Appealing To The "Center" ...
Better They Vote For Us Instead Of Them.
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Elections | Featured Stories — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was very nervous (for good reason, it turned out) about the Right's adopting of the attitude that we can rely exclusively on the base turnout to win any election based just on the results of the GOP's turn out numbers in 2004. Karl Rove may be a brilliant man but I would hope 2006 disabused us of that notion.
As Michael Barone noted in the aftermath, the GOP's base turned out to vote in 2006 and they did their part and voted Republican. The reason we lost is that the "Center", i.e. Independents and moderates, abandoned the GOP in numbers large enough to swing the election to the other side. And it's not because Republicans in office were not conservative enough.
What I'm trying to say is that I think we may not be doing ourselves any favors by being dismissive of the necessity of winning moderate and Independent voters. They can make a huge difference - like they did last year.
To the benefit of the other side.
As Adam C pointed out last year; "Independents support for Ds went from +3 to +18" while conservative and Republican support pretty much stayed the same as 2004.
More below the fold ...
Fred Barnes's recent article on the turn out numbers disputes the notion that Republicans lost because they failed to be Conservative enough;
... it wasn't conservatives who flipped in the election. They showed up and voted for Republicans. It was independents who jumped to the Democrats. They tend to be nonideological swing voters, not the type who would ditch Republicans because they weren't conservative enough.
Look at the numbers, tedious as that may be. First, the decline in the share of Republicans who voted for Republican House candidates was minimal: 91 percent in 2006, the same as in 2000, and only marginally less than 93 percent in 2004. What this means is that the Republican base
voted for Republicans. And who makes up that base? Conservatives.More specifically, of self-identified conservatives, 78 percent voted for Republican House candidates, down from 81 percent in 2004 and 80 percent in 2000. This is not a statistically significant dropoff. That was not the case with independents, who gave Republican House candidates 46 percent of their votes in 2004 but only 39 percent in 2006. That is a pretty significant dip. The Democratic share of the independent vote jumped from 47 percent in 2000 and 49 percent in 2004 to 57 percent last year.
So does this mean that the GOP should become more "moderate", i.e. Chafee-ize itself, to appeal to the "middle?"
No.
Considering that the GOP's beltway-celebrated "moderates" bore the brunt of voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party last year, the fact that they tended to vote just as often with the opposition as they did with their nominal party was obviously not as appealing to the "middle" as we are led to believe.
The media regularly portrays the so-called "moderate middle" as being full of informed and sophisticated political shoppers who carefully investigate and then pick and choose, irrespective of party, who would get their vote based on specific prioritised issues of policy. Partisans on the other hand (especially Republicans) are portrayed as unthinking ignorant automatons who put party ahead of country.
But the truth is more of the reverse. Partisans, particularly those who bother to vote in Primaries tend to be the most knowledgable of all voters. The "middle", on the other hand, is actually the most politically ignorant segment of the electorate, which reflects in their perennial low turnout numbers in election after election. It's not that they're any less intelligent or educated, but simply that they're uninterested in politics, and yet a significant number consider it a duty to vote.
The fact is that most Independents/"moderates" (including soft Republicans and Democrats) who bother to vote base their votes on impressions of the candidates/propositions created by a collage of the scraps of information they pick up from casually watching TV and skimming through the headlines on the newstand at the check out counter.
Where the Press has it right regarding the "middle" though is that they don't like "extremist", "divisive", "partisan", "controversial", "out-of-the-mainstream" politicians. But they do like politicians who are "bipartisan", "moderate", "centrist", "independent", who "work with both sides to get things done."
The problem with this, of course, is that these phrases are essentially meaningless feel-good pabulum. The reality is that what is "moderate" and "extreme" depends on where one stands. What is the centrist position on abortion? A typical New York Times reporter would say the position that it should be legal up until the moment of birth for whatever reason whatsoever is "moderate." National Review? Illegal or let the states decide. What's the "centrist" position on taxes, immigration, racial preferences, education, the judiciary, etc?
The reality is that the key to winning "moderate" votes on a wider scale is public perception, not the issues. Basically, the successful candidate is not the one who adopts "moderate" positions as defined by someone else, but one comes to have his positions publicly perceived as occupying the center ground.
The great fight in American politics is always over who will define what the middle of the road is, because whoever controls the middle ground controls the terms on which political consensus can be formed.
In other words, while I disagree with the general idea that appealing to the "middle" is a waste of time, I am of the opinion that "moderating" one's positions in order to win "middle" votes needlessly risks alienating base supporters (who do pay attention) that are many times more of a sure bet to turn up at the polls on Election Day.
The dirty little secret is that all one needs to do to win swing voters/"moderates"/Independents i.e. the "Center" is to hire a good image consultant and media/PR/spin team.
UPDATE: streiff made a good point about his post not really having said what I thought it did. In retrospect, I agree. So I've modified this post to better reflect the main thrust of it - why it's important to appeal to the "Center" and why it's a mistake to do it by compromising your positions.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Diebold to throw in the towel on electronic voting? — Comments (32) »
Appealing To The "Center" ... 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... I believe Kellyanne Conway made a point of this a week or two after Blue Tuesday.
The GOP brand name took a major hit during the 109th Congress.
And to hop on the "me too" pile, here is a quote from my post-election analysis that echoes the same idea that you and Dan are talking about:
Analysis of these trends lead me to one conclusion: the Republicans must return to policies that unite conservative and moderates as Reagan did and the 1994 Revolution did. These are usually good governance, small government efforts that win over people who are suspect about the intentions of government. Republican leadership can show a commitment to those ideals by selecting Pence/Shadegg to leadership and by coming out with a bold reform agenda addressing the Congressional side of lobbying/K Street issues. Instead of attacking lobbyists, Republicans should be attacking Congressmen and limit their abilities to distribute money in shadowy earmarks. Republicans lost the mantle of good governance and they must win it back to win over centrist voters.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
The middle of your piece in particular (starting with The media regularly portrays the so-called "moderate middle" as being full of informed and sophisticated political shoppers...) matches my experience perfectly.
My "on the ground, phone-banking and at polling places" experience has been the following - "moderate" voters (that is, those who actually bother to show-up) are for the most part people who think about politics, if at all, for about 45-seconds every 2-4 years when they are in an actual polling place. If you asked them what was driving their vote they are likely to tell you something they are feeling at that moment - ask tomorrow and you're likely as not to get a different answer.
In other words, they are "moderate" voters precisely because they don't feel strongly enough to invest the intellectual effort necessary to make an informed commitment one way or another. Yet, they are interested enough, or feel enough of an obligation, to actually vote. As such, they are the most likely of all voters to be swayed by a last-minute emotional appeal from a friend or a late-breaking news story.
Meanwhile the knuckle-dragging partisans regardless of stripe (for the most part) at least understand what the issues are, even if their votes are more or less predictable. While many tend to vote "party" they so do because, well, their "party" alligns with their views on the issues. It's not "I'm voting Republican because I'm a Republican", it's "I'm voting Republican for the same reason I am a Republican - because the Republicans best match my worldview." (substitute Democrat as appropriate)
As a result, there is nothing the GOP could have done to win the votes of "moderate" voters in 2006 - the narrative was all stacked against them. Simple as that.
Moral of the story: control the narrative and you control the "moderate" voter. Control the "moderate" voter and you're likely to win the election.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
The hard right paleoconservatives are the ONLY people in this entire country who believe they should control everything. 70% of Republicans realize that we have to gain at least 15% of the moderate "floating center" to be able to win elections.
One would have thought 2006 would have awakened some of these zealots to the danger of never moving to the center. All of America is unfortunately not Georgia or Alabama. To win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota is going to take a GOP candidate who can bring independents and even democrats into the "big tent".
Rudy Giuliani is just the man to do that- and ensure GOP dominance for another 8 years. Or else you get Hillary and what she will do to all of us...
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
... but just tangentially.
Moving to the "Center" is something I'm very much opposed to, especially if it means blurring the differences between the parties. That led to 40 years in the wilderness.
Remember Reagan's exhortation in the aftermath of the absolute disaster of 1974; "Raise a banner of no pale pastels but bold colors ..."
I'd vote for Rudy were he the nominee come November 2008 but that's neither here nor there.
The real trick is not to move to the "Center" as defined by the New York Times but to bring the "Center" to us ...
to having my story included here and my story title played against is that Martin's story does not address any point made in mine.
First, moderate does not equal independent. They are, in fact, very different. So the statement:
"Independents support for Ds went from +3 to +18"
is a non-sequitur even within this story.
Second, the study my story was based on demonstrated that the "moderates" in the electorate number about 10%. You have to make a value judgment as to how many of these you want to win and what price you are willing to pay among your supporters, both registered and independent.
I'm more than happy to defend my point of view and my story, I'm just not willing to defend a strawman or a point of view ascribed to me.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
is that the head of the Republican Party, President Bush, has put little or no effort into articulating or defending his policies. "Moderates" turned Democratic because what they heard on a daily basis was liberal opinions and accusations that went unchallenged by President Bush's New Tone. I don't think the need is so much to move to the center as it is to confidently and forcefully (NOT in the Ann Coulter mode) articulate and defend Republican positions. When "moderates" actually have an opportunity to be exposed to the truth, by a politician who doesn't view articulating and defending one's positions as inherently vulgar, I think they will swing back to the Republican side.
I think this could have been called Part 5236712 of your series on GOP and communication. We lost the communication battle (along with the GOP branding) between Nov 2004 and Nov 2006, which led us to lose the "center" as well come election time. Whatever it is (New Tone, not wanting to hold press conferences, etc) this President refuses to fight the most important battle of his presidency - the domestic air war. Sure this administration comes out from time to time to fight it (see here) but as I said in the thread, I'll believe it when they string together a few months of staying on offense w/r/t the media.
Bush did seem to be able to do this up until Nov 2004, it seemed like after he won reelection he just assumed people and the media would respect his win (much like Republicans assumed in 1994), give him a mandate and let him work instead of talk. Sorry Charlie, that boat sailed about 20 years ago. Until we have a leader of our party that is able and willing to continuously take on the media (not just during the election season), we will continue to struggle as a party. This is something that I want to see in our nominee next year.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
As I said at TMR, the "Independent" or "moderate" voter is really conservative or liberal on a range of issues, and the overall effect is muted. Nautically speaking, their political ship tacks neither port nor starboard.
Voters in the middle are largely oblivious to politics except for what they hear (obliquely) on the news or at the water cooler. Much of the time they are annoyed that politics interferes with their train of thought, and they ignore or click away from it.
But while voters are swayed by the direction of the narrative, they are attracted just as much by a candidate or party who appeals to them on the issues about which they believe most strongly. Connect with people on their hot buttons, and they will vote your way. Fail to connect, or connect negatively with their hot buttons, and they'll vote against you.
It comes down to ideas, and telling people not necessarily what they want to hear, but getting them to want to hear what you are saying. I guess if capturing the narrative does that, then it's as good a way as any.
Another way to say this is that we have to stay on offense.
--
See the Academy
(to pull a kowalski) am I correct in thinking that:
- A person's interest in an issue is inversely proportional to his level of agreement with the majority.
- The strength of person's belief on an issue is inversely proportional to his level of agreement with the majority.
I think that needs work. "Majority" really ought to be "established bogeyman", "conventional wisdom", or "prevailing mood".
What I'm trying to say is that the less mainstream a person thinks his ideas are, the stronger he tends to hold them. Or maybe I'm overgeneralizing.
--
See the Academy
I think one of the biggest difficulties in appealing to the part of the middle you're talking about is that it's almost impossible (as a politician, political consultant, activist, etc.) to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't care much about politics. Imagine someone saying "McCain-Feingold" to you, and having no idea what they're talking about (aside from maybe thinking, "McCain... didn't I see him on some talk show?"). Imagine having only a vague idea of what the various branches of government do.
When you don't understand the issues or the political means of acting on those issues, you are reduced to an emotional reaction. Anger when your taxes are more than they were last year. Anger when you get a forwarded e-mail telling you that 90% of the murders committed in the U.S. are committed by illegal immigrants. Elation when you hear that your wage is going up because the federal minimum was raised. Anger when you get laid-off because your employer does workforce cutbacks.
This ties into the reason why negative political ads are seen as being effective. They're not effective because they're negative, or even because they're "over-simplified" -- they're effective because they're emotional. Sadly, negative emotions (especially anger and fear) are the easiest to provoke. There are ways to provoke positive emotions, but our politicians have not explored those too deeply.
It may be that the apolitical middle turns out to vote out of a sense of duty. But the way to get them voting in droves is to make them *feel* something strongly. In 2006, that's what the Democrats did.
So called social/economic "conservatives" don't have to actually(MOVE) to the middle, but must (SPIN) their stances on issues to appeal more to the middle.
correct?..... If so, cool as long as conservatives don't have give one INCH of ground on ideology, how it's spun to the middle doesn't matter as long as it gets results.
I agree 100% that appealing to swing voters is every bit as crucial as base turnout. And that swing voters include a mishmash of "true" moderates (i.e., people who take "moderate" positions on many issues), libertarian-types who are socially liberal & economically conservative, populists who are socially conservative & economically liberal, and a bunch of other subspecies of voter who don't align well with the parties' ideologies, are staggeringly ignorant of issues, or deliberately vote just on personalities.
But reaching the swing voters is more than just adopting the right policy mix, recruiting good personalities, or having a good communications shop. A politician or party, like any other product, needs an identifiable, consistent and memorable brand. For example, cutting taxes may not always be the "moderate" position, but maintaining a consistent policy of being for tax cuts and against tax hikes builds GOP brand I.D. so that swing voters, when they look at a GOP candidate, associate them with tax cuts.
Part of the policy problem in 2006 was erosion of the GOP brand, especially on spending and size of government. That doesn't mean that all swing voters wanted smaller government, but it does mean that not being conservative enough on that issue diluted GOP candidates' ability to broadcast a coherent message that swing voters could understand.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill