There’s been some discussion around here about the crazification factor which sets the base for voting Republican at 27%, no matter how offensively bad the candidate is, and I assume there’s a similar figure on the left end of the political spectrum (and I probably belong to it). it strikes me as something of a problem that the base of unthinking, kneejerk voting is as high as 54% of the population, if not higher, and I’m wondering if this can be ameliorated somehow.
Do you suppose that the 27% bases are simply entrenched in their views and refuse to be fooled again? I know that’s how I rationalize my extreme leftist views–I’ve trusted pols on the right before to behave as decently as their rhetoric suggested (though a radical hippie-type in 1968, I was only 15, and remember writing positive, hopeful things in my diary after Nixon’s election, things that seem to me absurdly naive today.) After a few such cycles, I simply regard the right’s rhetoric (about stuff like “bringing us together” and then getting hateful divisive policies) as worthy of contempt.
Is it desirable that more of the voting public think of themselves as independent and vote that way? If the bases shrunk, to maybe 10%, would the pols stop appealing to them so much? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Pretty much the definition of the base is that you don’t have to appeal to it; once you’re the party candidate, it will vote for you anyway. Under the primary system, politicians appeal to the base because that’s the way to get the party nomination but when it comes to the general election, you need to appeal to the swinging voters.
Possibly US politics seems so divisive because it has the primary system, and therefore politicians have to campaign publicly in ways that appeal to the base. And in fact the primary phase of elections - of presidential elections, at any rate, goes on much longer than the general election phase, and so dominates the tone of campaigning generally.
Does the base consist of spiteful people? IOW, the thinking goes “Dudn’t matter who’s smart and who’s dumb, who’s sane and who’s crazy–the important thing to me is to piss off those assholes who I hate so much.” I’m thinking of Palin’s charge to Pubbie voters in the primary to vote for Newt and annoy an liberal. Is that the source of base thinking, to piss off the other side?
As long as the bases are similar in size and there are swing voters who determine the election then the size of the bases do not matter. Democracy works as long as there is an alternative. Having the alternative be in a different party works the best. One of the problem areas in American politics are cities where the bases are so broad, they essentially become one party governments, where the primary victor always wins the general election. This leads to poor government. This is also one of the reasons governance in the South was so bad from the end of Reconstruction to 1970.
The question is - how does the base feel about candidates more towards the center. If the base is convinced that they are actually a majority (which is how the Republican base seems to be acting nowadays) they will reject such candidates. If they understand that the candidate must get elected, they will factor in electability with adherence to ideological dogma.
I’d say I’m part of the Democratic base, but I’m not part of the crazy base. If the Democrats nominated someone I viewed as corrupt, imbecilic, or insane (or even TOO far left), it’s still unlikely that the Republican candidate would be a significantly better fit for my views. It’s certainly possible, and I’d vote for a moderate Republican I trusted over a truly bad Democrat, but if it’s a Republican I don’t like versus a Democrat I’m embarrassed by, I may decide the Democrat is still the lesser of two evils, or I may give my vote to a third party (or I may just stay home).
ETA: It seems to me that if you took out the 27% crazy base and the swing voters who are too stupid or apathetic to make up their mind before election day, you wouldn’t have enough people left to hold an election. There can’t be more than five or ten percent of voters who actually weigh the issues rationally. (I like to think I’m among them, but then, so does everyone else!)
The base is larger than 27% in terms of national elections. Look at 2008: John McCain won nearly 46% of the vote, despite the Republican Party being as unpopular as it had been for 50 years and his running mate being insane.
Right! That’s why I say there’s the base and there’s the crazy base. About 27% of the votes in an election would go to a retarded bunny rabbit (or Herman Cain) if one of the parties nominated it. (Keep in mind that’s 27% of the people who show up to vote in that election.) That’s the crazy base.
With an actual human candidate like McCain or Michael Dukakis, you’ll get at least around 45% of the vote, no matter how unappealing or unpopular they are. That’s the base base, and the difference between the crazy base and the base base is made up of those people who have already made up their minds on the core issues and are committed enough not to change their mind because the candidate for their party talks funny or the other candidate has better tv ads.
The difference between that base and an election-winning majority are the people who can’t decide and toss a coin on election day. In theory, anyway. I think most of those people (at least the ones of them who actually show up to vote) are really part of the crazy base or the regular base but don’t want to admit it to the tv reporters and pollsters. The real key is getting them excited enough to show up.
Off topic: I was 6 during that election, and not living in the US, so I don’t know- was there anything wrong with Dukakis? All I heard was the Willie Horton thing.
Remember that actual “swing voters” as we think of them–people who right now are likely to vote in November but are roughly equally likely to vote for Obama or Romney–are extremely rare. Whatever percentage you see quoted almost certainly overestimates them because people want to claim to be open-minded even if they haven’t voted for a Democrat in 30 years (or vice versa). What’s more, that group of voters is mostly capricious and ill-informed, and thus very difficult to appeal to.
So the whole election is about getting out the difference between your “base” and your “crazy base”. This is why negative advertising is so common and so effective; the goal is not to get your opponent’s non-crazy base to vote for you, but to get fed up with the whole process and stay home.
The Democrats have a bigger overall base, but the Republicans have the bigger crazy base. That’s why bigger turnout and general GOTV efforts favor Democrats.
That’s why we have a primary system. We get rid of any candidate that would only get 27%. Imagine if instead of Dukakis, you had Jesse Jackson or Bernie Sanders. Instead of McCain you had David Duke or Pat Robertson. There would be a 27% election or a third party to come in an siphon votes.
The Willie Horton issue was never anything but a red herring, although it turned out to be a very successful one. But the fact remains that Michael Dukakis was a horrible candidate in many ways. Overarchingly ambitious, completely amoral, absolutely untrustworthy. He would promise anything to anyone in order to gain votes or advance his agenda, then stab them in the back and move on to pander to the next potential supporter.
I had the dubious distinction of working in Massachusetts state government during the Dukakis administration, met the man a couple of times and had opportunity to view some of his double-dealing at first hand. As a low-level forester with the state parks I certainly didn’t move in circles where large decisions were made, but I did get involved in a few important matters…environmental preservation, state employee issues and the like, and in every case the governor found a way to turn the situation to his advantage then renege on his promises. Several times I put on my Mister Ranger suit and helped with crowd control at his photo shoots which he liked to stage in our parks while protraying himself as a friend of the environment (which he was not).
I was aghast when the Democrats nominated Dukakis in the '88 election. Although I was still nominally a Reagan republican at the time, I was unable to stomach George H.W. Bush (it is only in retrospect, in comparison to his mis-begotten offspring that he has come to look like a reasonable president), and at the general election I found myself faced with two thoroughly distasteful choices…Bush, whom I couldn’t stand vs. Dukakis the tinhorn. I actually voted for Ron Paul who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Didn’t know anything about him, but at the time a vote for the libertarian (who had no chance of winning anyway) seemed like the lesser evil and a reasonable protest vote.
SS
Many voters are quite self centered. What government worker is going to vote for any of that bunch claiming they will fire more government workers that the next? If Satan ran on a cut taxes platform, many would vote for him. The feminists forgave Bill Clinton for sexual harassment and hated George Bush who ended the Taliban’s mistreatment of women. To many on both sides, abortion is the issue. Lawyers will support the Democrats as long as Republicans push tort reform. I loved the 2 Massachusetts Democrats argument on the dollar coin. The one with a supplier of metal to the mint inhis district favored it. The one with the paper mill suppling paper for paper money opposed it.
Would you rather vote for John McCaine, or Marion Barry. That is basically the Obama versus Keys comparison. When ever I’m feeling too partisan I remind myself that I wouldn’t vote for Barry.