I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
And to a great extent, boots on the ground.
Well I certainly agree with this:
"In the end, it's going to be charisma, organization, and an ability to deal with the media hostility which will matter."
And we KNOW the media, in particular the cable news networks, will be hostile to the Dem and deferential to Bush.
Ultimately, the swing voter or the non-voter will have to have some feeling that voting will make a difference in their life. Personally I doubt that very many of them are going to be so inspired this November.
I've been pumping this idea pretty hard at "Seeing the Forest".
A point that gets missed is that this argument needn't necessarily be about this year's strategy. What I've objected to especially is the Democrats' passivity in the face of declining participation (a special problem with Confessore's TAPPED piece, which just took low participation as an inaltrable fact of nature).
In the jargon, I understand that the Dems have consistently neglected party-building in favor of the campaign of the moment. The Republicans have built up their base by a decades-long development plan to which the Dems have not effectively responded. And as the Dem base declines relative to the Republican base, the Dems have to slide farther and farther to the right in order to find the marginal swing voter who puts them over the top.
So anyway, Dean vs. Clark isn't the point (I'm neutral), this year's campaign is probably not the point (perhaps we're doomed to a swing-voter strategy), and left vs. right isn't exactly the point (though I'm left and object to the rightward slide). The point is the Democrats' lack of party-building and their weak, passive long-term strategy, which dooms the party to dwindling irrelevance.
Republicans have been vigorous and enterprising, and Democrats haven't been.
Somewhat relevant:
How the New Dems Hurt the Party
www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.newdem.htm
In this election it is the new and disenfranchised voters that count.
That is where Dean has the advantage.
For Bush, if they don't vote for him they will not vote at all.
Republicans damn sure will not vote for the Dem.
Issa, on real Time showed us the new talking point on Iraq. Congress voted for it out of conscience.
I can't see Kerry or Edwards arguing the lied to about WMD side, and having to say yes they voted for the bill.
They get hung on that conscience thing.
At least with Dean there is a clear cut no to the war.
Which again appeals to new voters and disenfranchised Dems.
"And to a great extent, boots on the ground.
northsylvania"
once more with feeling
Regular non-voters comprise almost half of all voting age citizens in the United States, of which there are approximately 200 million. In 2000, Gore and Bush received only about 100 million votes COMBINED!
Tapping into these folk would make any grab at the swing voter humiliatingly insignificant.
But why don't these people vote? The usual explanations are that they are apathetic or they would be content with either candidate. These explanations do more to comfort the middle classes than enlighten the public. Perhaps these people do not vote because they feel no politician reasonably represents their interests. Perhaps they refuse to vote either republican or democratic on principle and feel that a vote for a third party is a waste of fifteen minutes time on election day.
All elections in recent memory were basically won by a (relative) majority of an (absolute) minority.
The Democrats will lose in 2004 unless they can get people to the polls who would have otherwise stayed home. And, given the amount of contempt many people have for the president this may well happen. Rather than keeping our fingers crossed, let's work to get these people out on election day. I guarantee you know at least a few of them.
Interesting article about swing voters in the Atlantic. Read it here.
Let's face it...
Skull & Boneheads wants an alumni face-off...
See how 'nice' the alphabet's were to Kerry tonight?
Get used to it.
Elections are about inspiration. In the end the candidate that inspires more people wins.
Releasing a picture of yourself with John Lennon doesn't hurt.
Neither does a reunion with a vet who says you saved his life 35 (?) years ago...
even if you haven't seen him since.
I'm tellin' ya...
Skull & Boneheads...
Heads, they win...
Tails, you lose.
My guess is that if we, under threat of imprisonment, forced people to vote on election day that it would favor Democrats.
You need to do more than visit Spain. Go live in France or Belgium. There's no "guess".
This of course begs the question, why would we want a de-clawed nominee? If Clark wins, he'll probably spend close to all of the 45 mil. he has limited himself to. From March to August he won't be able to say a word(remember how Gore had to self sequester back in 2000?) I like Clark, but I don't want a nominee with one hand tied behind their back.
I wonder why Dean isn't vocally pro-legalization. That's one stand that could motivate surprisingly large amounts of non-voters.
lloyd -
When it comes to Gen. KLArk, I'd be more worried about a candidate with his fingers crossed behind his back...
and yours.
I think this election is going to be people voting either for or against w, not particularly for the democratic candidate.
I think where the dem candidate will make a difference though is with that large block of disillusioned w supporters, those who voted for him in the last election but are pissed at him now. I think they may sit home for Howard Dean but go to the polls to vote for Wes Clark. Its not because there's any major difference between the two of them but many diehard republicans who are pissed at W will have an easier time voting for a general and a new democrat who voted himself for reagan than a lifelong "liberal" democrat.
I'm afraid I have to disagree that most non-voters just aren't inspired by a candidate. Most nonvoters I know are basically caught up in their own lives and don't really care about the events outside of their immediate experience. I know one guy who doesn't register to vote because he doesn't want to serve jury duty. He works for the same company I do, which pays salary in full when doing service, so he has no excuse.
Apathy toward civic activities is a basic personality trait people develop early on, and many people will absolutely never be comfortable forming a strong enough opinion about anything to go out and vote. I personally think outreach to this group is less important (and likely is futile) than reaching out to children to try and change that attitude before it sets in. Won't help us now, but could down the road.
I don't know if it's been said, since I'm going to read the comments after I post this, but a few of the comments already have me compelled to say this.
First, there is no reason to believe that an enlargement of voters, in terms of bringing out non-voters, means that this will be balanced in any sense to both parties.
What the hell kind of point is that? It's the organization with the enthusiasm and wherewithal to get the formerly cynical or apolitical to care enough about the election to get out there.
Pretty much only grassroots, personal contact would be effective in making this happen.
That this would then go in the favor of the incumbent, this russling up of the previously inattentive or cynical, seems counterintuitive, especially in an anti-incumbent mood and with the anti-incumbent campaign with by far the strongest grassroots organization and reasons to care (i.e. change).
The centrists need to figure this out.
Plus, get the incumbent on the defensive about our war and military responsibilities and their implications.
Start implicating that there will a military draft and those non-voters, especially the young, will come in and clean up for Dean, especially in blue collar and college environments.
The idea behind Dean's claim for expanding the vote is that people who don't vote aren't going to suddenly step up and do that for Bush. That's pretty unlikely. A candidate offering little in terms of change won't be able to either (best example: Lieberman).
On the other hand, there is a way to not only court the middle, including moderate Republicans, but also to court the left, independents, libertarians, Greens, and so on that the Democrats will represent them better, and that they are not being represented at all by Bush.
This also should involve championing electoral reform and IRV on the Democratic platform and as something the Democrats will address once back in power.
This will get indepedendents, partisans of neither of the two main parties, and the cynical nonvoter a little more to get excited about.
The apolitical, being so because of cynicism and not entitlement, is courtable.
It's not rocket science, and it doesn't require Dean. But Dean seems to be the best positioned, and with the best organization, at this point, to credibly pull it off.
Plenty of people don't vote because they don't think they can make a difference. This is the "what difference can I make unempowered". They see government as something that happens to them, not something that is accountible to them. They see the world as it is, not as it should be and they feel helpless to change it. Many of these look at what happened in Florida and say "see?"
Many others don't vote because they see things as going along swell. They still have their jobs and nothing has really changed for them personally. They figure everything will be just peachy for them. Take away their job or have one of their relatives disappear with the FBI and they'll be the first in line. The same happens to their next door neighbor and they say, it doesn't impact me. This is the "it's not my problem" group. They just don't care unless it's going to impact them. They think things will get better because they always do.
The first group needs to understand that they do have power and they can make a difference. The 2nd group needs to wake the hell up and understand their time is coming. Then they'll vote.
It has nothing to do with liberal versus moderate viewpoints. It has to do with motivation, personal circumstances and empowerment. The Democratic party still hasn't figured out a way to keep the right from framing the issues. The right mocks liberals so they quit calling themselves liberals. That a way to stand up and fight. No wonder people they "would" represent are so uninspired. The Democrats play the Republican's game when they shun their base. Since that didn't work in 2002, they do it even harder by publicly ridiculing them and think, "there, now we'll win." What fools.
The Democrats need to learn how to frame the issues. They need to quit running away from their base and by all means, quit ridiculing and mocking them publicly. They need to stop the all or none attitude and look at nuances a little more closely. Quit labeling people and putting them into little boxes. In other words, fire a few of their marketing people and replace them with public relations experts and socioligists. Then maybe they'll win.
I think it's complete BS that there has to be an either or. I think they can appeal to a broad base made up of both their base and swing voters. But they can't do it the same way they've been doing it.
Ask yourself this...
who will sway the Nader voters?
Kerry? Gep? Edwards? Liarman?
GMAFB!
You're left with Dean or Kucinich.
Take your pick.
(Personally, I like the K-man, but my guess is that, like Braun, he wouldn't turn down a cabinet positionin a Dean administration!)
freelixir - great comments, very persuasive. And very smart. The fact that you see the Democrats attracting disaffected moderate Republicans as doable, and important, is encouraging. So often lately, people get very wound up in their insistence that the Democratic party is betraying them if it has anything to offer the moderate Repugs. I think that's a crazy attitude, and you really put it well.
Someone else up thread mentioned legalization, which led me to think about how crazy it is that this country takes away the voting rights of convicted felons. Even when they've been released, they have no voting rights. Why, for heaven's sake? It's way past time to reform voting laws. Ours look antiquated.
Spot on.
From what I've seen with relatives, friends and other people I've met, and from what I hear and read, most of the people who don't vote just are disgusted with politics, or bored, but are fairly moderate - with perhaps a slight leaning to the left/liberal side. They usually assume their vote won't have any effect.
Then, it's quite possible that a fair amount of people that end up voting for demagogues (fascist leaning) are indeed moderate that are completely fed up with the system and decide to vote for an outcast just to shake things up, without thinking the guy may actually implement his complete electoral program.
I think most non-voters fall into the reasoning that: It doesn't really matter because they are all the same. They are all a bunch of crooks.
Usually when a pol tries to differentiate himself, he does one of 2 things - or both. Promises sweeping reform in a populist appeal to fairnerss, or goes negative.
The sweeping changes never fully materialize, which reinforces the non-voters notion that they are all indeed the same - a lying bunch of crooks. The negative attacks leave many people cold, if not resentful.
The Dems have an oppertunity here, in so far as the shrub has made it obvious that there are glaring differences between himself and just about any Dem in the pack. He's done that work for us. The Dems must capitalize on it.
From the Census Bureau, Why non-voters don't vote.
Does Terry McAuliffe even exist? Are we ever going to hear a peep out of this guy? What does he do? No, I don't mean, "What is his job?". I want to know if he actually does anything. I've seen the beady-eyed creature that goes by the name of Ed Gillespie, stormtrooping from one talk show to the next griping about Bush being compared to Hitler (Bush doesn't even hang out in beerhalls.)
But what the hell does McAuliffe actually do? Are they so short on cash that he can't afford to leave the DC area? Is that the problem? The Dems were doing pretty well, albeit in the form of the Howard Dean campaign, before the petty sniping began.
Where in the world is Terry McAuliffe?!?! Admittedly, the RNC has a tool that we cannot take advantage of - hate. Pickering's recess appointment timing was no accident - it was an appeasement to the far right racists that the party is well aware are still a critical part of their southern strategy. It's these divisive partisan issues that the Democratic should be hammering relentlessly on, refusing to give an inch - abortion, homosexual rights, affirmative action. Force these haters to show all their cards publicly, driving the moderates away in disgust. Sure, these issues will galvanize the hardcore ignoramuses, but it will open the eyes of many good people who are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate or even liberal. The bigger the flashlight, the harder it is for the cockroaches to hide.
Atrios, I think you nailed it. The real question is, can they be made to realize they have got to make a choice this time?`It is a whole lot more important than it has ever been.
A Non-Voter Cautionary Tale --
Beware of what you want. Non-Voters elected Jesse Ventura, because Minnesota's election day registration let them vote.
Non Voters elected Arnold in California, bucause he's, like -- cool.
Many not voters are wrestlemania metalhead dropouts -- folks we a never going to reach.
We need to be very selective in our voter registration drives -- single women, minorities, and the socially concious young -- these are the best bets.
It also seems to me that, in the past, you've had some sense of balance, i.e., Repub president, dem congress. When this is the case talk is just talk, nothing radical ever really comes to pass. However, today you've seen the domination of two branches of government by the repubs who are now trying to ideologically dominate the third branch. This is what should be the "wake up" to many non-voters. In the past, I'm not so sure it really did matter that much. (Exposing my left bias here) Even when democrats controlled two branches, I cannot recall the kind of radical reinterpretation and implementation of law and policy. If it was radical it may have only been so on a socially liberal scale, e.g., expanded rights, environmental reforms. Who can complain about that? The repubs, on the other hand seem to want to go great lengths in repealing and restricting many of these existing laws. Case in point, these "free-speech zones". How come no Dem brings this up? Seems like a perfect segue for introducing the American public to this admin's idea of openness, accountability, etc.
Many not voters are wrestlemania metalhead dropouts -- folks we a never going to reach.
A vote's a vote. Bring in the wrestlemania metalhead dropouts. And don't be an elitist prick about it either.
Fuck, I'm helping to register dead folks in Illinois this year to help us win.
(¤)(¤)
vivan las tetas.
the sense that the "base" will only come out to vote if they're inspired, otherwise they get petulant and vote for Nader or Buchanan or don't vote at all. I really don't buy this at all.
You should I wouldn't call myself petulant, but I was underwhelmed by Gore/Lieberman in 2000 and supported Nader.
This year the people paying attention are probably more pragmatic about Bush, but you have to remind the base why they're angry or they won't show up. Especially when conservative talk radio is spewing populist hate all day long.
Bush doesn't stand a ghost of a chance in Illinois anyway, Woot.
Geddit? Ghost of a chance...
unfortunately, the democrats REALLY haven't given the people much reason make sure they vote. we have to make it clar that Bush is KILLING this great country.
Also worth visiting is the Vanishing Voter Project, a Pew project hosted by the Kennedy School of Government.
Being a wrestlemania metalhead of the non-dropout variety, I can assure you that kind of bullshit snobbery is why you'll never reach these people.
I may not be a huge Clinton fan, but he was really good at appealing to snobs + slobs alike and, just as important, did it without looking like an "ugly american" to the rest of the world. That is admirable.
I looked at the census data on non-voters. Not knowing the methodology, it would still seem to me that the data are a bit soft.
Nonetheless, in some cases it did seem that people didn't vote because there were impediments. Generally the Rubublicans like voting to be difficult, and Dems like it to be easy.
I don't think that randomly registering voters and trucking them to the polls would be the smartest strategy.
I would also think that one large chunk of non-voters are working poor whom the Dems could help. All outreach is difficult, including the working poor.
And it's disgusting, but if the Dems find candidates who can play the Ventura-Schwarzenegger game, that would be a good thing.
This election is different because of the Nutcase Administration currently in power. Hopefully, people who don't like the some of the Dems policies will understand the importance of preventing W's second term and hold their noses long enough to vote Democrat.
I've skipped elections a few times when I didn't like any of the candidates, but I've also voted for one guy just to prevent another from winning, when I felt the stakes were high.
Swing voters and non-voters are two different groups. IIRC, swing voters are about 1/3 of total voters, and are non-partisan, voting based on their perception of a candidate. They're much easier to persuade than non-voters.
Gore did a very good job of turning out the Dem base in '00. Recall, he got the majority of votes in a 2 man race, so his vote total was greater than Clinton's. The biggest lesson learned from that campaign was turning out the base of loyal Dem voters wasn't enough and it likely won't be enough this year either.
Any candidate needs to have a broad message that appeals to swing voters as well as the base. Hey, its everyone's government, and everyone should feel at least some of their needs and interests are represented. Having a balanced ticket will also help.
Its also possible to get the non-voters out, but, it takes a lot of work, usually a mix of tv ads, mailings and lots of GOTV (boots on the ground). Its expensive, but Dems are probably long overdue for getting out there and re-energizing voters.
Forget trying to use this election to change the POV of the voting public. Dems aren't dealing from a position of strength to do that during. Best to wait until after winning. They definitely should run on their past record, its stellar compared to Bush's.
Come on. Kerry is the least electable one in the bunch! He is a punching bag just waiting for the Shrubtistas. Wake up. I'm "middle aged" and for People Powered Howard all the way. Bulworth's his favorite movie for chrissakes. Peace and eventual prosperity.
-D
By stimulating the base, the base then draws in new voters and influences the mushy middle.
I agree, also on personal experience, that most nonvoters are in "the mushy middle." Except for that handful on each end whose disdain for voting is an expression of their ideology, the true extremes tend to be the most motivated of voters. But there's no contradiction between being in the "mushy middle" and being a Nader or Buchanan voter.
It seems to me that most nonvoters do so because they just don't feel there's a point to it. Whether it's expressed as "what can I do" or "what difference does one vote make" or "they're all crooks anyway," it comes down to the same thing: You don't count. As and the world around you becomes both more complicated (or at least it seems so) and the difficulty and stress of taking care of you and your own increases, you focus more and more on getting through your day and less and less on what reaches beyond that, even saying, as the plurality did in the Census Bureau survey linked earlier, that you're "too busy" to vote, as if it was a major demand on your time.
That's not apathy, that's despair.
But then occasionally, some candidate comes along and says something that hits you right, that connects. And you go "yeah. YEAH! That's right! Damn straight!" And those candidates tend to be the "extremes" - which really means standing outside the narrow range of "debate" that characterizes our political life.
Which means, it seems to me, that the issue of moving nonvoters is one of facing up to what major party candidates tend to avoid: People are getting screwed. They know they're getting screwed, they're just not sure by who. Give them a sense that they genuinely matter and they'll be with you.
No, I have no brilliant answer to "how do we do that?" But at least I think it's the right question.
LarE's comment has the ring of someone who has actually gone out and talked to people, voters and non-voters. LarE, if you haven't, you should, because you've got the fundamental attitude it takes to be successful.
Everyone: start by asking everyone you know if they're registered to vote _where they live now_. Just trying to convince the unregistered to do so may open your eyes to what the obstacles are. Listen to what your friends and co-workers are saying, and use it to frame the issues when you talk to others.
So far, I've found that people who feel powerless perk up on hearing about how much of Dean's money is small contributions (vs. the other Dems; everyone knows where Bush's money comes from). People like to get on a train that looks as if it's going somewhere..
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
