The Irrelevant Voters

As conservatives wake up to the fact that George Bush is not a conservative and as conservatives become more and more disgusted with the Republican party governing like Democrats, the party is cranking up its spin machine to scare conservatives enough to keep them voting the party line in November.

Across the internet and in some elite media outlets, pundits, and operatives are spewing the party’s rhetoric. It’s the same old scare tactics the party elites have used to hold conservatives within the fold and Democrats use to hold blacks and poor whites in their party. It is the “We may be bad and you may not like what we are doing, but the other side is worse.

The reason this works is because too many Americans don’t understand politics and how a republic works. Even many people on the political blogs, who consider themselves politically astute and well informed don’t seem to have any idea how politics in our republic works.

The ruling political class wants it that way. It keeps them in power and makes it easier for them to offer little or no choice in most political races.

The truth is, there is about 30% of the voting public in each camp who vote for the party no matter what. The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat. On the Democrat side, they have a group who would vote for Zell Miller rather than Lincoln Chafee, because Miller is a Democrat and Chafee is a Republican.

Neither of these groups have any political clout. They are irrelevant to the political debate.

Neither party, nor any politician, has to work to get their vote. Consequently, their issues are of no concern to either party.

The battle in every election is to get out the vote of people who lean toward a party or candidate, and get the vote of issue voters. The 40% or so voters who either vote for either party, or who withhold their vote when dissatisfied, are the ones politicians have to court and motivate.

Rove knows this and spoke about it after the 2000 election. In 2000 Evangelicals didn’t turn out in their customary numbers and almost cost Bush the election. Rove was determined to change that. In 2004, Rove made it a point to go after the Evangelical vote, including an unprecedented Republican push in the nation’s black churches.

Evangelicals and other Christians responded by getting out and voting for Bush. This included a record 16% of the black vote in Ohio, just about all of which came from the black churches because of issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

That 16% of the black vote was not only almost double the percentage of black votes the Republican historically got in presidential elections, it was more than double the black vote Bush got in 2000. It was also more than Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio. It was not as much as his total margin of popular vote victory, but it gave him the election. Without the black vote Bush would have lost Ohio and its 20 Electoral votes. Take those twenty votes from Bush and give them to Kerry and you have President Kerry.

In fact, remove the increase in the evangelical turnout and it is doubtful that Bush would have won a second term. Rove worked on pushing those issues that motivate evangelicals and it gave Bush a second term.

To be sure, he also hammered on the war and on the terror issue and got a larger percentage of soccer moms scared by the thought of another attack. He also downplayed Bush spending like a crack whore and increasing the size of government. But all that just further illustrates the point that he went after the issue voters who didn’t turn out in 2000 or who could vote either way.

There is nothing wrong with what Rove did. It is the way our republic is designed and supposed to operate. What is wrong is when some of the 30% don’t understand why their party or candidate doesn’t govern the way they want, and why their agenda is ignored.

They fail to understand that the way to advance their issues is to vote issues rather than party. If neither party is right on your issue, don’t vote or vote third party. Now you become one of the voters the parties and candidates are trying to win. You become important to the process and to how the nation is run.

The politicians ignore the 30% who is going to turn out and vote for them no matter what the politician does. Why shouldn’t they?

If you don’t want to be irrelevant in the political scheme of things, don’t be part of the 30%. Let the politicians know that while you may not vote Democrat, you will vote third party or stay at home if they don’t act and vote right. Then follow through. Don’t let them scare you with that lesser of two evils crap. Make them earn your vote and you become relevant.

Neither the Bushiban nor the Clintonistas are of any real interest to the respective parties. Those votes are there and counted before the polls ever open. The parties and individual politicians fight for and court the other 40% of the voters.

This keeps coming up. I've actually seen FReepers so ignorant that they argue that those who might not vote are in fact irrelevant. The truth is that if you are in the 30% who is physically incapable of voting for someone else or just not voting, then you are the voter who is taken for granted. Not those guys who have issues they care about.

This is what elections are about. Yet even some FReepers don't seem to grasp it.

Polls suggest this had dropped to more like 10% on the Republican side.

No, you forget the old people. That's the hard base that simply will not fail to vote for The Party. Essentially, it's the senile vote.

The GOP did NOT want Dr. Tom Coburn of OK, the truest of conservatives, to win his primary. Thank God the Republicans of OK swept him to victory in the primary against the Party's will.

He did it with the money of Club For Growth, conservatives who no longer trust the GOP with their political money. They don't have a litmus on abortion, sodomy marriage, or the borders. But their candidates just happen to line up strongly on those issues outside a few very liberal states. Their main agenda is cutting spending, cutting taxes, deregulation, school choice. IOW, the old Reagan-Gingrich agenda.

The Club's candidates have been winning this year, my 2007 congressman among them. And our main target for defeat is Lincoln Chafee. We're running Laffey, Cranston mayor, against him. Laffey isn't as conservative as we'd like but he's miles ahead of Chafee. And at some point, we have to get cull the GOP herd of these RINOs.

2. He has reduced the growth of government spending (discretionary)

To the contrary, he insisted on increasing discretionary spending, including the fraudulently presented Pill Bill. But you're right that he's not up for re-election anyway so we need to keep clear heads and focus on enacting policy with our congresscritters in our districts. It's the republican way.

I think most of the Bush bashing is irrational. Its motive is rooted in a sense that opinion polls control Bush.

One of the many things I like about Bush is that he is not controlled by polls.

I think if reactionaries (conservative and liberal alike) can be shown that this polling game is utterly meaningless, perhaps they will engage in credible political dialogue.

I like Bush.

No, he has reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Take a look at this fact check article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

You will immediately notice that it says you are right. The headline says Bush is a liar which everyone likes to say these days.

If you read to the bottom of the article you find that homeland security and military spending are treated as discretionary. I think that is bogus. There was and is no political feasibility to a world without Homeland security or our military spending levels to fight the WOT. If this is what defines conservatism then I am not a conservative. It is good to fight this WAR on terror. It is good to defend the homeland. We are at war.

Reactionaries who try to make Bush out to be a big spender are misrepresenting him.

This White House has done much to curtail Congressional spending. He ought to be given credit for that as a conservative. There have been 39 veto threats that have helped reduce the growth of spending by Congress.

If you read to the bottom of the article you find that homeland security and military spending are treated as discretionary. I think that is bogus.

They are discretionary because they are not entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that are considered off-limits for actual cuts.

Changing the categories is simply dishonest. It's not what you feel, it's what Congress has put in those categories that counts. It's been this way when both parties held the majority.

There have been 39 veto threats that have helped reduce the growth of spending by Congress.

Veto threats mean zero. Only actual vetoes mean something. And the way Bush and the RINOs conducted themselves during the Pill Bill fiasco, threatening to run people against House Republicans to defeat them in their primaries, should tell you a lot. I doubt it will, given how dishonest your standards are.

If neither party is right on your issue, don’t vote or vote third party.

Fortunately, most informed voters do not choose to vote for a candidate on one issue.

I've actually seen FReepers so ignorant that they argue that those who might not vote are in fact irrelevant. The truth is that if you are in the 30% who is physically incapable of voting for someone else or just not voting, then you are the voter who is taken for granted. Not those guys who have issues they care about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think some of those people are party shills. Both parties now have paid and volunteer shills who work the sites that favor each party. I heard it started in 1999 and expanded since then. As the election gets closer watch for the 30%ers and the shills to become more shrill and more insistant that any vote except a straight party vote only helps the other side.

I think some of those people are party shills. Both parties now have paid and volunteer shills who work the sites that favor each party.

I know some say this, including JimRob. I think the parties have better ways to spend their money.

I have considered that the libs might encourage their campaign staffers and staff at their NGO's and activist groups to spend a little time each day working the conservative boards. Having them do 5-10 minutes per day would be significant since they have thousands of parasites on staff. But I tend to doubt they have full-time employees that do nothing but infiltrate conservative forums. For one thing, sooner or later, such an operation would come to light (a disgruntled mole would rat them out for a news story fee, etc.).

As I understand it, and this is third hand from a teacher who says she did this, the party goes to a union or some other group and hands out some party building money. The union or what ever group gets as many staff, members and so forth to work at it an hour a week free. If they still need more help they pay members to work 3 hours a week. Plus the parties task both paid and unpaid staff to work the sites.

Its just like putting out yard signs or opening mail. When they can get people to do it for free they do when they can't they pay a little something.

You may be right. I may be discounting their efforts more than I should. I mostly think of full-time shills when people talk about paid operatives. Heck, I wish someone would pay me to infiltrate DU. But my troll account over there got banned for being too openly pro-gun. Got called a FReeper and booted. But I still didn't get a check from the RNC.

Yeah, I never got a check for putting out yard signs either but I know people who claim they have. They didn't get much $55.00 to put out 500 signs but it paid their gas and bought them lunch.

It is a simple fact that if a voter tells either party "...but I will support the party's candidate in November," they won't hear another word he says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're very right about that. As soon as somebody says that neither party cares what he wants or thinks.

"The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat."

I think many would vote for Spector simply because Jefferson is dead...

"The reason this works is because too many Americans don’t understand politics and how a republic works."

Says the elitest, "This country BELONGS to us politicians, so you best get that through that dern, thick skull of yers..."

... think many would vote for Spector simply because Jefferson is dead...

Yes, there is that Darla.

I think there was a trace of sarcasm in that analogy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.