The Base Will Turn Out ... But We Need More Swingers & Independents.
By Martin A. Knight Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This was e-mailed to the guys at the Corner. As the guy admits, it's a bit harsh (I don't approve of calling any set of voters "sheep") but it brings up an issue I've been worried about for a while.
How do polls influence the electorate? Do headlines announcing that the President's approval ratings are heading down, cause more people to rate the President negatively?
... Then we have the polls. Those stupid polls. What a great way to ensure that Joe Idiot, who spends his whole life doing whatever his neighbor does, follows the trend. I'd really hate to be a west-coast candidate.
The GOP needs a new strategy ... All the media talks about are the polls. It sounds harsh, but swing voters are sheep, if they weren't they'd have their own beliefs and wouldn't be on the fence. ... The polls are nice, quick ways to nudge them in the proper direction.
This guy captures exactly what I have been trying to say for the past few weeks in my own long-winded way about Independents and the usual assortment of fence-sitters.
It's good to hear that the GOP GOTV operation is targeting some attention to registered Independents. But we are losing pretty badly with that voter segment. I believe largely because fence-sitters are not really the most informed of people when it comes to politics - they're more likely to vote based on impressions and conventional wisdom than any other segment.
It's not that they're incapable of voting based on solid argument, it's just that they hardly ever seek it out. It has to be brought to them or else they would simply take away the messages they see in the headlines on the paperstands and on TV. And we all know who write those headlines, don't we?
So let's imagine a fence-sitter on his way to vote. He enters the booth and all he knows, from loosely reading and watching the headlines, about the two people running is that the Democrats are a sure bet to win up and down the ballot. He is far more likely to vote Democrat. People want to feel they're backing a winner, even if they don't really care much.
But if he knows that one wants to raise his taxes and the other does not ...
That's why I'm hoping I see the RNC launching an ad blitz in these last few days. An ad blitz on the economy; homeland security and the GOP determination to secure a Victory in Iraq and not cut and run before the job is done.
Anyway ... we're in the final stretch. It's time to start our engines.
What makes you sure about that claim in your title? Why can't we win with stronger base turnout in this off year election?
What makes you think the casual voters, the fence sitters, and the uneducated even vote in off-year elections?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
So the best way to get independents and fence-sitters on your side is to call them sheep? Great logic there.
The assumption that fence-sitters and independents are "sheep" is a fauly generalization at best, and a real insult at worst. There are plenty of people who are not feverishly Republican or Democrat simply because they're sick of both parties. I am one of those "independents" or whatever term you want to use. And it is not because I don't have any strong beliefs - I do, but it just so happens that my stands on issues tend to be evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic general platforms (or quite often neither).
My advice to you would be to talk to such people and find out why they are dissatisfied with both parties and then explictly state what you and your party can offer. I bet that would work a lot better then calling them sheep, or trolls on this blog.
There are two views of swing voters. There is an idealised view that they are intelligent, educated, people: sophisticated electoral shoppers. In this view they are well-informed about party platforms and make well-thought out choices about which party, in this particular cycle, best meets their needs. Under this theory the rational behaviour for a party is to move to the centre and take voters on its flank for granted. This theory was very popular among 'political scientists' in the 1950s. In the UK it is called the 'long high street theory', which translates into American as the long main street theory'. You position your party as you would a store on a main street. Shoppers between the two stores are split and those on the flanks have only one possible venue.
Empirical evidence shows that theory is bunk, or at least that the number of voters who behave as described is very small. Not only that, the sheer number of swing voters was far fewer than people had imagined. The difference, of course, was in periodic voters, who only sometimes vote. Some of these are swing voters, but the majority only ever vote for one party, but do not always vote.
On average, it turned out, swing voters were less intelligent, less educated, and less informed than committed voters. (Note, this is on average, and does not necessarily apply to you, or to any other individual). Socially and educationally they most resembled abstainers and periodic abstainers, and a very large number of swing voters also were periodic abstainers.
It is true that the research on which these generalisations is based is now quite dated (though not as dated as the long high street theory). It also appears to be true that voter loyalties are becoming more fluid.
Nonetheless, in off year elections 60-70% of people don't vote, and a third of those people are registered Republicans. This would seem a more fruitful area to look for extra voters than among the 4-5% who swing.
I am not arguing that the GOP should simply write off swing voters, and you are absolutely right that a policy of insulting them is counter-productive. But I would suggest that a strategy focussed on them as a priority over periodic voters would be foolish.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
There are two views of swing voters. There is an idealised view that they are intelligent, educated, people: sophisticated electoral shoppers. In this view they are well-informed about party platforms and make well-thought out choices about which party, in this particular cycle, best meets their needs. Under this theory the rational behaviour for a party is to move to the centre and take voters on its flank for granted. This theory was very popular among 'political scientists' in the 1950s. In the UK it is called the 'long high street theory', which translates into American as the long main street theory'. You position your party as you would a store on a main street. Shoppers between the two stores are split and those on the flanks have only one possible venue.
Empirical evidence shows that theory is bunk, or at least that the number of voters who behave as described is very small. Not only that, the sheer number of swing voters was far fewer than people had imagined. The difference, of course, was in periodic voters, who only sometimes vote. Some of these are swing voters, but the majority only ever vote for one party, but do not always vote.
On average, it turned out, swing voters were less intelligent, less educated, and less informed than committed voters. (Note, this is on average, and does not necessarily apply to you, or to any other individual). Socially and educationally they most resembled abstainers and periodic abstainers, and a very large number of swing voters also were periodic abstainers.
It is true that the research on which these generalisations is based is now quite dated (though not as dated as the long high street theory). It also appears to be true that voter loyalties are becoming more fluid.
Nonetheless, in off year elections 60-70% of people don't vote, and a third of those people are registered Republicans. This would seem a more fruitful area to look for extra voters than among the 4-5% who swing.
I am not arguing that the GOP should simply write off swing voters, and you are absolutely right that a policy of insulting them is counter-productive. But I would suggest that a strategy focussed on them as a priority over periodic voters would be foolish.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
If you're directing that at me, instead of the guy who wrote that e-mail, I suggest you once again take note that I did say that I disapprove of calling any segment of the American voting public "sheep."
To be honest, every time I see or hear somebody loudly proclaim his "Independence"/"moderation" or that he's "sick of both parties" I tend to feel he's just striking a pose and trying to look down his nose at everybody from his supposed "more moral" position above the fray. The fact is, it's really not that even the most ardent of partisans are of one mind with their party. A lot of us are sick of both parties; we're just sicker of one far more than the other.
However, I do find it very wierd to see somebody claim that his views are perfectly evenly divided between both parties. You must lean towards one more than the other, surely? Both parties' platforms, and just as importantly, records reflect core philosophies that are in many ways wildly divergent. It seems a bit ... schizophrenic.
For example; the Democrats believe in "Choice" but only when it comes to abortion. The Republicans by and large are opposed to abortion but are in favor of extending choice to Americans on schools, social security and other economic issues. I am as yet to hear of any serious Republican attempt, at any level, to ban sodomy or regulate what goes on in the bedrooms of people, contrary to conventional wisdom. However, I am aware of Democrat city councils banning certain types of food and stipulating the type of toilet you can install in your home.
Here I am assuming that you are the most common type of "Independent", the "fiscal conservative & social liberal" type. I know they exist - Alan Simpson (R-WY), William Weld in Massachussetts and Rudy Guiliani, to mention a few. Phil Bredesen is the only Democrat I know who may fit that bill. Maybe there is a difference in the way socially liberal is defined, though.
"Socially liberal", Guiliani style, may just involve a laissez-faire attitude toward personal lifestyle choices so long as they impact no-one else. I think most Conservatives would agree with that but would stop short of government recognition of certain lifestyle choices, believing some should be accorded more respect than the other i.e. gay marriage versus marriage. The compromise between the Guilianis and Brownbacks seems simple in theory: let the people, not judges, decide.
The other type of "social liberal", Pelosi style, involves heavy government involvement to help support people who choose to live a different lifestyle. Like welfare, tax-payer funded abortions, etc.
I've read some really smart folks who stipulate that it is really not possible to be "socially liberal" in the way someone like Nancy Pelosi is and still be a "fiscal conservative" because the state would need to step in sooner or later to take care of the resulting mass of children of broken homes, and the sharp increase in illiteracy and crime that would result.
Either way, I really would like to know, Zim, where do you come down on the current issues of the day and which party is closer to you on it? Let's say ... taxes, the war on terror, Iraq, national security, local government, welfare, schools, healthcare, etc. Take your pick.
I have several friends who pay absolutely no attention to anything political, but then go vote.
They occasionally watch the Alphabet Soup news (ABCCBSNBC) and read the headlines, but on the few times we have entered into any kind of political discussion, I have retrieved some kind of actual data, or information for them to dispute the line of BS they have been fed, and they won't even bother to read it.
It drives me living nuts that their completely uninformed vote cancels out my votes, plus the votes of my husband and parents. Four people who have a clue counting for no more than the ones who vote for the first name that they recognize.
Sigh.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.