Some conservative's hope for Bush's Loss. (NOT BUSH BASHING I PROMISE)

[khirkhib]

This was an interesting analysis.  Is Bush going to aim his campaign at the swing voters that he did last time or is he going to try to increase voter turn-out from his base?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Giving Up on Swing Voters?
by DHinMI
Sat Jul 31st, 2004 at 15:32:48 GMT

We all know that over the last several months the Bush administration and the Bush campaign--which other then the bookeeping are essentially the same entity--has given up any pretense of actually achieving something that they could tout as an example of Bush's commitment to "compassionate conservatism," the marketing slogan with which Bush appealed to moderate swing voters turned off by the zealotry of the Republican's radical base.  Now we're starting to see behavior from the Bush campaign that indicates that they may know that a crucial segment of the swing vote may have seen through Bush's phony commitment to compassionate conservatism and decided to vote against Bush.
Karl Rove is fixated on his belief that Bill Clinton won the 1992 election because the fundamentalist and free-marketer conservative Republican base rebelled against George Herbert Hoover Walker.  Trying to feed their insatiable ideological base while still trying to appear committed to compassionate conservatism was twisting the Bushies into contortions seldom seen outside yoga class or the freak show.  Other than tax policy, it wasn't leading to any discernable long-term victories in the first eight months of the Bush Presidency.  (And even their success at passing their tax cuts had negligible effects on voters outside their hardcore base.)  Rove probably believed he was in a zero-sum game, where the only way to give moderates the carrot of compassionate conservative policies was to use a stick to take things away from their own radical rightwing base.  

It appears that Rove saw September 11th as an opportunity to change the entire equation--the Bushies would jettison compassionate conservatism to meet just about every demand of their radical base, but to hide that sellout to the right they would distract moderates and swing voters with war hysteria.  All of a sudden, there were two carrots--distract the moderates and swing voters with the carrot of eliminating the terrorist threat by toppling Saddam and making a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, and give the radical right base the other carrot in the form of a radical right domestic policy.    

Obviously that hasn't worked.  The Republican base--at least that portion who doesn't have to put their name on a ballot to get reelected this Fall--is largely satisfied with Bush.  Sure, traditional conservatives are worked up about the deficit, and some people who distrust government recognize that the powers of the Patriot Act would enable an unfriendly administration--i.e., a Democratic adminstration--greater latitude to threaten their life, liberty and property.  But for the most part, the Republican base is happy with Bush because they see him as a bulwark against everything they fear--science, regulations that limit pollution, progress instead of a restoration of the antebellum south, and pluralism, where our interconnectedness if more important than our differences.  

But voters not beholden to or smitten with radical right beliefs are either lost to Bush or on the verge of slipping from his grasp and possibly voting for John Kerry.  Iraq has turned into a debacle, and while Bush may not yet be losing on measures of war leadership, it's becoming clear that the tides of war can't hold back the rising tide of dissatisfaction and even disgust with Bush's performance on just about every other issue on which voters base their choice for President.  

So, what's the Bush team to do?  Based on Bush's recent travels, it appears their reelection strategy is to give inordinate attention to the places where he had overwhelming support in 2000 in the hopes that they can wring more votes out of their Republican base than probably exist:


Bush, who spent the Democratic convention at his secluded Crawford, Texas ranch, derided his rival's record and warned voters against wavering in Iraq and on the war on terrorism.
"We're not turning back," Bush told cheering supporters on a rain-soaked ballpark in Springfield, Missouri, as he returned to the campaign trail on Friday...

In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Kerry also criticised Bush over the invasion of Iraq, saying it was based on faulty intelligence, and promised that he would "ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence."

Bush defended his actions and said: "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift towards tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

He told a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that "members of the United States Congress from both political parties, including my opponent, looked at the intelligence and they saw a threat."

And he insisted: "America and the world are safer."

What's significant here isn't so much the "what" of Bush's words and actions, it's the "where."  Missouri and Michigan are both battlegrounds-- in 2000 Bush won the former by 3 points and he lost the latter by 5--so it's normal for him to be in those states.  What's striking is where he's campaign for votes in attempting to win those states.   Bush won Green County MO (where Springfield is located) by 17 points, and his share of the vote was 9% higher than his statewide average, so there probably aren't a lot of swing voters who aren't already with Bush in that area.  That visit appears intended to shore up his base and maybe drive up enthusiasm among those voters already more inclined to vote for Bush but who may not turn out on election day.  The Michigan visit is even more telling of his apparent plan to appeal only to conservatives.  In 2000 Bush lost all but two of Michigan's ten largest counties, but in some of those counties the margins were under a few points.  But insted of going to any of those population centers that were competetive in 2000, he went to the Grand Rapids area, where includes the only two of the ten largest counties he won in 2000: Kent County, which he won by 20 points, and neighboring Ottawa County, which he won by 44 points.  

If you accept that a winning campaign requires first shoring up your base and then going out to lure swing voters and maybe a modest portion of your opponent's weak support, yesterday's travels by Bush reveal a desperate campaign.  There's something affirming, however, to think that maybe the Bush campaign has discovered that the majority of the country toward whom they've been contemptuous while in power may be preparing to reciprocate that contempt on election day.

Update [2004-7-31 16:28:45 by DHinMI]:

Part of my argument was apparently not as overt as it should have been. Many contributors to the comment thread have pointed out that campaign rallies are planned for TV, radio and newspaper coverage throughout the entire area, not just the immediate community in which the event takes place. That’s very true, and that’s why Bush might do an event in Detroit (where the “local” television coverage reaches 5 million people) or Kerry might do an event in a conservative community outside Philadelphia (which would beam out local coverage to a similar number of Pennsylvanians). However, in drawing attention to the heavily Republican performance of Green, Kent and Ottawa counties, I was attempting to show the implied premise that Bush was doing events in places where the local neighborhood audience and the television viewing audience are disproportionately Republican base voters…or at least are expected to be.

[millwx]

As an Ayn Rand Crazy type I used to support that breed of Republicans that believed that Government should take as little in taxes as possible and then spend it wisely when they did.

I would like any current Bush supporter to explain to me why the $500,000,000$540,000,000 seniors drug bill is anything other than a $ Half Trillion+  give away to the drug companies.

If the Dems threw away that kind of cash bribing the Unions (a Standard Dem practice via so called "prevailing" wage rules) the GOP correctly would pop a valve.

The GOP is now similar to the Dems - they just use taxpayers money to bribe different people.

Amen!  As I said in another thread... the Republicans aren't "conservative" any more, they're right-wing liberals.  They just like big govt intrusion and huge entitlement programs for different groups than the Dems do.

[phillies]

Returning to the original question, libertianism is not a branch of conservatism.  There are some differences between Clinton and Bush.  Clinton gave us budget surpluses and constrained Federal spending, the traditional hallmarks of the fiscal conservative.

Mr. Badnarik is running on a platform that is anti war on Iraq, anti-draft, and war on drugs, pro-ending corporate welfare.  These are not Republican positions.  Furthermore, while matters may change, at the last report I saw he will in Texas be the antiWar antiDraft candidate who is actually on the ballot (the Greens may yet reappear).  This should give him a respectable draw with some groups of traditional liberals.

[classical liberal]

Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"That government which governs best, governs least [socially and fiscally]."

[WalterMitty]

i dislike mitt romney.  he is the gop john edwards...just another pretty face.  

massachusetts had a good governor in jane swift.  unfortunately, the powers that be had to run out to utah to get the prom king to come take over.

[The Vorlon]

Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"That government which governs best, governs least [socially and fiscally]."

Amen !

[millwx]

Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"That government which governs best, governs least [socially and fiscally]."

I'd tend not to call them socially liberal.  By the way some people classify it today, I suppose, yes, they are.  But, programmatically (e.g., entitlement programs) they are not terribly "liberal".  They do, however, oppose current or additional laws instituting greater social restrictions.  To that end, under some traditional definitions of conservative, they are socially conservative... i.e., favoring less govt interference.  But I understand your point.  By many people's definition, they are socially liberal.  Personally, I disagree.  But I guess that's more philosophical than anything else.

[classical liberal]

Entitlements and social programs are on the fiscal side.  the socil side is stances on non-fiscal issues (USA PATRIOT Act, Abortion, etc).  Favor of a welfare state is a fiscally liberal attribute.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't know Pawlenty... whoever that is.

he's the lameass governor of my state. i don't know if you'd like him. on the one hand, the taxpayers groups and small government guys like him because he's refused to raise taxes and cut a lot of social programs (of course this has pissed off a lot of people here because of our state's classic populism). but on the other hand, that's not what he's all about. his basic agenda is get the GOP to introduce bills on wedge issues, and then if the Dems kill it, throw a fit like its their job to rubber stamp his whole agenda (like his election with 44% gives him a huge mandate). He shamelessy exploits the Dru Sjodin case to campaign to reinstate the long abolished death penalty here. Democrats kill it, he throws a fit. A bunch of extremist GOP legisltors try to amend the state Constitution to an gay marriage. Dems block it. He throws a fit, and then complains some more when they refuse to allow it to be brought up in a special session which is intended to deal mostly without our budget problems, not nonsense like this. He appointed a right wing extremist ultra-partisan with a terrible record to be the State Education Commissioner. Democrats vote her down. He throws a fit. His suits his agenda to fit his needs. In the State House he was from a moderate district and voted like a moderate Republican. When he rose in the leadership, he turned hard right. When he ran in the gubernatorial primary, same thing, talking about how he regrets all sorts of votes he cast in his early career. Just another cheap suit politician and will be working hard for his defeat in 2006.

[AuH2O]

Look man, I'm sorry Minnesota is trending GOP. Don't take it so hard.

At least the Twins and Wolves are sweet. And the Vikings are going to win their division this year, I guarantee it.

[lonestar]

BRTD,

What do you know about the Democratic mayor of St. Paul, Randy Kelly, who came out today and endorsed President Bush for reelection?


**********************************
St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly broke Democratic Party ranks on Sunday to announce his support for President Bush's re-election.

    "George Bush and I do not agree on a lot of issues," Kelly said in a statement. "But in turbulent times, what the American people need more than anything is continuity of government, even with some imperfect policies."

    Kelly, who said he's remaining a Democrat, said the economy is going in the right direction. "There's no reason to believe a change of course will produce better or quicker results," he said.

    And the mayor said the United States will bring the troops home from Iraq a lot sooner if "we don't try to bring in a whole new leadership team to run the show. We must stay the course."

    Governor Tim Pawlenty, who co-chairs the Bush-Cheney campaign in Minnesota, praised Kelly. "His bold decision is courageous and a welcome move toward working across party lines," Pawlenty said in a statement.

http://kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=67485

Also read that he and Gov. Pawlenty, and several other political leaders are going to go across the state campaigning sometime in the next few weeks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kelly's a DINO. He vetoed the smoking ban passed by the city council that eve many Republican controlled suburban city councils have passed. He wasn't even the DFL-endorsed candidate when he was elected, and beat the actual DFL candidate by only about 400 votes, so he was basically the Republican backed candidate anyway. and his approval ratings are in the toilet. He's lining himself up for a private sector job or is probably going to pull a Coleman (who for the record also had miserable approval ratings when he left office)

[lonestar]

Kelly's a DINO. He vetoed the smoking ban passed by the city council that eve many Republican controlled suburban city councils have passed. He wasn't even the DFL-endorsed candidate when he was elected, and beat the actual DFL candidate by only about 400 votes, so he was basically the Republican backed candidate anyway. and his approval ratings are in the toilet. He's lining himself up for a private sector job or is probably going to pull a Coleman (who for the record also had miserable approval ratings when he left office)

So, you're not surprised by him doing this?  I was just curious if it was something unexpected, because I was watching on Headline News where they had a little 30 second story on it, and whoever it was that was interviewed (either head of Kerry's MN campaign or the Minnesota Democrat Chairman) said he was shocked by it and said he was very sad and dissapointed by it.

[Rococo4]

This is just dumb.....I dont know any conservative that wants Bush to lose so Kerry can be President.  No way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kelly's a DINO. He vetoed the smoking ban passed by the city council that eve many Republican controlled suburban city councils have passed. He wasn't even the DFL-endorsed candidate when he was elected, and beat the actual DFL candidate by only about 400 votes, so he was basically the Republican backed candidate anyway. and his approval ratings are in the toilet. He's lining himself up for a private sector job or is probably going to pull a Coleman (who for the record also had miserable approval ratings when he left office)

So, you're not surprised by him doing this?  I was just curious if it was something unexpected, because I was watching on Headline News where they had a little 30 second story on it, and whoever it was that was interviewed (either head of Kerry's MN campaign or the Minnesota Democrat Chairman) said he was shocked by it and said he was very sad and dissapointed by it.

yeah of course we're pissed at him and it was unexpected, but it was also unexpected when Ed Stringer (prominent Minnesota Republican and former Bush Sr. aide) endorsed Kerry, and even when Zell Miller endorsed Bush. But I'm not really all that shocked by it now. If R.T. Rybeck (mayor of Minneapolis) or Jay Benenav (the guy he narrowly narrowly beat for mayor) endorsed Bush, I'd still be shocked right now. But it's easy to rwrite this off as him being a cheap opportunist, who most Democrats and St. Paul residents were never fond of to begin with. It'd be as if Lincoln Chafee endorsed Kerry.

[millwx]

Entitlements and social programs are on the fiscal side.  the socil side is stances on non-fiscal issues (USA PATRIOT Act, Abortion, etc).  Favor of a welfare state is a fiscally liberal attribute.

If you want to lump the programmatic side of social policy into the fiscal side, then I suppose it'd be correct to classify them as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".  Although, I still have a difficult time calling smaller govt (which is what their social stances amount to) anything but conservative.  I think the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" have really gotten bastardized over the past 20-30 years.