Forget everything you know @ "The Independent Voter": Study shows to win votes MOTIVATE your BASE

[nashville_brook]

Very interesting analysis from TruthDig and DailyKos that shows how the all-important "swing voter" is not actually a moderate-centrist who yearns for deficit reduction and "pragmatic" non-ideological candidates. Rather, the swing voter is a disaffected partisan who just hasn't seen anything worth voting for in a while. This is bad news for Obama's reelection, as he's been running to the right just as fast as he can since the party's "shellacking" in 2010. Only, if you remember, the Dems who received the drubbing were the middle-of-the-road Third Way'ers. In 2010, solid liberals did fine as a whole.

According to this analysis, if the party wants to win in 2012, they need to start playing to win right now with the phony deficit negotiations. Stand firm for Democratic programs and fight for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as if your job depends on it...because it does.



http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/study_to_win_more_votes_motivate_your_base_20110718/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines

STUDY: TO WIN VOTES, MOTIVATE YOUR BASE

Numbers from a recent Pew Research Center study contradict the conventional thinking on independent voters. Independents are not moderates who can be swayed to the right or left with appeals to moderation and centrism, but “disaffected political partisans” (in the words of the Daily Kos), rebels unhappy with the politicians and parties they feel have betrayed the issues they care about most.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/17/995375/-Independent-voters-are-actually-closet%20partisans?via=blog_1


Independent voters are actually closet partisans

Pew Research Center released a study of independent voters last (May) that may help refute the Washington conventional wisdom. That conventional wisdom, roughly states that independent voters are middle of the road moderates who don’t support either party but swing their votes to and fro depending on what is important to them. They are fiscal conservatives who want a balanced budget. They are pragmatic centrists who want bipartisan solutions to every problem. They don’t like partisan bickering or political fighting. What they want is a harmonious, fiscally prudent government that doesn’t do too much or too little. Sort of a walking army of Midwestern Lutheran insurance actuaries.

The conventional wisdom on independents is, naturally, completely wrong. Independents are not a monolithic group of moderates. In fact, they are very diverse in their political opinions and there isn’t a “move to the middle” formula that will win them over. Moderates, in fact, are now overwhelmingly Democrats. Independents are, for the most part, disaffected political partisans.

... It is highly unlikely that folks who lean toward either party, and remember the vast majority of independents lean, are going to swing their votes to and fro between the parties. What is likely, however, is that many independents may not be as motivated to vote as strong or weak partisans. To solve this problem, the parties need to motivate them to vote. Since the matrix of issues that motivate independents will more or less coincide with those issues that motivate party partisans, political strategists should do something counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom: To win independents, motivate your base.

Pew studied folks identified as Solid Liberals, whom you could also call "strong partisan Democrats," albeit 24 percent of this group identify themselves as independents who lean Democrat. There was no drop in turnout among this group in 2010. Where there was significant drop, however, is what Pew calls the "New Coalition" Dems (moderates & Dem leaners) and the Post-Moderns (youth). Of those "New Coalition" Dems, fully 42 percent of them identify as independents. We didn't lose in 2010 because we lost independents. We lost 2010 because our independent leaners and young folks didn't vote, while Republican leaning independents turned out in droves.

(snip)

Step back. Look at the big picture. We need to win independents in 2012. But don't make the mistake of believing that these are folks we need to "win back." We didn't lose them. They just didn't see anything worth making a trip to the voting both for. We need them to come back. What will motivate these guys to come back? The answers may surprise you:

from the PEW study:

65% of New Coalition Dems favor bigger government providing more services.
Just 19% want it smaller providing less.
For partisan liberals the breakdown is 74%-17%.
Only 36% of New Coalition Dems say the government "cares what people like me think." 58% say it doesn't. Liberals? 36%-59%.
70% of partisan liberals say they like politicians who make compromises, but only 35% of New Coalition Dems do.
59% of New Coalition Dems say they like politicians who "stick to their positions."
90% of partisan liberals approve of President Obama.
83% of New Coalition Dems do.
95% of partisan liberals say he should be re-elected.
75% of New Coalition Dems agree.

(snip)

[elocs]

1. One thing I do know...Republicans LOVE it when Democrats choose not to vote.

It makes their job so much easier.

[sabrina 1]

58. One thing that does not motivate people to vote for you is

to blame them for your failures. People are way too smart for that and there is nothing smart people despise more than childish attempts to emotionally manipulate them. See Nov. 2010.

To win, you have to do as the OP says, motivate, not castigate, voters.

Someone needs to tell the Obama campaign that there are people claiming to represent the president who are actually doing great harm to his campaign.

[joeybee12]

2. Basic rule of politics, first you made sure you have your base, then

you start going after the independents. Basic rule. You don't win if you don't do this first. Insulting your base, talking to them as if they're stupid doesn't secure your base.

[Wait Wut]

6. I disagree.

The first thing you do is your job to make sure the country doesn't go to hell. Whether or not this is something your "base" approves of is secondary, if even that.

[nashville_brook]

12. if only our politicians behaved as statesmen this would be true.

[peace4ever]

24. The pros love to point to the teaparty for reTHUG wins, but deny the strategy for their own

Which is another illustration how they try to justify their right wing positions.

It is obviously BS cover for voting the way their corporate masters want them to vote.

[nashville_brook]

26. +1

[DirkGently]

29. Bingo. Question is not what works, but what works AND makes big $ interests happy.

That's all that's "on the table" anymore.

[certainot]

52. dem strategists ignore RW radio - so they think teabaggers represent a real popular movement

and the rest of the corporate/mainstream media help and reinforce that perception, but teabaggers are just latest RW pro-corporate constituency that team limbaugh educated and motivated - in this case to stop health reform- but they're the same talk radio dittoheads as always and in this case they were pushed out of the limbaugh closet by the think tanks who escaped rovian central control of messaging when rove lost the white house.

[The Magistrate]

3. Amazing, Ma'am, This Is News to Anyone

The mush in the middle goes to whoever seems more passionate, this stimulating emotional involvement, and serving as the marker for 'most likely to win' which, above all else, is the thing the middle-mush wants to be part of, when it bothers to participate at all.

[LooseWilly]

7. You're missing the point... it's saying that there *is no* 'mush in the middle'

"The conventional wisdom on independents is, naturally, completely wrong. Independents are not a monolithic group of moderates. In fact, they are very diverse in their political opinions and there isn’t a “move to the middle” formula that will win them over. Moderates, in fact, are now overwhelmingly Democrats. Independents are, for the most part, disaffected political partisans."

The Independents, according to the study, are indeed liable to "go to whoever seems more passionate"... but insisting on calling them "the mush in the middle" is liable to extend the "shelf life" of the mistaken theory that Independents are moderates or even "in the middle" in your own mind.

I suggest, for the sake of your own mental clarity, you craft a new epithet. "Partisan mush" perhaps... "fringe mush"?... or there's always Rahm's apt epithet: "fucking retards".

All my Independent friends are big fans of that last one. ;)

[The Magistrate]

9. They Are Definitely Mush, Sir

They have no strong commitments, no particular passion of their own; they will go to whichever side rouses their emotions and sweeps them up.

[LooseWilly]

20. I did not dispute assertions of 'mushiness'... merely 'middleness'

The point that seemed most salient of the study was precisely that: that they are not of or related to the middle in any recognizable manner.

The importance of that detail being that the "tacking to the center" that pundits and DLC-thought-imitators (epithets are fun) all insist is "necessary" or "politically expedient" or... pragmatic as a woodchuck... really does no good whatsoever.

Of course, we can all extrapolate exactly how DLC-thought-imitators will react to this new information... in the meantime though I would commend you sir for dropping the "middle" from your "mush" with such alacrity.

Cheers.

[noiretextatique]

8. it will be news to lots of folks here who keep claiming "the professional left"

the far left, etc, etc, etc, are not relevant. they claim democrats have to be weak-kneed to attract independents, while liberals just need to show up to vote, then STFU.

[nashville_brook]

21. very much so.

[nashville_brook]

11. yes indeed, it is amazing that this needs to be said!

i like how the study drills down into why people affiliate as "Independent" -- it's b/c they feel their party has left them. True with tea partiers, and true with hardcore (FDR/JFK) democrats.

It's weird how this isn't talked about b/c I bet if you do a subjective study of people you know, you'd find agreement. I know that a lot of my friends in the 90s changed their affiliation after NAFTA. I didn't give it much thought b/c I knew they'd always vote for the most liberal candidate who I always assumed would be a Dem, Which, happened not to be the case when Nader ran -- I found out they were dead serious they were about voting for the most liberal in the bunch. Which broke my heart as a die-hard Gore supporter from waaaay back.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. BINGO! Your Honor, you got it in one..........

In politics, and ESPECIALLY politics in the 21st century, PASSION SELLS THE PUBLIC! Now, it helps if you have passion AND truth, but unfortunately, passion trumps truth nowdays. But the truth WITH passion would be an unbeatable combination.

[Raksha]

55. You mean like Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders?

Re "But the truth WITH passion would be an unbeatable combination."

That's precisely why neither one of them will ever get the Democratic nomination. Not in the current corporate-controlled incarnation of the Democratic party anyway.

[Autumn]

4. K/R Very good idea to give your base a reason TO

vote.

[nashville_brook]

13. going deeper, it seem that Independents are created when their party deserts you.

[Autumn]

15. I believe that to be true

I certainly don't seem to fit in it any more. I think I became the fringe, whatever that is. Which is fine by me because the people here who have called me that, I don't think I would want to be in their party any way.

[nashville_brook]

18. i'm sure systems theory would have something to say about the imbalence

in the Democratic Party these days. this make-believe political landscape can only last so long before there's a tipping point. and the thing about systems that reach critical mass is that they react in unpredictable ways.

[LooseWilly]

5. Tell the DLC types that the base should be motivated... and they tell you "there is no spoon"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M

... and there is no base.

The important thing seems to be maintaining the illusion that selling out the people be justified as being for their own good... ;)

That way the "not base" can be convinced to keep donating money to fund the selling out of themselves.

Good times.

[nashville_brook]

27. they can't bend the base until they get the base to believe that it doesn't exist.

[LooseWilly]

31. ... which is a talking point here at DU...

the Left is not the base... the LGBT community is not the base... labor is not the base... teachers are not the base... etc.

Only bankers and middle managers are the Democratic base, according to the DU Democratic anti-criticism league...

There is no spoon.

[nashville_brook]

37. I guess they don't need actual votes, anymore, to win elections.

just money.

[Raksha]

57. No, they don't need actual votes to win elections--not when the voting machines are rigged

and the Democratic Party is obviously okay with that. If they weren't, they would have done something about it a long time ago. But they do need votes to maintain the illusion or perception of democracy for as long as possible. Deny them that, and you deny them the one thing money can't buy, namely legitimacy. Governments don't tend to last long after they lose legitimacy.

[DirkGently]

10. Someone in DC is apparently convinced that watered down conservatism is the safe road.

[nashville_brook]

16. pushing "watered down conservatism" serves the monied interests...$$ is persuasive

[provis99]

14. this article misses the point.

There are indeed Independent partisans; but Independents who lean Democrat actually vote more Democratic than do Democratic partisans themselves. Likewise with Independents who lean Republican. But the net effect is that the two groups cancel each other out.

Elections are indeed decided by Independents. but it is those called True Independents who decide the elections, when the Independent leaners cancel each other out. And True Independents are distinguished from partisans and Independent leaners by their profoundly low levels of political information. Elections are essentially decided by about 12% of the population, who vote but are massively ignorant about politics.

And how do True Independents make up their mind? Well, by silly criteria like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x136746

[The Big Vetolski]

17. Bah!

"There is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
--Jim Hightower

Or, in Ohio, dead groundhogs.

[nashville_brook]

19. didn't the Third Way foundation issue a warning @ economic populism today?

the Blue Dogs know they can't win debating issues that really matter to the middle class. they know they have to tamp down any talk of how we're all getting screwed while they're getting richer, and richer...and richer.

[The Big Vetolski]

23. Exactly. nt

[LooseWilly]

22. The article *is the point*, in that it refutes the dogma you've just repeated.

And the article refutes it with statistical evidence.

Can you point us to an article or paper that supports your theory of "True Independents" with and statistical evidence? In the meantime it sounds like you are just re-asserting exactly the point that the article had refuted... but rather than provide any support for your theory you are satisfied with the repetition itself and the weight of dogma.

[provis99]

41. it is the basis of my dissertation.

And the evidence that I collected is backed up by 100 years of work done by researchers for the American Political Science Review, the Journal of Politics, and the American Journal of Politics, as well as a multitude of others.

The article authors have quoted Alan Abramowitz out of context; his work is actually very similar to mine.

And they drew completely wrong conclusions: the answer is not to motivate your base, since as most they merely cancel out the Independents leaning Republican. The answer is to capture the True Independents, who decide the election.

[LooseWilly]

59. Your dissertation has no postings to link to?

The 100 years of work done by researchers at XY&Z organization(s) is also completely "link-proof"?

Abramowitz is quoted out of context but you can't provide any hints as to the context that's missing... like, with links?

It is your opinion that they drew completely wrong conclusions... and you can't even provide a synopsis of why?... aside from your re-parroting of the common-place notions which the article you are trying to criticize actually de-bunked?

Your post makes me suspect that your dissertation isn't very compelling. Just, you know... FYI.

Better luck next time? ;)

[Safetykitten]

28. Hi, Democartic strategy specialist here. How do you read that thing?

[nashville_brook]

36. hey, not sure what you mean -- are you referring to the chart?

[FreakinDJ]

30. Been saying this for years

[Blasphemer]

32. This jives with what I discovered while doing political surveys

I was amazed by the number of people who would identify themselves as "Independent" or "Moderate" while their answers to questions made it very clear that their views leaned decidedly in a particular direction. I totally buy that "Independent" often translates to a likelihood of not voting at all due to dissatisfaction with your party of choice in a particular election cycle as opposed to voting for the other party in that election cycle. I am as liberal as they come but I can envision a day when I decide to permanently become a registered "Independent" and self-identify as such.

[nashville_brook]

33. definitely the conventional wisdom is full of it!

if you're going to the trouble to be Independent likely something REALLY pissed you off -- you're not wanting more milktoast...you want real pols who stand for something.

[leveymg]

34. The Dems have suffered failure after failure by trying to appeal to "moderate" lapsed Republicans

Looks like they're at it again.

[nashville_brook]

35. at some point we're going to have to realize that they're not that into us

[leveymg]

43. The "moderate" lapsed Republicans or the Third Way Democratic strategists?

Er, actually, is there really much of a big difference?

The term is "subversion from above".

[tabbycat31]

38. I see both sides of this

As a campaign staffer, there are two different phases of contact--- one is to the base and the other is to the swing voters. You contact each of them for different reasons.

You contact your base early to get enthusiasm up for your candidate and rely on your base for volunteers and fundraising.

However, in many races you can't win by only talking to your base. You have to persuade independent voters to vote for you.

[nashville_brook]

50. i think the article/s address this by saying the two groups are not different

a moderate message to indies is not going to work. it's exactly what they don't want to hear.

[kctim]

39. So independents are really

hardcore leftists who do not vote because the "Party" did not go far enough left? They want leftist policy so bad that they let the right win so that they can be governed by righty policy?

BS!

[nashville_brook]

48. i know, right? if McCain had won...he'd have extended the Bush tax cuts...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_mccain_had_won_20110715/

if McCain had won, he'd...

...have approved a
failed troop surge in Afghanistan,
engaged in worldwide extrajudicial assassination,
destabilized nuclear-armed Pakistan,
failed to bring Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to the negotiating table,
expanded prosecution of whistle-blowers,
sought to expand executive branch power,
failed to close Guantanamo,
failed to act on climate change,
pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling,
failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastrophe,
supported an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich,
presided over a growing divide between rich and poor,
and failed to lower the jobless rate.

that would have totally sucked.

[DirkGently]

49. Youch. So ends that little rhetorical nugget.

[Marr]

40. The whole "Independents" argument was only ever an excuse for pursuing

a neoliberal stance that services big business and splits the vote with another corporate party using social issues. It's a way of giving the public no choice in the issues that really matter; economic and foreign policy issues, while maintaining the appearance of a party divide.

I don't think the biggest proponents of this "Independent" line actually believe it themselves, except in the context of this single-party dynamic. It's an approach that you can use when the economy is rolling along well, but as soon as the economy becomes a shambles (which is inevitable when you're employing trickle down economics), it stops working.

[KoKo]

44. +!

[girl gone mad]

46. Exactly. It gives him cover to push extremely unpopular neloliberal reforms.

Scratch the surface and you can see the discontent brewing. Obama is a likable guy, but he has failed to sell the moderate myth.

[nashville_brook]

47. totally agree...hadn't thought about the up vs down economy angle

brilliant.

[Raksha]

56. A very good point.

Re "It's an approach that you can use when the economy is rolling along well, but as soon as the economy becomes a shambles (which is inevitable when you're employing trickle down economics), it stops working."

[Evasporque]

42. Bloviate to the base....

[KamaAina]

45. I wonder if it's the same 25 to 30 percent of repukes who support each of our issues

or if different ones support different issues, e.g. one might be pro-marriage equality but anti-choice and pro-war.

[certainot]

51. which is why talk radio kicks ass, and why the GOP is still in the race when it should be disbanded

the RW radio monopoly is always there to motivate the base, dominating national messaging and changing the subject basically to whatever they want with 1000 coordinated radio stations swiftboating dem candidates and scaring the base with any lies and distortions they want because they know the left isn't even paying attention to the radio, happy on the computer and their ipods.

[bertman]

53. They'll start appealing to us Liberals sometime in the summer of 2012 when they

figure out that we are not voting for someone who says he's a Democrat but acts like a Republican.

it will come in the form of that honey-coated oratory that won so many of us to his side in '08. Promises about this. Promises about that. All will be bullshit.

The die is cast. The leopard cannot change its spots.

REC.


Edit for a typo.

[center rising]

54. Sorry, ain't buying it

Independents decide elections, the bases don't.

[The Wizard]

60. Indepenents vote for the best story teller.

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

[katnapped]

61. 'Zactly

Whoever has the best "The (other guy) is planning to (steal your money, start a war, kill Grandma)" commercial the night before or the day of the election. Most likely gives it as much (or less) thought than what they're going to have for lunch that day. Anyone who thinks this "mushy middle" is anything more than that needs their head examined.