Bush will rally red-meat wingers; Kerry will try to appeal to swingsters

[BurtWorm]

I hope Kerry knows what he's doing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50296-2004Jul14?language=printer

Therein lies an important key to understanding Bush's reelection strategy. Although age-old campaign rules dictate that the general-election candidate must emphasize moderate "swing" voters and political independents, Bush strategists are predicting that this election, more than previous ones, will be determined by the turnout of each side's partisans. Although not discounting swing voters, Bush is placing unusual emphasis so far on rallying the faithful.

"In close elections in today's environment, the old political strategy of focusing just on independents won't work," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist. "Campaigns have to motivate supporters at the same time of appealing to swing voters."

There is evidence to support the Bush theory. A study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 21 percent of registered voters are undecided or might change their minds -- at this point in 2000, it was 32 percent. Still, Pew reasoned, "the swing vote, while smaller in relative terms, is still substantial and certainly large enough to propel either of the presidential candidates to a big victory."

Democrats say Bush's approach is novel. "It's a new way to run for president," said James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton's 1992 victory. Whereas "usually you quietly shore up your base and aggressively court the swing voter, Bush is aggressively shoring up his base and quietly courting the swing voter."

[Trajan]

1. Carville is correct ....

But Bush is FORCED to buttress his base, while Kerry is generally free to court the moderates ....

I said generally ....

It is nice to see Bush grovelling before those whom should already be carrying him in his Sedan Chair ...

Wasnt it great that Bush had to spend money in NC ? .... sure is ...

[ibegurpard]

2. For the most part I think you are correct.

The Democrats do a grave disservice to themselves, however, if they think they have their "base" in the bag. There is a LOT of discontent out there that people are setting aside because they know how important it is to get rid of these thugs. What is good is that Bush can't run as a "compassionate conservative"... he HAS to shore up his base and the "swing voters" aren't going to like what he has to do in order to achieve that. The question will be: will swing voters be motivated enough to get out and vote against him and will the Democratic "base" be motivated enough to overcome the wingnuts?

[BurtWorm]

3. I think both strategies are risky.

The swing vote strategy because it keeps the campaign's temperature cooler than it might have to be in a too-close-to-call kind of race, and the winger strategy because it gives a giant wedge for your opponent to drive between your die-hards and your go-alongs.

[yolatengo]

4. doesn't the RR continuously carp?

Haven't I read the religious right claim 4million of them stayed home
on Election Night 2000?

It's not a 'bad' strategery per se. Unmotivated RRs might get mighty
motivated to vote against the Antichrist (Kerry) and to vote for Bush's
platform of 24/7 Religion Everywhere (schools, State Capitals, Court,
every speech, etc), complete elimination of Roe v. Wade and Codified
Homophobia.

Rove probably thinks that moderates/independents actually believe
we still live in America, so who's afraid of the above mentioned agenda?
We're "never" going to overturn R v W, and who cares about a "little"
religion in schools and on Capital grounds? IOW, Rove is betting moderates
won't get off their duffs to vote against 'extremist' judges or 'for' R v W.
Bush really only needs a million RRs to vote against the Antichrist and he
wins in a landslide of Mondale proportions.

It's Kerry's (and our) job to scream from the rafters what's in store for
all of us if Bush gets 4 more yrs with a rubberstamp hard-right Congress.
It's very tough; people who don't read much or only watch cable news
simply don't BELIEVE our 'conspiracy theories'. Most things in their lives
are fine, so what's the big deal? Tell them about the 'stealth' schoolboards
in KS and TX banning evolution, Santorum bringing home is dead fetus
to vote for Jesus and memos about cancelling elections and they think
you're nuts!

Trouble is, our message never gets out. The so-called Liberal Media should
be airing stories 24/7 about the pseudo-religions bullshit GOP Senators
and Judges are pulling (it would turn OFF a lot of moderates; even the very
religious know they don't want some judge meting out Levitical law on their
asses in traffic court) and how dangerous it is for our nation's future.

Bigby

[BurtWorm]

5. I've been looking for a quote from a journalist re: Election 2000

in which he or she essentially admitted that they were afraid of too-hot-to-handle stories (like AWOL and cocaine) because (they claimed) they didn't want to "influence the outcome of the election." My brother mentioned that he remembered reading a quote a while ago but he couldn't remember where. And now I remember the quote but I don't remember where I saw it.