Assumption : "You need to gain Independent/Republican votes to win."

Assumption : "You need to gain Independent/Republican votes to win."

Status: False.

Most people believe that to win an election, any election, you need to gain votes from Independents and the opposite party. This is, of course, totally false. It has been proven that not everyone votes, and more importantly, not everyone votes in every election. Meticulous statistical data has been gathered, and has proven that some people, who have voted in the past, simply do not vote sometimes. And also, some people who almost never vote, sometimes do. In other words, a person is not simply "a voter" or "a non-voter". The amount of people that vote fluctuates.

Thusly, in order to win an election, one does not need to pander to the middle, be centrist, or get Independent and/or cross-over votes from the other party. All they need to do, is get their OWN BASE off their asses and to the polls to vote, and they will win.

but it's not a logical fallacy.

You betcha.

Your argument is not only deeply flawed, but you provide none of the meticulous statistical data you claim ownership to. And sure, some people never vote, but that has little to do with anything. Some independents always vote. That may be more to the point.

I already have.


In my town, there are roughly 16,000 people.
Roughly 9000 are registered to vote. Of them, around 2000 are registered Republicans, and 1700 registered Democrats. The rest are independents.

Roughly 3800-4600 people actually vote on a regular basis (including town referendums, local elections, state elections and national elections).
Getting the registered Democrats to actually show up to vote has won us many, many times. And when we were unable to do so, we've lost many, many times.

data you DIDN'T produce. And show me exactly how your town is representative of the entire country.

Unless you have data to prove otherwise?

That is probably the most ridiculous assertion I've ever seen.

You're serious, aren't you?

I'm Vice Chairman of the Democratic Party in mine. I've talked to Chairpersons all across my state and the country. Its the same everywhere. The only things that change are the issues, not the mechanics of politics.

Your assertion would only be accurate if you were Vice Chairman of the Democratic Party in EVERY town in the U.S, and every town exactly matched your fabricated numbers.

The mechanics of Get Out the Vote works the same in every single town, everywhere. I'm unaware of a "dream Republican town" or "dream Democratic town" where one side dominates and the other side is simply overwhelmed. If that's the case, well, then for that town I'm wrong. But in all other towns (and in all towns in my direct experience that I've interacted with), there is a split that can be won by simply Getting Out the Vote over the other side.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wanna try again ?

You just try to win with "true" Republicans in Madison, or "true" Democrats in Delafield.

No independents or party cross-over allowed, just GOTV, right?

Works pretty well.

Nice job at moving the goal posts - now its "true" Republicans and "true" Democrats?

pfft.

There are towns in the upper Midwest that are 95% Republican. How do those fit your equation? Just get out the vote, and Democrats will win?

Sure.

If I can find the data on the net.

So, you should already be aware of them, right?

Oops, you can't.

Since you know that your town is representative of all others, you've researched them all, correct?

Reporting my post for what? Pointing out that you've made grandiose claims that are ridiculous?

Good luck.

Get Out the Vote and is has been pretty basic to local politics for a few hundred years. Some of the more fun things, like baskets of $5 bills and free drinks, are now illegal, though. Phone banks, free rides, and other godd stuff are still OK, though.

Where this falls down is when the other side is also getting out the vote and you have 300 less votes to get out than they do. That's when you kinda need to dig into those 5,000 or so independants.

But you can never get out the WHOLE vote (your whole side).

Those who get out more, win.

Most of the swing voters I've met are people that, as far as I can tell, believe that a deadlocked government is a good government. These are the folks who will vote Democratic for the President if Congress is dominated by Republicans, and vice versa. They believe in "split government", period. You can't appeal to such voters to win elections, they aren't reliable, and are basically the disruptors of electoral politics. The most you can hope for is to overcome their disruption at the ballot box with enough voters for your candidate and/or party. They are worse than even Nader voters.

Independents = 42% (and rising)
Dem = 36%
Repube = 20% (and falling)

You just may have the key to it all!

:P

Stupid thread.

Stupid post.

Or do they somehow magically just not vote, even though every single bit of statistical evidence across the country disagrees with that?

With 62% of the country not Democratic, you could get 100% Democratic turnout with 100% for the Democrat and still lose to 63% turnout of Republicans/Independents voting 100% against you.

Therefore, all you need is to get more of our base out than the Republicans do, since those bases are generally close in size.

Do the research before you spout off your sophistry.

Are you off your meds?

The premise of my thread is that you only need to mobilize your own base to win, so you don't need to PANDER to the Independents. That is because they split 50/50 (since independents are really all Republicans or Democrats anyway, just unwilling to register for a party).

>>Assumption : "You need Independent/Republican votes to win."

Status: False.

Most people believe that to win an election, any election, you need votes from Independents and the opposite party. This is, of course, totally false. <<

>>Thusly, in order to win an election, one does not need to pander to the middle, be centrist, or get Independent and/or cross-over votes from the other party. All they need to do, is get their OWN BASE off their asses and to the polls to vote, and they will win. <<

-

How on Earth do you square that with "Oh, we get 50% of the Independents anyway."

The 50/50 claim is in direct opposition with the underlying assumption.

Some people are thick as bricks...

I fixed the OP to be more clear, just for you.

:-)

A good policy appeals to the left as well as the middle in America. Social investments in health care, education, and infrastructure are popular with most people. The only question is how much of a fight do you want with the rich people who want corporate welfare over public welfare.

Therefore, all you need is to get more of our base out than the Republicans do, since those bases are generally close in size.

You're going to pick up I votes whether you intend to or not, and as the economy continues to sag, more people are going to come to rely on social programs.

them that they'll split that way?

I would assume that as a Democrat you need to appeal to the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters in New Hampshire if you expect to win there.

It is important to reach independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters across this country in a General Election, or at least not alienate this group entirely, or you will have to 'turn out' an incredibly high number of partisan voters to win.

BTW John Edwards can reach these voters in ways that other Democratic Candidates cannot, which has been supported by targeted polling on this issue.

Targeting Independents for mailings, etc. is fine, and should be done.

That's not what I meant.

What I meant, is not running "to the center" on ISSUES, or appealing to Independents on the ISSUES. You can appeal to the Independents with your platform and your message without running to the center.

The most important thing is still to GOTV for your own party. That will win the election, even in places where there are huge independent pools. My town is proof of that.

Not the usual platform that a Democrat would run on to 'reach' the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters.

I believe that Edwards will continue to appeal to the progressive Democratic voters and still pick up the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters --primarily because the that block is sick of the mess created by Bush and wants an end to this war as badly as the typical DEM voter does.

And a very genuine man.

I am most worried that Hillary as the DEM Nominee will move hard to the 'traditiional positions' occupied by past independents and unaffiliated voters, when this election cycle polling clearly indicates that the the independents and unaffiliated voters are more aligned with the current Democratic positions.

THis move to the center, supporting big business and tax policies favorable to them may cost her votes if she becomes the DEM Nominee.