About 20% of the voters in the middle determine outcomes of elections.

[kentuck]

They call themselves "independents" because they do not have the same guiding principles as the Democrats or Republicans. They sort of blow with the wind. They do not normally educate themselves to what is really going on. They listen for authoritative voices, like Rush or Hannity, to tell them. They are not persuaded by rational arguments or historical facts. They are moved mostly by emotion. They "feel" what they believe.

This presents a problem for politicians that believe they can explain to these folks in simple language and they will understand the issues. You must appeal to their emotions if you are going to reach them. Perhaps it is manipulative but that is why they exist, to be manipulated.

[scheming daemons]

1. We succeeded in "manipulating" them in 2006 and 2008....

....we can do so again.

[leveymg]

2. If you don't hold onto your base, you will lose the election.

Somebody has to knock doors and make live, real-person phone calls during GOTV. That's what wins elections. If you don't have committed, energized volunteers -- lots of them -- that candidate will not win in most elections.

Obama is almost past the point of no return, no redemption, on that. Sure, I and most progressives will vote for him. But, will we work for him? Not at this point. I don't know what he's going to do in the time that's left, but this doesn't look promising.

[Laelth]

14. I agree. Expanding the base, in fact, is the best political strategy. n/t

-Laelth

[quaker bill]

18. The base is defined

as those who reliably support the party. You cannot lose your "base" because to the extent it is or can be "lost" it isn't and perhaps never was your "base".

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You know this is conventional wisdom

but... INDIES are now more than either party... hell. I am one.

And I suspect there are far more former partisans that actually know what is going on than we think.

That said. messaging is critical and we suck about it... at this point I have to start wearing a tin foil hat... there is no way we could suck that much.

[kentuck]

7. I would agree that...

there are more than 20% "independents" but a good percentage on each side of the middle will usually vote with one side or the other most of the time. It is that smaller 20% in the middle that are so unpredictable. They wait to be sold the bill of goods.

[MineralMan]

4. Sadly, that is correct. This country is controlled by the middle

of the political spectrum. That middle outnumbers the edges on both sides and actually makes the decisions. And you're also right that populism is the only way to reach them. This is why we do not have a Congress that is very heavy on one side or another for long. Admitting that this is the case is the first step toward getting what you want from national politics, and even local politics in most cases.

The only good news is that those folks in the middle will listen to you if you knock on their door and ask them what their current issue is. If you have an answer that makes sense, they'll vote for your candidate, because it's likely that you were the only one who bothered to ask. Precinct-level Politics 101.

[flamingdem]

5. nice insight nt

[leveymg]

6. When resources are scarce, GOTV doesn't reach out to the truly undecided.

You go back to your precinct lists and try to reach the 2s and maybe some 3s. The 1s (committed Dems) will probably vote anyway, unless they're totally discouraged, and probably can't be talked back. The 2s and 3s are generally people who have voted D in the past, but have been identified as wavering. They're the ones you need an army of volunteers -- real live, preferably neighbors -- to reach out to. If you can't get the troops mobilized to do outreach, you won't get the 2s and 3s to show up and vote for the good guys on election day. The 5s you stay away from, the 3s and 4s are usually a waste of time. That's from many election cycles of real-life experience, not Precinct 101.

[MineralMan]

9. Funny, really. I was the only freaking person walking my

precinct for the DFL. Me. I spent two months doing it, and I paid no attention whatever to the party's lists. I talked to everyone who would talk to me. Some weren't even registered to vote. I talked to a helluva lot of people. I got some people to vote for the very first time in 2008 and some more in 2010. I got a few Republicans to vote for Democrats. I got a 60% turnout in my precinct. I don't pay much attention to conventional precinct activism strategies. I just talk to people. I just knock on doors and chat people up who are out in their yards.

Funniest guy I got to vote for the first time, and he voted for DFL-endorsed candidates. I asked him what his main issue was with the government. You know what he told me? He said it was that he wanted to raise a few chickens in his back yard, but the city didn't allow that. Well, I checked. The city of Saint Paul DOES allow raising a small number of hens. I went back and told him that and showed him the ordinance. I told him that the DFL-endorsed state representative for our district raises chickens himself, just a few blocks away. I found that out, too. He took my list of DFL-endorsements and said he'd go vote. You never know where votes will come from.

60% turnout. 60% margin for every Democrat on the ballot. I'll be doing it again next year. One guy on foot over two months. Precincts are small.

[leveymg]

11. 2008 was easy. Eveyone wanted to talk Obama Hope & Change, even if out of curiosity

2010 everyone was tired of seeing campaign workers after a string of special elections around here.

2012, I am afraid, will be a nightmare of hostility and disillusionment with politics amidst a general economic malaise. Promises unkept -- even if they were just irrational expectations unmet -- are the hardest to talk around.

Yes, I also got amazingly high turnouts and positive responses in '08. But, that was the Perfect Storm. I don't even expect this will be nearly as positive as '96 or even '84, when people still had illusions about how the Democratic Party Regulars represented regular folks.

[Tesha]

16. In walking the wards, I've found that the numerical ratings aren't worth spit.

We talked to alleged "1"s who were obviously firm
Republicans and vice-versa.

Tesha

[Gman]

8. I think it's more like 40%

I heard years ago when I used to do such things that 30% think you walk on water and can do nothing wrong, 30% hate you and you'll never do anything right. It's the 40% in the middle that you concentrate on.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Forget who wrote this, but someone called them the Good Time Charlies of the electorate

Whoever seems to be catching on with their neighbors, they run with. They want to be socially up to date, more than anything. To your point, carefully calibrated ideological appeals are indeed a waste of time with these folks.

[tblue]

12. If I became an Independent, then would Obama listen to me?

I'm starting to think that may be a strategy worth trying. Instead of starting letters to him saying that I am a longtime Democrat and party volunteer, tell him I am an Independent.

[Laelth]

13. I disagree.

As I argued here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/41

-Laelth

[bemildred]

15. Is that still true when they win by one vote? nt

[tabbycat31]

17. I've learned that in numerous trainings

As one training put it-- it's the "band-aid" type model (attempt at keyboard art here)


: o o o ::::::: o o o :
:o o o :::::::o o o :
: o o o::::::: o o o:

Now pretend I am a genius at keyboard art and that is an actual band-aid (work with me here). The center of it (the non-adhesive part of the bandaid) represents the middle. On the right and the left, you have each party's base. The air holes represent the sporadic voters that do not vote in every election.

In order to win an election, a party must not only convince enough of the center to vote for them, but turn out those holes in their base. I hope I explained that fine to everyone.