Is appealing to the one third that decides elections a bad thing to do?

[davsand]

I've been seeing a bunch of discussion here about Independents (or worse yet--Republicans!) voting for Obama, and I am honestly confused by this. You can pretty much break the electorate out this way: One third Dem, One third Republican, One third Swing voters. If you want to win you have got to get more of that third group than the other side does. THAT is how it works.

General Elections are NOT decided by the "ham sandwich" voters (folks that would vote for a ham sandwich if it had the D or R associated with it.) General Elections are usually decided by that one third of voters that are "independent persuadables" or even "swing voters."

EVERY campaign I have run--evey election I have worked--has been about putting out your ideas in away that would appeal to that one third of voters that actually decide the election. I'm sorry to break the news, but most General Elections at a national level are NOT won based solely on party affiliation. Yes, current events can play a role, and distaste for one party or another fluctuates, but far and away, it is that one third in the middle that decides these elections.

Does this elude people???



Laura

[LeftCoast]

1. I believe the worry is *why* these folks are coming over

Are they voting for him now only to turn around and vote for the repub candidate in nov?

[jody]

2. IMO that's a very real possibility. n/t

[davsand]

3. I understand your fear, but I have to ask: Do you REALLY think they are that organized?

Honest--do you really think the GOP is THAT organized? More important, I guess, do you think the Dems could ever be that organized?

I don't. That is my fundamental problem with this entire premise. I just don't think the GOP is capable of putting THAT level of organization together. I will tell you that for SURE I doubt the DNC could. Maybe the rare local Dem or GOP organization is possible, but not at a statewide level, and not at a national level.

If you have been keeping up with current events here at DU (and that was not supposed to be a snark--I was trying for funny) The Dems here are split in a bunch of different ways. While it has been a train wreck to navigate, it is pretty much par for the course in any Primary.

The GOP is split out right now, too. Contrary to popular rumor on here the GOP does not march in lock step, nor do they ALL support McCain. I know several Republicans locally who can't abide Bush, and they have an equal lack of respect for McCain. I am seeing a LOT of Ron Paul signs--and those guys are RABID fiscal conservatives who really dislike dubya and his policies...

I don't think this crossover voting is anything other than people who are looking for something other than what we have.

Regards!


Laura

[LeftCoast]

4. Actually, I was just relaying the argument

I don't think that cross-over 'strategic' voting by republicans is a serious issue. It's always a possibility of course. Ultimately though, I think that would be trumped by turnout in Nov anyway. That goes for Clinton or Obama. I think this next election is going to be on par with '06 or even more of a Dem wave.

[davsand]

5. I agree--I'm seeing a Dem wave irrespective of the candidates.

I do think some candidates will carry more visceral responses (Huckabee would most certainly generate a huge frenzy in the Left for example) but I also think there is a very real attitude out there that across the political spectrum people are SICK and tired of being pissed off.

I have begun to wonder if ALL incumbents need to be worried--meaning current Dem office holders. I can't put my finger on it, but there is something in the air lately that makes me think this might be a year when people go to the polls and vote for whoever is NOT currently in office.

Again I have to say, I don't think it is anything organized, I think it is just people are fed up. Something that might help to explain the Obama crossover votes is the fact that his mantra of "change" might just be triggering THAT anti incumbent attitude.

I dunno...


Laura

[LeftCoast]

7. I definitely think there is some anti-incumbency feeling out there

There was just that DINO that lost his primary to a progressive...grr, wish I could remember who/where that was. Still, I don't feel like there will be many Dems who lose their seats in Nov. My highly speculative guess for Nov is +25 in the House and +5 in the Senate.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Only if you think winning is bad.

[davsand]

8. Remember, Will, Dems have a real appreciation for the circular firing squad.

Frequently, if you wanted to find a Dem all you needed to do was follow the bloody footprints where we shot ourselves in the foot. Locally or nationally, we've all seen it happen more than once.

This particular Primary has had me concerned about party unity. I have been worried not so much because of the candidates or the supporters--but because I have been seeing a growing rift within the party. Locally AND nationally, there has been a very real loss of pragmatism (have you observed it too?) In a nutshell, we have a few folks left who understand the mechanics and a whole lot of people out there with all kinds of passion but not a freaking clue when it comes to strategy.

Frankly it scares hell out of me because this is potentially a clusterf*$k in the making. If it is mismanaged, we could end up with a loss of Congressional seats.

Just my two cents, and glad to run across you!



Laura

[WilliamPitt]

9. You too!

:toast: