While there once was a thing as the “great middle”, almost 30% of the electorate, increasing polarization of the parties has reduced this to at the most 10% and most likely less than that. My cite is from In Search of the Elusive Swing Voter.
Although the “swing voters” are much smaller in number, they are no less important, even moreso in light of the closeness of the 2000 election.
Correction: The Kerry voting stats are not from a Republican site but from Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group.
What will you do if Kerry gets the nomination and Edwards is his running mate?
This debate, and Edwards’ own ‘selling point’, his “electability”, both disturb me. Are a lot of you really going to vote on the basis that “Bush sucks and I want a guy who can beat him”?
This can only lead to what we had prior to (and during) the 2000 election: the effective irrelevance of both major parties as they wind up representing exactly the same things.
Come on, guys and girls… pull up your socks and vote for someone whose platform actually reflects what you want in a candidate. When you vote on behalf of America, rather than on behalf of yourself, you play into the hands of everyone except yourself.
Whew. Passion subsiding.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter (to me). If, when it comes down to it, I decide that Edwards is my man, then I really don’t care WHO his running mate is. Could be Dean for all I care. Doesn’t make much difference as the VP really doesn’t do much except assure the succession if the Prez goes down…something I think is fairly unlikely. I’ve never been that concerned with the VP no matter who the candidate is.
-XT
My thoughts exactly. I am registered independent and have voted Libertarian in the last 3 Presidential elections. If John Edwards gets the nomination I may break my own rules and vote for him rather than the Libertarian. If he doesn’t get it then I will vote as usual.
2 cents.
There’s a time for doing that – and that time is when there’s a third-party candidate with the potential for making a difference. 2000 was such a time; 2004 isn’t.
The difference is already there: I’d argue that Nader paved the way for Dean, and Dean paved the way for an angry Democratic party to draw themselves in sharp contrast to the Republicans, to give those who oppose Republican policies a reason to go to the polls.
If such people DO go to the polls and vote Democrat, then Democrats will have a reason to stick with this strategy.
If they DON’T, then Democrats will abandon the strategy posthaste.
Keep the pressure on Dems to distinguish themselves from Bush. But be willing to offer a carrot – if all you got is a stick, they’ll ignore you entirely.
Daniel
Actually, “electability” is a quality all but the most doctrinaire voters weigh when choosing a candidate. It is impractical to only vote for that candidate who completely reflects your personal beliefs because there ain’t such an animal in all but the most extreme cases. You’ll note even among the most ardent Republicans here none are in absolute lockstep with Pres Bush’s beliefs; you’ll hear things like “He’s doing a great job though I don’t entirely agree with his NAFTA policy.”
I believe that Bush and his cronies are damaging this country and removing him from office before he does more damage is at the top of my personal goals. To vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat him, even though I don’t agree with that candidate on every point, supports that particular belief. Were I to vote for a candidate solely on the agreement of his and my beliefs, even though I know that the majority of voters would not vote for him, I would risk attaining that goal. I might feel all warm and fuzzy as I left the voting booth but that feeling would vanish as my candidate went down in flames and Dubya is back at it for another four years.
I count myself fortunate that this primary season I have a choice of two candidates whom I respect and, to a very great extent, agree with. I am especially fortunate that both are electable. I don’t have to go with the lesser of two evils or have a crisis of conscience in the booth.
I’m becoming a wee disturbed by the relentless focus on electability as well. You barely hear anything in news profiles regarding pertinent stances Kerry may have taken in the past; it’s all about exit polls and I don’t care about his particulars; he’d be better than Bush. Well shit, a ring-tailed lemur would be better than Bush, too. But does that ring-tailed lemur set my mind ablaze with great ideas, and get me excited talking about the things I believe in?
Like, say, not getting eaten by a mountain lion–where does Kerry stand on not getting eaten by a mountain lion?!
I’m sorry, that was silly. Seriously, I know it’s naive to think that you can get a guy from your party into office without weighing electability factors, but… it seems to be burying all other political discourse at the moment. What about the worthiness of these guys?
And this illustrates my point exactly. When some ideologues voted their beliefs while disdaining electability we ended up with Bush. Only the most dogmatic and ideologically blind person would say that we would be in the same straits we are in today had Gore been elected. I do not know in what way Nader had “potential to make a difference” except as a spoiler. He certainly couldn’t have been elected.
Two ways that Nader could’ve made a difference:
Are things the same now as they would’ve been under Bush? Heck no, and anyone claiming that they would be was wrong, wrong, wrong. But has the Democratic party stopped sliding rightward?
Looks that way to me.
Daniel
I think you misread his question.
And I am sure that the fellows at Halliburton are real appreciative that you pouted in 2000 and bloodied the nose of the Democratic Party. :rolleyes:
The Greens will never become enough of a political force in this country to make throwing away that election worthwhile except in a masturbatory, “Ooooh! We’re so tough!” sort of way. Thanks loads. :mad:
You’re welcome loads, but I’ll forgo the smilies if you don’t mind, as I’ll forgo the petty, vituperative personal attacks that are far too reminiscent of the Democratic party I didn’t vote for in 2000.
For what it’s worth, North Carolina (where I voted for Nader) wasn’t going to go for Gore no way no how in 2000; the only way my vote could matter was as a protest vote. Had i been in a close state, I would’ve voted differently; indeed, I actively encouraged “vote swapping,” in which Naderites in close states would vote for Gore if they could find a Democrat in a non-close state to vote for Nader instead.
Fortunately for the Democratic party, most of them have moved beyond blaming their potential allies for their pitiful showing in 2000 and have moved to blaming their foes. Hopefully you’ll find it in you to move on, too.
Daniel
Truth be told, I’d completely forgotten about Ralph Nader until you brought him up and usually only think about him in reference to Corvairs. Which I haven’t gotten over, though I know that the Corvair was dying before his book and know that anybody would be nuts to buy a swing-axle Corvair like he pilloried. And, as a Democrat living in Henry Hyde’s district I know the pleasures of voting my conscience even though I know it is mostly symbolic. And I must admit a certain dread I feel when imagining Al Gore’s voice on the news every day.
BUT IT WAS SO CLOSE!
Okay, that’s out of my system and I take back some of the vitriol in my earlier posts. And you may be right that the Greens push the Dems further from the Pubs, though you must hand ol’ Georgie Boy some credit there, too.
Want a carrot? 
spoke said:
Well, I’m a Democrat, but his past as a trial lawyer and the fact he became a millionaire doing it does bug me, sorry. I don’t think I’m alone. Even then, when I’m shown two Senators, one a slick guy with one term who gives the impression to me that he turned to politics as a midlife crisis (albeit after the tragic loss of his son) and the other with more and long-time connections to the Washington establishment, I’ll go with the guy who has the connections because I’d rather not have another bright, fresh-faced, charming, yet ineffectual Carter on my hands. YMMV, of course.
I dunno – if the Republicans try to use the trial lawyer card against them, he’s likely to talk about the specific trials that he won, and he’ll sway voters just as he swayed jurors. One of his biggest cases involved suing the makers of a pool drain after the drain literally disembowelled yet another child who sat on it (I think the little girl survived, but lost a significant chunk of her lower intestine). You’ll find a few folks who will be angry at him for filing such a “frivolous” suit, but I think most Americans will side with the guy who sued on behalf of the little girl. Call me crazy.
And dropzone, no worries about the vitriol, and I apologize for any on my part. Certainly Bush has done a good job of moving Democrats away from him – but I still say that third-party challenges, and outsider challenges like Dean’s, have done a whole lot to persuade the party that they can’t just be Republicans without the Christian Coalition and still win elections.
While I regret Nader’s influence on Gore’s loss, I regret more that Gore was such an inspiration to so many Greens to leave the party. And I’m really damn glad that Nader’s not going to be drawing significant votes away from the party this year, both because the stakes seem so much higher and because the Democratic candidate, whoever he ends up being (probably Kerry, of course) will know better than to be consistently conciliatory toward Republicans in every debate.
Daniel
Oops – my quote above makes it look like Spoke hates the evil trial lawyers, when really it was Mehabitel. And even this clarification vastly oversimplifies what Mehabitel was saying. My apologies!
Daniel
As a left-hander myself, no problemo! And you’re right that I don’t ‘hate’ all trial lawyers, but IJS that Edwards’ record is going to be scrutinized for ambulance-chasing stuff just as much as Kerry’s votes are for weirdo left-wing stuff, so I wouldn’t totally discount the fact that some people have trouble with some members of the bar. There’s a reason why Billy Flynn in CHICAGO was such a funny but still villianous character.
Edwards doesnt have a chance.
Its all about trade.
Wisconsin gives the appearence of swing voters liking Edwards, because Wisconsin hasnt been able to adapt/respond as quickly to free trade; same thing with other mid-western/southern states where he has gotten high numbers.
The Arizona numbers for Edwards (7%) are probably a good indication of what an anti-NAFTA candidate can expect in the southwest. I predict that in Cal, he’s gonna drop like a rock. Same with New York; the places that benefit from free trade and competition are not going to elect an anti-NAFTA/free trade candidate, it just isnt gonna happen. Hell, one of the big problems Bush has is his perceived willingness to be protectionist.