"It doesn't matter who the Dems nominate for 2020!"

[napi21]

That's a quote from Rachel Bitecofer. She's one of a very few pollsters who got it right in predicting the Blue Wave in 2018. She believes there aren't ant "swing voters". Thee side that gets the most of their base to the voting booth will win!

I have no idea if she's right again this time, but I'm inclined to believe her because all the DT supporters I know haven't budged from supporting him at all over the last 3+ years & neither have the anti Trumper's.

[Autumn]

1. Which leads to the question. What do you do to get your base to get out there and vote?

[NurseJackie]

6. The base will vote regardless... that's why they're called "the base".

Which leads to the question. What do you do to get your base to get out there and vote?

It does no such thing. The base will vote regardless... that's why they're called "the base".

You're not describing "the base". It's something else... but it's certainly not the actual BASE of the party.

The "base" of the Democratic party are the ones who are LOYAL to the party. The "base" are the ones who ALWAYS VOTE in every election. The "base" of the Democratic party are the ones who only vote for Democrats. The "base" are the ones who volunteer, donate, canvass, stuff-envelopes, man phone banks, hand out flyers at polling places.

The "base" doesn't need to be convinced to do anything. It's very insulting for anyone to 1) act like the base aren't loyal... and 2) try to pretend that the unreliable and malcontent voters are the "base" (they're not!)

The real "base" will vote for the party's nominee even if they aren't thrilled that their first choice didn't make it. The real "base" doesn't need to be personally excited or "in-love" with the nominee. The "base" will vote for the Democrat because it's good for the country, not because their own personal vanities have been validated and not because their egos have been stroked.

All I'm saying is the far-left fringe-y malcontents, and the unreliable youth-vote are NOT the base.

[Autumn]

8. So this base of yours base always show up to vote and never sit out elections? Cool beans

[NurseJackie]

15. You got-it, sister!

So this base of yours base always show up to vote and never sit out elections?

That is correct. If they're sitting-out, then they're not the base. You got-it, sister!

The actual base doesn't need to be coddled and validated. The base doesn't need to "fall in love" with their candidate. The actual base doesn't threaten to "punish the party" by pouting and voting against the party's nominee (or staying home). For example: Sarandon is not "the base" she's just a kooky Stein-loving nut.

And while I'm thinking about it... let me just add FUCK Susan Sarandon! She's an Stein-voting/Stein-loving idiot.

[George II]

28. That's "basically" (sorry, couldn't resist) what a base is. But this "base" term is WAY over used.

[NurseJackie]

29. Around these parts, it's MIS-USED in an attempt to falsely give MORE importance to the far-left and...

Around these parts, it's MIS-USED in an attempt to falsely give MORE importance to the far-left and even the angry "fringe" elements. It's also used as a veiled threat in many instances (ie: "do what we want, or else" or "flatter and validate us, or else'') personally, I have had enough threats like that. Those are the most difficult people to please, and in the end, probably won't vote anyway if insufficiently "stroked" and "flattered".

All I'm trying to say is that for the amount of time and effort needed to make a handful of these unreliable voters feel important (and still no guarantee that they'll follow through) we can spend an equal amount of time with other much more productive GOTV efforts.

It's fair for me to say that the old axiom is true: "some people will never be happy no matter what you do" ... so why bother. Cut the losses and move on to more fertile ground.

[oasis]

32. NurseJackie you are 100% exactly right. nt

[MoonlitKnight]

14. Our base has a well earned reputation for not turning out

2016 was a prime example. We had a lot of complacency and numbers lower than 2008 and 2012.

[NurseJackie]

16. That's not the base. You're describing someone else.

[napi21]

10. When I listened to her interview Rachel said wThe Dems shouldn't ignore their Blue supporters as we

sometimes do, and get them more energized. I hate to say this, but that's what T does (constantly throwing them red meat). Really don't take ANY GROUP for granted! We have a whole lot of voters who voice hatred, disgust & fear of DT. We need to keep reminding our voters of how angry we all are & the only way to fix that is by VOTING!

[Autumn]

13. Depending on the small base who votes every election out of loyalty leads to Republicans wins.

You have to reach out to other voters and give them a reason to vote for you. "Not going to happen" and "we can't do that" isn't going to work.

[UniteFightBack]

17. You're missing the point. The base will come out to vote in a ham sandwich, according to this

pollster.

[Autumn]

23. You're missing the point. In order to win an election you need more than just the base. nt

[NurseJackie]

30. Well, actually... that's *not* what you said.

You're missing the point. In order to win an election you need more than just the base. nt

Well, actually... that's not what you said. You asked: What do you do to get your base to get out there and vote? That's what your "point" was. Unfortunately, you were wrong. You were misusing the word and trying to flatter the unreliable fringe and extreme voters by characterizing them as "the base" (which they aren't).

[njhoneybadger]

2. I agree, I don't now any tRump voters who would not vote for him again

But Bloomberg would change that dynamic.

[JuJuYoshida]

3. voting Democrat, I don't care who it is I can't handle Trump anymore

[Mike 03]

4. Michelangelo Signorile has been saying this too.

I'd like to believe it, but doubts gnaw at me.

[scheming daemons]

5. I think she is wrong. Here's why.

There are literally thousands of voters in my state, PA, who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump.

And then in 2018, they voted for Democrats again.


These are the literal definition of "swing" voters... and they're there to to be had.


We got them back in 2018..... but we will lose them again if we nominate a candidate that is too far left. It's why I am so vehemently against a Bernie nomination.

[Demsrule86]

7. +1000000

[empedocles]

9. +

[MoonlitKnight]

18. 130,000 less black voters showed up in 2016 in PA

That was the major difference. Sure, more middle and low income whites voted for Trump when they had previously voted Obama, but Trump has turned away some of those. Our candidate won’t impact that group as much. It makes far more sense to get those POC numbers back up and spike the new voters.

Going after the “Trump Democrats” will fail like when we kept chasing the “Reagan Democrats”.

[scheming daemons]

21. Except we got them... in droves.. in 2018 midterms

So they are there for the taking.

[UniteFightBack]

19. +1000

[TwilightZone]

26. Agreed.

I think the no-swing-voter assertion is grossly oversimplified, if there's a basis of truth in it at all.

[mainstreetonce]

27. You are so 100000% correct

Go Joe

[Drunken Irishman]

11. I disagree with her.

I think it does matter.

In PA, WI and MI, Hillary Clinton did worse by double-digits than Obama among moderate voters.

In each state, moderate voters made up the largest segment of the voting population (roughly 40% in all three). Had Hillary only done marginally worse among this group, she wins all three states.

If we nominate someone who alienates these moderate voters, and fails to make up for it with new voters, we lose.

[MoonlitKnight]

20. How many times did Hillary visit those states?

It’s not the candidate. It was the campaign.

[StevieM]

24. She visited Pennsylvania 15 times, which is tied for the most of any state (along with Fl and OH).

She visited Michigan 3 times, along with visits from top surrogates like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Tim Kaine. That is more than the number of times she visited states like Virginia and Colorado, which she comfortably won.

It is true that she didn't hold any rallies in Wisconsin after the primaries. But she did spend more money in advertising there than Obama did in 2012. And she had a larger ground operation there then the one Obama had in 2012. She didn't schedule appearances there because she was leading by double digits in the polls.

Then Comey intervened and turned the whole election upside down. The fact that she lost in Wisconsin is not proof of a badly run campaign, it is proof that something dramatic happened which was totally beyond her control and which prevented her from winning, regardless of how many times she had campaigned there.

[BusyBeingBest]

12. Of course there are swing voters. Apolitical, uninformed, or just complete flakes.

I personally know so many people like this--I can't grasp what she's saying.

[Quixote1818]

22. And Trump has lost support in swing states since then. nt

[Garrett78]

25. She doesn't believe there aren't swing voters. Just that they're overestimated and misunderstood.

The conventional assumptions about swing voters and so-called independents is wrong. They aren't moderates or middle-of-the-road voters. They're fickle, less reliable voters who tend to swing against the status quo or party that's been in power. Today's average independent, on the other hand, is more partisan (while claiming to dislike partisanship) than the average party-affiliated voter of the 1970s. There've been numerous studies confirming this.

Turn out the base, turn out the base, turn out the base. And get young people fired up.

The electorate has changed over the years. Bitecofer is right. Conventional wisdom no longer holds weight. We fail to recognize this at our peril. Selecting a candidate or running a campaign based on outdated notions, based on appealing to a small percentage of fickle and largely ignorant people spread out across 50 states, is the height of stupidity.

[rockfordfile]

31. I agree

It's the Democratic Nominee's to lose. Majority of Americans want trump gone. I think good number of Americans are ready to get the corrupt GOP Senators out. The corrupt "acquittal" was the last straw.

[IronLionZion]

33. Obama inspired record turnout and had long coat tails

because it matters who the Dems nominate. None of our candidates are nearly as inspiring as he was. This year is going to take more work.

I agree that we need high turnout from our side and high turnout from any moderate swing voters. These don't have to be conflicting strategies, as Rachel Bitecofer feels most voters pay little attention to actual policies and proposals. Our candidate needs more votes in more states to win. Anti-Trump sentiment is likely to be higher than Pro-Trump sentiment this year. Our party should ride this blue wave to increase our majority in the House, try to take the Senate, and sweep Dems into office in state legislatures and local offices everywhere.