This election is about the 10% in the middle.

Agree?
Disagree?
Discuss.

that are registered and vote will still vote for Kerry. But going and WORKING THEIR ASS OFF to recruit other people... for that you have to be fired up. So if you piss-off your base you might lose the Democrats that might be registered by the ex-true-blue believers and that 10% in the middle is not big enough to compensate.

I don't know what you mean by "This election is about"


I don't understand what that phrase is supposed to mean in this context.

That 90% of the people who plan to/will vote have already made of their minds and wont change (and theyre roughly split 50/50)... there are only 10% who are unsure or might change their mind. So hence, its them the politicians are going to focus on appealing to, and since they tend to be moderate, its implied the candidates will try to show their moderate side to appeal to them, assuming that their liberal/conservative partisan bases will stick to them, if not because they like him, because they like the alternative even less.

using the term 'is about' is just too vague, it could mean 'should politicians focus on that 10%' or it could be taken to mean 'should politicians ignore everybody else' or it could be taken to mean 'are those 10% the only ones who matter', and so on...

if its 'those 10% the only ones who matter' then the politicians will 'focus on that 10%', subsequently 'politicians will ignore everyone else'.

I guess the question is should it be/is it this way?

But obviously you need your base to vote for you. Of course the reality of the situation is that Kerry does have the advantage of the most united Democratic party in a half century, no matter how vocal the dissent may be, it is very small in terms of numbers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1789789#1790545

Curious as to prevailing sentiment, I created poll.

Please feel free not to vote.

and it figures that it would break down to..er...er..10% in the middle.

Wouldn't it be neat if you could make a poll on any post so you could make one right there in the thread?

That's a HUGE number of people, and it seems obvious that if there were some effort given to find out the reason, and give those people reason to vote, it could make a HUGE difference.

Kanary

and he's failing at it

talk about every vote counting in a swing state election

The number of votes that can be swung by Diebold Republican Electing Machinez is a lot more than 10%.

If the predicted 30% of the vote is BBV, we are done for.
We have to stop the machinez!

Pandering to the right is a losing strategy. How many times- how many electoral failures will it take for the Democratic party to finally learn this?

What the election ought to be about is reasonable vs. irrational policies- ones that affect everyone. There are so many examples of sheer right wing lunacy and so many vignettes that could be used at every level of governments that it boggles the mind.

Abandoning these- and abandoning progressive principles in an effort to placate some ephemoral "middle" is (as it has been for over 10 years now) a recipe for disaster- a disaster that the Kerry people seem thus far all too eager to embrace.

but it is widely used
makes me worry we might loose

but thats close enough to 10%

Far left whackos and far right whackos are both about 5%
Strong left and strong right are about 20-25 percent each
The rest are moderates...in the middle.

Of course it's not JUST about that but it is more than green or libertarian defectors or the "staying home" indignancy. Way more.

then you would be correct. If you are suggesting the Party should tailor its message for the 10% in the middle, you are wrong.

THey are the ones that interest me. If they ever start voting, this country start to look more like Europe, Canada, etc.

I voted disagree. :-)

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub2

<snip>
"Centrism is bogus," Reich argues. It's up to the Democrats to attract the largest political block in America -- the non-voters -- by defining an agenda that leads the nation, rather than one that tries to mirror the latest poll.

"The big differences in American politics today are between those with courage and those without it, those who can inspire and those who can't....On the other side is a large group of hard-boiled poll-watchers and ass-kissers who spend most of their time raising money from people and groups with a lot of it."

...much more

...perpetuated by those politicians who want an excuse to move their politics to the right. (See: DLC)

- The illogic of this is amazing....but politicians keep on spouting it as if it makes sense. They're willing to give up 10 percent or more of the base in order to win ten percent of those who may or may not vote for them?

- I've got a name for it: the politics of stupidity and greed.

But alas the myth is widely believed to true, apparently even by a majority of those here on DU.

Does the outcome here turn on those in the middle, or engaging the many who are not voting?

Even with the well-founded concerns about Nader, I still do believe that the more liberal members of Democrat Nation have to do for Kerry what the religious right did in 2000 to help * get (s)elected.

Keep quiet until November.

This election IS about the 5-10% of undecided, independent, moderate voters in the middle. The more we can help Kerry claim the middle ground and cast Bush as the right-wing extremist he really is, the better it is for ALL OF US.

Honestly- I'm not asking people to change their belief systems, or embrace every little shred of Kerry's platform as if it were gospel. But if your goal is to help progressive policy get enacted at the Federal level, the best thing to do is hold your fire, help Kerry get elected, and THEN PRESS HIM ONCE HE'S IN OFFICE.

The rabid right-wingers didn't learn from their mistakes in '92 or '96, and Clinton captured the moderate vote both times. In 2000, they finally wizened up. By taking a back seat and allowing Bush to run on a theme of "compassionate conservatism," they have now gotten practically everything they'd ever hoped for: stem-cell research bans, curtailed abortion rights, bills to loosen penalties for politicking, and maybe even Federal funding for "faith-based" services. Most of all, they got themselves a true-believer in the White House by shutting up and letting Karl Rove work his magic.

In 2004, I think the Bushies may have overplayed their hand with the religious right. The highly-visible connections between the President and fundamentalist Christianity are likely making the moderate voter uncomfortable, giving Kerry a huge opportunity to fill the void in the middle.

It's time for us to play smart and be pragmatic. A small investment now could pay huge dividends later.

-MR

You should read some of what Rep. Barney Frank (Dem. Mass.) has to write on this subject. He expresses our view preciously.

Your view actually appears the more popular, although certainly some vehemently disagree. I for one think that silencing the left is path to defeat not victory. Speaking truth to power would bring in new voters that the popular model tragically ignores.

Isn't this the strategy employed in 2000 and 2002? Heads up, guys, it didn't work, unless you mean in the Republicans' favor. How about this: focus on giving those who don't vote a reason to vote Democrat? Make sure votes the votes count. Stop alienating the base by fishing for an enigmatic waffling theoretical minority too dense to see the difference between the parties. It's not rocket science, W's a complete fuckup - he's handing it to you.

We also won in 1992, and 1996.

Stop alienating the base by fishing for an enigmatic waffling theoretical minority too dense to see the difference between the parties

"Theoretical minority"?? For a second, I thought you were referring to those non-voters

The goal is to win 51% of the vote -- more specifically, 51% of the vote in swing states. If we can do it with the left on our side, then great! If the left jumps ship, then yes, there is nothing wrong with the Democrats moving to the center to pick up votes.

With Nader grabbing 6% of the vote in several states, why leave our fate in their hands?

if the other half of this country voted!

winning races by tapping into non-voters who previously have not had a reason to vote?

Nader's 2000 run shows how hard it is to get them to vote. Every four years, there's a constellation of parties running. There's someone for everyone, but those people stay home.