What generates the greatest voter turnout in midterms? Appeals to fear, or policy-based appeals?

[bigtree]

I think that voters in these elections are more motivated to the polls to vote against something or someone, than in defense of some policy or political position. I think the crazy talk of republicans and tea-baggers should be highlighted by our party at every opportunity. Charles Blow at the NYT disagrees with me . . .


The Grand Illusion
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: September 17, 2010

Let me be clear: the idea of an inevitable Republican landslide in November is not a foregone conclusion. It’s a self-perpetuating bit of wishful thinking that’s gaining currency through the force of being recycled ad nauseam by overzealous pundits.

It’s no wonder then that Democrats with defeatist tendencies have bought into it. They are morose and slumped, prematurely assuming the crestfallen posture of a party rejected, rending their garments like a PETA spokeswoman in a meat dress.

Sure, some seats will change party control, but a landslide is hardly certain, particularly if Democrats can change their tune and energize their base. A New York Times/CBS News poll released this week asked respondents whom they would vote for in their own districts if the midterms were held today. Among those the poll determined to be likely voters, Republican candidates held a small edge. (Likely voter models are used to make predictions about the midterms.) However, among all registered voters, Democrats held a larger edge.

___ The Democrat’s strategy of highlighting the scary Tea Party-supported candidates isn’t working for them. Fear factors don’t provide much traction. They turn off instead of turning out.

These voters came to the polls in 2008 because they were inspired and hopeful, not angry and scared. They need to be inspired anew. Democrats must ignite their fealty, and they must do so with a positive, idea-based message . . .

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/opinion/18blow.html?pagewanted=print

Maybe we should do both . . ?

[RandomThoughts]

1. Tell that to Colburt.

Fear rally?????? that is ridiculous.

[Trajan]

8. Who is Colburt ?

Oh ... you mean Colbert ?

Colbert is a master of satire ....

Tell you what : Dont go ....

Freedom is scary ....

[RandomThoughts]

9. him to :)

u yoo get it...

[BzaDem]

2. I would say neither. ACTUAL fear does generate voter turnout, but appeals to it are not as helpful.

Among the people that follow politics, appeals to fear can work. But most people don't follow politics, and appeals to fear are less likely to work. Though to the extent that they work, they certainly work much better than policy based appeals. Very few people follow policy.

Our enthusiasm will be much higher the next time Republicans are in power (either Congress, the WH, or both). It is unfortunate that it takes that to get enthusiasm.

[bigtree]

4. back to promoting actual fear

. . . either that, or producing something dramatic and relevant enough to generate votes of approval.

[MrModerate]

3. Hear hear! Both! Because fear and hope are both conveniently based in truth this time around.

If the 'Licans get the House and/or the Senate, regular Americans will suffer, and suffer greatly. While if dems retain a working majority, not only can the good work already been done continue, but a whole series of other (reasonably) good ideas already teed up can progress.

In 2008, Obama did not explicitly campaign on fear, but -- particularly among independents -- the prospect of a McCain-Palin White House scared lots of voters into the dem camp. It's not so different this time, except that it's the mid-terms and the level of interest is naturally lower.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Does this man know his fellow Americans?? 9/11 & Bush popularity should've given him a clue

Americans are NOT motivated by hope. They are inspired and motivated by FEAR. It's worked for the GNOP each election cycle, and it's working for them again.

The Dems have lost so many times because they tried to campaign on policy, being considered "too boring" to even listen to. The majority of voting America will not even look up unless something scares them enough to.

I'm sorry, but Charles Blow is wrong. If you want to know how to win an election you don't bore your voters to death. You scare them, and it isn't hard considering the t-buggers that have won primaries so far.

Just look at Dubya Bush as example. His numbers before 9/11 were in the mid 40's, they shot into the high 80's afterward, even from Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats alike, many, believing that Saddam had WMDs when there was absolutely NO proof he did.

[H2O Man]

6. In my opinion,

the thing that generates the largest turn-out in midterm elections is "organization." My father used to tell me that if you plan to compete against the republicans, you need to be organized. He said that in every election, no matter how big or small, their organiztion was in place to get their voters out to the voting booth. Everything I've seen over the years supports that.

[bigtree]

7. you make a good point, H2O Man

I just read where O'Donnell has raised $2 million with the same group and strategy which propelled Scott Brown to victory in Mass. I agree that our response should be to double or organizing efforts to ensure more Democratic voters (especially the new ones motivated to vote in the last election) understand the importance of voting in these midterms.

Of course, there's still the matter of the message. You can lead a horse to water . . .

[GSLevel9]

10. fear... all the way. nt

[scarletwoman]

11. Most people don't vote rationally, they vote emotionally.

Obama won in 2008 because the voters were EMOTIONALLY invested in his candidacy, NOT because they carefully examined his policy statements.

Fear isn't the only emotion that motivates voters, ecstatic identification with the candidate works just as well -- it's still an emotional rather than a rational effect.

The key point is that emotion is a much more powerful motivation than rational analysis of policy when it comes to people's political choices.

sw

[kentuck]

12. I think you are correct, scarletwoman...

They want to have their beliefs validated with emotional declarations.

When those beliefs are stifled, they create apathy. When they are validated, they create excitement.

It's really no more complicated than that...

They really don't want to hear policy analysis. They would prefer Wheel of Fortune on the TV...