politics as warfare: election strategy

[sweetheart]

The following is an excerpt from an article in this week's "the economist" - A survey of America: politics as warfare"

The two bits of quote suggest things i hear little discussed on DU, and i'm curious your opinion.

...
Partisanship is also evident in redistricting, which has increased the number of safe seats towards North Korean levels. In 2004, only 30-40 congressional seats are likely to be truly competetive - a quarter of the number in the 1990's. Since 1964, the share of House incumbents re-elected with over 60% of the vote has risen from 58% to 77%. This makes congressmen's politics more extreme.
If your district is rock-solid, you have little reason to fear that voters will kick you out for moving too far from their opinions. The main threat comes from party activists, who tend to be more extreme in their views and can propose a challenger in primary elections. So the dangers of drifting too far to middle outweigh those of drifting too far to the extremes. Partisan redistricting marginalizes centrist voters, aligns the views of candidates more closely with extremists on each side and radicalizes politics.
...
<snip>
...
The truly independent voter seems to be disappearing. That may seem curious because those who call themselves independents easily outnumber self-identified Democrats or Republicans. Yet most socalled independents vote consistently one way or the other. The white house recons that less than one-third of independent voters actually switched parties in the last 3 elections.
With the decline of swing voters, there seems less and less point in running presidential campaigns to appeal to the slim middle. Instead, elections have become contests to mobilize core supporters. The 2000 and 2002 elections were both turnout races.
The upshot is that politics has become warfare. What matters most is the size and bloodthirstiness of your troops, not winning over neutrals.
...

[bryant69]

1. I've heard this before.

It does raise interesting questions--but the question is how much of it is true. Every winning candidate has had to both energize his base and motivate the undecided. Lets say the traditional model is something like 40% motivating base, 60% getting the undecided. Well where are we know? I can't believe we are at 100% Motivating the base 0% the undecided (or we'd select Kucinich as our candidate.) What if it just flipped flopped--60% energizing base, 40% getting the middle ground?

Oh, and Politics was always warfare.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sweetheart]

2. honestly, i think it more the GOP

Given the economist's bias towards corporatism, the research they perform seems more selected from the "red" states than the blue. I would like a more succinct set of numbers about "base motivation" regarding left and right. Methinks the left is less rigid in its applicability to this model.

It does suggest that we need to get serious focus on getting turnout... that in the next months, getting people out to vote will determine the result... and the hungriest wins. That does make sense.

I read from it a warning sign, to not be complacent with right policies or right candidate, but to hoof it door to door nevertheless. I may have to fly back to america to work as a voting registration door-to-door slave to back up my anti-bush rhetoric.

Warfare is politics by another means... certianly the reverse is true... (von clauswitz) and i merely quote the article title. ;-)

[papau]

3. Battle Plan said to be Dems in current WSJ media(Schlesinger and Cummings)

1. Neutralize Mr. Bush's national-security edge by fanning doubts about his Iraq policy -Focus on insecurity over how things are going in Iraq.

2. Craft economic attacks that can work even if the economy keeps improving -Talk about the economy in a way that resonates with voters despite signs of economic recovery.

3.Dent the president's reputation for honesty and competence, hit President Bush's personal reputation and likeability.

4.Mobilize Democratic partisans in 17 states that Mr. Bush barely won or lost in 2000 -Focus on the 17 states where Bush claimed a narrow victory — or a narrow loss — in 2000, and gin up the base.

5.And maneuver around the new campaign-finance law by redirecting now-banned big donations away from the Democratic Party to a new set of groups that will coordinate attacks on Mr. Bush--Channel the soft money that used to go toward "party building" into the 527 groups mobilizing against President Bush.