Will she vote in 2010? Why?

[eridani]

Last October, I made sure that she was able to vote for Obama. She's white, late middle age and low income. Her records had inconsistencies, and she had gotten notices that she was not registered. She didn't have a computer, so I got online, found that she was listed, and asked someone from the elections department to get back to her. She said she had not voted since voting for Clinton in 1992, but that this year was really, really important.

What was apparently not very important to her after 1992 was voting in 1994, and I'm sure you all remember what happened that year. There is a widely shared mythology that the 90s were some sort of apex in prosperity, but that is not the case. The tech bubble disguised a lot of the harm caused by outsourcing and welfare "reform," and Clinton managed to blunt some of the worst Republican excesses. The real value of the minimum wage rose, but came nowhere near its peak in the late 60s. http://www.epi.org/issueguides/minwage/figure1.pdf

Will she and people like her see ANY motion toward improvement in our economy? She can't afford to get sick, and people like her in Massachusetts had their budgets destroyed by mandatory insurance. Where are the policies that will help her?

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant09092004.html

The truth is that Dottie would vote for any candidate, black, white, crippled blind or crazy, that she thought would actually help her. I know because I have asked her if she would vote for a president who wanted a nationalized health care program?" "Vote for him? I'd go down on him!" Voter approval doesn't get much stronger than that.

Quite a few of the Dotties of all colors came out for Obama last year. If we don't make some serious improvements in their lives, they'll stay home in 2010, just like they did in 1994. In the absence of observable economic improvement and enacting single payer (or at the very least a strong public option) the electorate is likely to go back to apathy, continuing a very ominous and self-reinforcing trend.

http://www.truthout.org/052509D?n

In the 1970s, whether an individual came from a low-, medium- or high-income county didn't seem to have any predictive effect on whether or not that person voted, though rich people still voted at greater rates than poor people. But over the past three decades, as the nation became more segregated by wealth, the effect of living in a poor county, independent of one's own wealth, became a significant predictor of whether an individual voted or not. In other words, while individual-level poverty has always been associated with less civic engagement, increasing class-based segregation is widening the participatory gap between rich and poor even further. The results are published in the spring issue of Political Science Quarterly.

"Our argument is to say, look, it's not just enough to look at changes in income and wealth," explained Soss. "These have been bundled with really profound changes. ... We've become far more class-segregated in residential neighborhoods, and as this has happened, it has acted kind of like a force multiplier."

[BzaDem]

1. Turnout always goes down in midterm elections.

I of course have no way of knowing, but I don't think Dottie's views about Obama will change by 2010 barring some major event. But she still may not turn out, since many who enthusiastically vote for President simply don't show up to midterm elections.

Even if we assume that in 1994, apathetic voters who would have voted for the Democrat stayed home, I don't think Democratic control of both houses would have been saved even if all these voters showed up and voted for the Democrat. There was clearly a backlash against Clinton, and despite what you may read here, it was not from the left. Plus, Ross Perot was a factor in 1992 and not in 1994.

In general, from a numbers perspective, there are always more votes to be gained in the middle than on the left (in non-safe districts).

This is not to say that Obama can reneg on all of his promises. We are likely to see major healthcare reform that will help millions of Americans like Dottie, even though it definately won't be a single-payer system. But Obama and Congress need not be worried about how those on the left are going to their judge every move (at least in the general election). Unless Obama or Congress moves further to the right than Republicans, to the point where those on the left would actually prefer Republicans, Obama/Congress will get any rational Democrat's vote. This is why it is sometimes in Obama's interest to play to the middle (especially on token issues); he has little to worry about in terms of losing votes from the left, but the middle is always in play.

[eridani]

2. It was more than that in 1994

Unions felt betrayed by NAFTA, and sat on their hands instead of volunteering and donating. That would have made a difference. Cultural conservatism got a huge boost from the Democratic abandonment of economic issues. Obama may not lose votes from the left, but the absence of energy could be very damaging.

[BzaDem]

3. I'm not saying those issues had no effect, but I don't think they were determinative.

The election was not close in any stretch of the word. If the election were very close, those issues might have made the difference. Differences in turnout though rarely are determinative in landslide elections -- much more determinative are the votes of those who regularly vote, especially in the middle.

[LiberalFighter]

6. I am sure they understand the importance of the 2010 elections.

They have more at stake this time around in addition to the opportunities that exist.


In the best case scenario it would do us the most good by taking out any moderate Republican leaving just the wingnuts standing in their party. Then the public would only hear them and not any moderates that would appear to be more sensible. The public, I would hope, would then turn away from the Republican Party.

But, it is more likely that we would have a better chance to take out their wingnuts. The bad thing about that would be the Republican Party would then appear more sensible to the public because they would be the only ones left speaking for their party. Well, other than Limbaugh and other talk show pundits.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Take home message: not voting is somehow going to help.

[eridani]

7. In many peoples' experience, participation brings nothing to their lives

That's what we have to change.

[Orsino]

5. That's the eternal conundrum:

It's not enough for the Dems to seem less evil than Republicans presumably would be in the same circumstances. If Democrats consistently fail to perform, to make our lives better, the Republicans will gain seats in subsequent elections.

If Democrats want to lock in lasting majorities, they're gonna have to throw ordinary Americans more than the occasional bone. To do that, they're going to have to have the courage to say no to all those corporate dollars flowing their way--or at least fail to deliver the quid pro quo.

It's possible. It's going to come from Dems, if it comes at all. We just have to stay on 'em.