51% election strategy

[mgrossbe]

Sitting here watching the sunday morning political shows i have begun to really get sick of the state in which elections are run. I am not that old but i still remember when elections were about bring the middle, moderates and indepedents, to your side concerning yourself with helping all people not your base. But ever since rove came onto the seen it seems to me that getting out the base through devisive wedge issues is now the norm. I am just wondering if anyone else if fed up with rovian politics(not that both parties do not do it he is just the mastermind.)

[dazzleman]

I'd like to see a break in it.  Generally, people don't create circumstances, but react to them.  When circumstances change, this type of electioneering will change also.  Who knows when.

[Nym90]

I'm very much fed up with it. I'd much prefer both sides to reach out to the middle rather than try to fire up the base. It didn't start with Karl Rove, but it has gotten a lot worse in the last 6 years, that's for sure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Definitely. Kerry reached out to moderates a lot more than the liberal base in 2004, but he got swamped by the far right.

[J. J.]

Definitely. Kerry reached out to moderates a lot more than the liberal base in 2004, but he got swamped by the far right.

He got swamped by the moderates.

The country was, in 2004, but to a lesser extent today, heavily polarized.  It has been since 1992.

51% is needed because that, or just a little bit less, wins elections.

We also had a series of landslides, 1964, 1972, 1980 (at least close), 1984.  1988 wasn't but is was still a higher percentage for a winning candidate that we've had since that election.  Clinton, in a healthy win in 1996, was 4 points below Bush's 1988 win (that was not stellar).

[Nym90]

Definitely. Kerry reached out to moderates a lot more than the liberal base in 2004, but he got swamped by the far right.

He got swamped by the moderates.

The country was, in 2004, but to a lesser extent today, heavily polarized.  It has been since 1992.

51% is needed because that, or just a little bit less, wins elections.

We also had a series of landslides, 1964, 1972, 1980 (at least close), 1984.  1988 wasn't but is was still a higher percentage for a winning candidate that we've had since that election.  Clinton, in a healthy win in 1996, was 4 points below Bush's 1988 win (that was not stellar).

Clinton's margin of victory in 1996 was greater than Bush's in 1988 in the popular vote. By saying he was 4 points behind, I assume you are referring to his percentage of the popular vote in absolute terms being 4 points lower (which is true, but if that's the basis, then Reagan in 1980 only had 51 percent so that can't be considered a landslide either).

Besides, I don't think looking at the absolute percentage for the winner is the best basis; margin of victory makes more sense as a barometer of competitiveness.

[dazzleman]

Definitely. Kerry reached out to moderates a lot more than the liberal base in 2004, but he got swamped by the far right.

So you'd consider 50+% of the population to be far right?  And moderates and leftists together constitute 47%?

[Mr. Morden]

I don't agree with the premise that candidates tend to go after the base and ignore swing voters.  You don't hear Bush railing against abortion doctors or talking about the evils of homosexuality.  Instead, it seems more like every word that comes out of most politicians' mouths is poll-tested and focus-grouped to appeal to swing voters, to the point where it becomes hard to distinguish one party from the other, as parodied by The Onion back in 2000:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28068

"Bush or Gore attributed his victory to his commitment to the issues that matter to ordinary, hardworking Americans. Throughout the campaign, the Republican or Democrat spoke out in favor of improving educational standards, protecting the environment, reducing crime, strengthening the military, cutting taxes, and reforming Social Security. He also took a strong pro-middle-class stand, praising America's working families as "the backbone of this great nation.""


The problem isn't that they're not trying to appeal to swing voters.  It's just that they're not very good at it.

[Beet]

I don't agree with the premise that candidates tend to go after the base and ignore swing voters.  You don't hear Bush railing against abortion doctors or talking about the evils of homosexuality.  Instead, it seems more like every word that comes out of most politicians' mouths is poll-tested and focus-grouped to appeal to swing voters, to the point where it becomes hard to distinguish one party from the other, as parodied by The Onion back in 2000:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28068

"Bush or Gore attributed his victory to his commitment to the issues that matter to ordinary, hardworking Americans. Throughout the campaign, the Republican or Democrat spoke out in favor of improving educational standards, protecting the environment, reducing crime, strengthening the military, cutting taxes, and reforming Social Security. He also took a strong pro-middle-class stand, praising America's working families as "the backbone of this great nation.""


The problem isn't that they're not trying to appeal to swing voters.  It's just that they're not very good at it.

They're not very good at it because it's not a genuine appeal. They utter words that consist of glittering generalities all Americans agree on, but the policies those words uphold "in code" are closely tailored to the ideological base. And when push comes to shove between appealing to swing voters and satisfying the base, the politicians always choose the latter unless absolutely necessary- in which case the two become the same.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Definitely. Kerry reached out to moderates a lot more than the liberal base in 2004, but he got swamped by the far right.

He got swamped by the moderates.

The country was, in 2004, but to a lesser extent today, heavily polarized.  It has been since 1992.

51% is needed because that, or just a little bit less, wins elections.

We also had a series of landslides, 1964, 1972, 1980 (at least close), 1984.  1988 wasn't but is was still a higher percentage for a winning candidate that we've had since that election.  Clinton, in a healthy win in 1996, was 4 points below Bush's 1988 win (that was not stellar).

Kerry won moderates 54-45. What those 45% were smoking, I have no idea.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[mgrossbe]

Interesting debate. I can see both sides of it however i clearly side with my proposition here. No one rallies against abortion doctors fine but actvist judges comes spewing out of the rights mouths every five minutes and bush is a criminal out the left. Neither is correct just stupid. and of course people want 51 percent that is clearly what wins elections but i remember when people wanted a mandate not a victory. I quess that is what i should have stated orginally. One should concern themselves with what their base wants it is their parties platform but to an extent. Our country was founded on protecting the minority and seems to me that is forgotten so often these days. 

[Mr. Morden]

He got swamped by the moderates.

Kerry won moderates 54-45. What those 45% were smoking, I have no idea.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

The problem with such an exit poll question is that asking people for their ideology involves self identification, and the poll respondent's idea of what constitutes a "moderate" or a "conservative" or a "liberal" could be very different from anyone else's.  I think on just about every poll I've ever seen, the number who describe themselves as "conservative" is greater than the number of people who call themselves "liberals".  Does that mean that the country has more conservatives than liberals?  It depends on how you define "moderate", "conservative", and "liberal".  I think it's just a consequence of the fact that the word "liberal" has a worse rap than the word "conservative".  (Most liberals seem to prefer the word "progressive".)  That means that moderate righties are more likely to call themselves "conservative" than "moderate", while moderate lefties will call themselves "moderate" when a poll question like this is asked.  If that's the case, then the "moderate" group in these polls are actually (on average) slightly to the left of the average US voter.

Of course, if you define the political center as the political center of gravity in the US, then, almost by definition, the country has a roughly equal number of conservatives and liberals.