Why are we going after swing voters?

[captainjack]

I have heard repeatedly that many American's share liberal ideologies about the environment, women's choice, gay rights, etc.

Why are we going after a few fence-hoppers who might jump to the other side when we could be garnering support and building an actual liberal base? Time? Money? Lack of demographic information?

[Catch22Dem]

1. Because, unfortunately, they decide the election

You, me, the rest of DU, and FR, do not decide elections because we are the base. The base is reliable, therefore, we don't need to be convinced.

[captainjack]

3. no, i mean....

if you ignore the polls that ask "likely voters" or whatever, there is a huge chunk of the population that is unnacounted for. i'm arguing that we should be going after the group that actually agrees with us but doesn't vote rather than go after those who do vote but don't know who to vote for. i dunno...

[noiretextatique]

4. that makes way too much sense

better to go after people who are ________________ enough as to be undecided at this juncture. it wouldn't be prudent to make too much sense since the media keeps telling us how conservative we are :eyes:

[Catch22Dem]

6. Oh, I see

Yes, very good point. It's a shame (for both sides really, and America in general) that people feel strongly about something, but then take no action whatsoever. Yes, we should get out there and energize the non-voting dems. Not sure what it takes to energize someone after these last 4 years. Perhaps a cattle prod or something. I mean, WTF????

[kayell]

9. I agree completely

I think the reason Dems don't go after them is that most of the non-voters are poor. They don't have a voice because they don't have the money to pay for the voice. Most non-voters see little difference in the parties, because they don't see their lives improving much under either party. To attract them, the dems would have to show how they can make the lives of these people substantially better.

And the party thinks it can't afford to change IMO because it might lose out on corporate cash if it made the types of changes that would have to be made.

And foolishly becomes a bit more like the repukes with every attempt to attract that elusive and indecisive swing voter.

:grr:

When Kerry wins, we still will have a LOT of work ahead of us.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

2. Maybe the issues that would get new voters to the ballot box...

Are to hot for the Democratic party to touch.

Things like Corporate American lawlessness, Poverty, and Drugs.

[ThatPoetGuy]

5. One swing voter is worth one of you AND one of me.

If we don't get that vote, it goes to Bush. Swing voters are worth twice as much as the faithful; when we sway one, we get a vote AND we take one from Bush.

[noiretextatique]

7. here's an idea

since possible swing voters' potential vote for kerry (perhaps)are worth twice as much as mine, i can either:
1) stay home
or
2) vote for nader

1) wouldn't be a vote for bush, but 2) would be a vote for bush
so if i stay home, the swign voters' vote will cover mine, but if i vote for nader, counting a swing voter for kerry...that would still be a net gain on 1 vote for bush.

it seems my vote might be worth something after all.

:shrug: maybe i should become a swing voter to have twice the impact.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

10. Good Comparison

What people are failing to realize in the "swing voters are worth twice as much as the "base" voter" is, keep corting the "swing" voters and ignoring your "base" and soon you will find you no longer have a base. The democratic party has lost a LOT of it's so called base for that very reason.

[jpgray]

8. The media

The media decide swing voters are important, they decide which issues the swing voters are interested in, and then the candidates play to that image to convince the real people who vote.