More observations regarding the Democratic voting public, and other things

[MurikanDemocrat]

*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.

[MurikanDemocrat]

1. geeze I had to write this on Nader night. Let's try this again.

kick

[snoochie]

2. Interesting points

I'm curious too as to Clinton's turnaround. He lost 12 primaries before winning?

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. I saw that in another thread in the last couple weeks. Wish I could

find it cause I think it had a link to past primary stats.

[RichM]

3. Hey, why restructure the Dem Party? After all, they've done so well!!!

I mean, look how powerful their position is. They control all of zero branches of government! Hard to beat that record!

And, look what great shape the country is in! Permanent war - NO PROBLEM-A! A media that sounds like Pravda - OK with us!! Yes sir, lemme sign up to join those Don't-Need-Much-Changing Dems! When you're doing as well as they are, hey, why even consider changing!?!?

PS - What kinds of things are done to bring a campaign from behind?
- Well, rightwing attacks on your opponents help. So does constant flaunting of military credentials. Pandering to the powerful never hurts, either.

[MurikanDemocrat]

5. kick

[BruinAlum]

6. I agree on all points

Especially points about the Iraq war. The general public holds Bush responsible for the rush to war.

I'm surprised to see so many here blame it on the IWR anyway. Bush would have gone to war without the IWR, and wasn't even going to allow a vote in the first place. Dems would have been politically doomed had they all voted that down. It's a battle they would have lost, and they took it away from the Republicans as a weapon to be used against them. That's just the political reality. Politics isn't pretty.

Bush is the one who violated all the provisions of the IWR. He didn't allow the inspections process. He refused to work with the UN. He refused to work with allies. He insulted just about everyone in the world.

People make too much of the IWR and the Senators who voted for it. The game is chess, not checkers. They tried to impose a process, with war as the LAST resort, not the only resort like people here like to portray it, and in the meantime survived to fight another day.

And that's the truth. That's the reality.

I can feel the flames already...