Crystal Ball Showdown: Presidential election key voters?

Which voters are the key to winning the Presidential election? "Base" voters or swing voters? I've read reports saying that capturing the swing vote is the key element, and I've read reports saying that the "swing" voters aren't all that "swing-y" and the election will go to the party that gets its base out to vote. Which one do you think will be key, and why? (There's also an "other" option, but if you pick it, explain what it is, and why you think it's more important!)

1) You first tie down the base. From the base you get your volunteers, money, and key supporters.

2) Then you find out who your swing voters are. You determine where they come from, what they are, what their values are, and you target them specifically.

So you need BOTH.

Or, rather, which one will be more important in the 2004 election? I know you need both, but which one is going to put us over the top in the Electoral College? One thing that I noted is that many of the "Bush*" states are *solidly* Bush (wide margin). Those aren't in play in any event. So in the swing states that went to Bush* in 2000, what's going to make the difference?

(Edit: added specification of "swing states that went to Bush*")

You need them both to win. The key states--or battlegrounds--of 2004 will be:

NH
PA
WV
MI
MO
KY
TN
AR
LA
FL
NM
AZ
CO
NV

Those are the states that will swing the next election.

nt

We have a winner folks!

How about we go after that 40-50% of registered voters who don't even bother to go the polls. And while we're at it, maybe we could work on registering some of the thousands of people who aren't even registered? Sounds like a plan to me. :)

(the ones that only exist inside the DRE machinez)

There is a problem with this. First of all people who don't vote aren't reliable. Secondly you can only register them in the heavily Democratic precicnts--anywhere else you are bound to be registering Republicans.

There is no proof to even suggest that these voters would support Democrats.

How about we go after that 40-50% of registered voters who don't even bother to go the polls.

Sorry, but this is the holy grail of electoral politics--meaning that which is mythical, idealized, and unattainable except by virgins. Every campaign that tries this tract ends up being disappointed. The only two exceptions in recent memory are Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzeneggar, candidates who appeal to the "aw, dude, this is so awesome" vote. Not exactly our cup of tea.

By the time most elections are over with, the major candidates are known to be anything but virgins. Certainly this won't be the case with any Democrats effectively selected by March. Newbie voters, who are turned off by the drudgery of politics-as-usual will have had 6-8 months of listening to "tax-n-spend liberal", "gay marriage," and "soft on defense" stuffed down their gullets by the Republican smear machine. Don't expect a big turn out of first time voters.

The people who don't vote don't vote by choice. Of the small minority of nonvoters who can be persuaded to participate, they usually break about 50-50 between the parties. The gods of television have done their work too well.

In 1998 a State Senate candidate in Beaumont, TX had an *incredible* get out the vote campaign. Our area had the highest turnout we'd seen in years, and the area went overwhelmingly Dem- in 1998! In fact, if I remember correctly, we were one of the few areas to not vote for Shrub for Gov. I remember the headline of the local paper read "Area jumps off Bush Bandwagon" or something to that effect.

The non-voters are a VERY important part of the equation, and we continue to ignore them at our peril. I don't think that means we should ignore the base or the swing/centrist/independent voters either, mind you. But to say that the non-voters can't swing elections is ridiculous.

It is also what killed my area in 1994 when I was working a state senate campaign. We had *extremely* low turnout that year (the area was flooded in Oct, and people were still dealing with that mess and an election did not seem so important). And we lost almost every election but one- in a union, Dem stronghold of Texas. Because only the hard core supporters showed up to vote.

We can always count on a certain percentage to show up (about 25-30% for Dems and 30-35% for repubs). Those people are going to vote no matter what, and we should court them to convince them to vote Dem. But we also HAVE to work on those people who will only vote if prodded, especially since they are a majority of the electorate. To say otherwise leads us to more and more 2002 elections- something I'm not willing to consider.

You can get new voters registered, but you have to do it in precincts that turn in 60+% Democratic. Otherwise you run the very real risk of registering people hostile to your agenda. It's only one part of the puzzle.