest of ANY group!