Where the Votes Are - the 30/30/40 "Registered" Core Rule

[dpbrown]

Some people say that the "core" should be as little as 31%, citing some statistic about the numbers of "registered" Democrats, and while it's probably BS to peg the "core" of people who always vote one way so tightly to "registration" (for one thing, people in many states don't have to declare affiliation), this is how it changed the bell curve analysis compared to a 40/40/20 rule.

If the "core" is 31%, let's make it 30% to make the math easier, then:

Gore got 30 million Democratic votes.
Bush got 30 million Republican votes.
Nader got 3 million Green votes.
The "independents" are worth 40 million.

The bell curve shows:

10 million - wished Bush were more conservative - voted Bush
30 million - Republican core - voted Bush
10 million - wished Bush were more liberal - voted Bush

10 million - wished Gore were more conservative - voted Gore
30 million - Democratic core - voted Gore
10 million - wished Gore were more liberal - voted Gore
3 million - wished Gore were more liberal - voted Nader

The "core" plus the "left-side" of the core is worth 43 million (instead of 48 million in the previous example).

Therefore, the DK pool would start with 43 million in the pocket, and be competing for 10 million (instead of 5 million) previous Gore voters.

Conservatives like this scenario better, because it makes it easier to dismiss the 3 million Nader voters.

But the progressive would still have the advantage.

Why?

Because the Democratic candidate will start at "even" with more ground to make up against the Republican.

So let's say Dean is the nominee. Instead of having 43 million in his pocket, he's got 30 million, and he has to convince BOTH the previous voters who wished Gore were more liberal, AND the previous voters who wished Gore were more conservative to vote for him, BEFORE he can go after the 10 million who wished Bush were more liberal.

We already know that Dean's narrow interpretation of "centrism" is a recipe for disaster.

In Vermont, when he took over upon Gov. Snelling's death he repealed Snelling's temporary tax increase, angering Democrats, he never got more than 92% of Vermont covered by health insurance, and took the conservative "out" given him by the Vermont Supreme Court on gay civil unions.

As a direct result of his lack of appeal to BOTH liberals and conservatives, Dean saw his re-elect numbers decline steadily from a high of 74% in 1992, to lows of 54% in 1998, and finally 50.4% in 2000 before declining to run a losing race in 2002, leaving his Lt. Governor to lose for him. He did. Lose, that is. Vermont is now governed by a Republican and NO SEAT DEAN EVER HELD IN VERMONT is now held by a Democrat.

Dean's insistence on hewing to a narrow, "centrist" approach enabled the dramatic growth of both third-party "progressives" who were energized by Dean's abandonment of their issues, and, ironically, Republicans, who realized they could elect a REAL Republican instead of a Democratic pretender.

Dean's result in Vermont is EXACTLY what we can expect in a national race. Even if he WINS, his version of "centrism" is so anathema to progressives that he'll cause even more of a split in the Democratic Party as he drives more and more people from it, and Republicans will continue to consolidate the power they've been gathering to themselves over the past several years.

The best bet for the Democrats is to recognize that their "core" is to the "left" (or populist side) of where they've been pretending it is, nominate a candidate who starts from a position of strength with the full complement of progressive voters in his or her pocket, and run a full and powerful campaign based on a "return to traditional Democratic core values."

To fail to re-embrace the Democratic Party's core, legacy principles at this watershed moment with Bush on the ropes is to give conservatives and Republicans probably the greatest victory they could ever hope for.

This opportunity may never come again.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Racenut20]

1. And now he is championed by a Vice President who

Totally blew the last election, that was there on a platter to win had he carried his own home state, unless you figure like most that Washington DC was his real home state.

[dpbrown]

2. Well, Gore did win

Especially if you count the 20,000 plus Gore votes lost in Palm Beach County, the purged nonfelons, the uncounted overvotes, etc.

And Gore got the highest vote total of any Democratic Presidential candidate in United States history.

But...yes, many believe he could have run a better campaign.

;-)

[redqueen]

3. Is it just me?

Or is this intuitively obvious?

I mean... we've been hammered for decades now about how 'out of touch' liberals are... but it's all BS! When you talk issues, most people are more liberal than conservative. If it weren't for the constant propoganda by the mass media, this wouldn't even be an issue.

DK is the man. Others can win, but what do we win? Another Republican congress? Please.

I'll take the true progressive, with the spirit and vision to encourage people to vote for downballot Dems as well. Hell, a more 'centrist' candidate might even help downballot Republicans!

DK renews my faith in this party and would make it so much easier to just vote straight ticket. I'm sure many other Americans feel the same.

[dpbrown]

4. Not only obvious, but provable

The numbers show that there are more people who vote for progressive candidates than conservative ones.

Progressives should cultivate their power to take back the Democratic Party to affect real change.

I think it's tragic that so many people are willingly giving up their right to choose the nominee for 2004.

[redqueen]

5. Fear is an effective tool n/t

[Frodo]

7. Not obvious - and not provable.

Would it be fair to "prove" that the numbers show that California had far more people vote for Republicans than Democrats this year and thus Bush starts off with a big advantage there?

No. Because there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and these are completely made up statistics. If I get to decide what percentage of people fell into each category it would be easy to show that Nader should win this time.

While I DON'T agree with the republicans who claim that Perot "cost them" the election(s), Clinton never got a majority of votes and the Perot "coalition" plus Bush/Dole votes could just as easily be spun as a numerical majority for the "non-left". Heck, there WAS no "left candidate" that year... is that 98% "non-liberal"?

The problem is in trying to break down the public into a some "left-right" equation. What about people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Or visa-versa? What about all those people who are a-political on many of those issues but voted for Gore last time because he was more experienced and had better foreign policy credentials? What about people who are hard-core conservative on almost every issue but are hard-core pro-choice? Or visa-versa?

If "the numbers show(ed) that there are more people who vote for progressive candidates than conservative ones" there would be a number higher than "1-2" for the number of states that our most progressive candidates have won in the last several presidential elections. Compared to the "center-left" candidates (Carter, Clinton, Gore) who actually win dozens of states (and, of course, elections).


The real question is what are THIS YEAR's issues??? If Dean is the candidate it will be tax increase vs. tax decrease. If it's Kucinich it's experience. Whoever it is the issue will be Iraq. Abortion won't play as big this year as, perhaps, "gay marriage". Where people fall on LAST ELECTION's issues is less relevant than people assume.

[bread_and_roses]

6. I agree

absolutely on what I think is your central point...
you wrote:
"The best bet for the Democrats is to recognize that their "core" is to the "left" (or populist side) of where they've been pretending it is, nominate a candidate who starts from a position of strength with the full complement of progressive voters in his or her pocket, and run a full and powerful campaign based on a "return to traditional Democratic core values."

To fail to re-embrace the Democratic Party's core, legacy principles at this watershed moment with Bush on the ropes is to give conservatives and Republicans probably the greatest victory they could ever hope for."

I am convinced that traditional core Democratic values would bring people out of the woodwork who havn't voted for years - or ever. And it would change the terms of the debate. And we might get somewhere. And working people might remember that they are a force to be reckoned with. And poor people might have some hope. And we might make some progress against the institutional racism that will ultimately destroy us.

But more than likely the eventual nominee will be one of the more right-leaning candidates, and we'll be going down the same old road...get a nominal Democrat to make things just enough better that the Neo-Cons can uninteruptedly continue their consolidation of power and recapture the WH in 4-8 years...richer than ever.

[LWolf]

8. I am also convinced.

All of the Kucinich meetups and events that I've attended are populated by democrats...and by many, many 3rd party voters and independent voters. They're coming to the democrats to support Dennis, in hopes that they can get a candidate to support in the general election.

[dpbrown]

9. A kick for public financing!

https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php

The BFEE is the problem - Kucinich is the answer.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota