[tlb]

>>>If you think the key to a Republican win is in getting “independents” and “moderate Democrats” to cross over and not conservatives to turn out to vote, you are sadly mistaken.

No, he is not mistaken. Republicans amount to roughly a third of the electorate. Democrats a third and independents a third. One third of the vote doesn’t win. Period.

At election time you get a portion of the center or you become irrelevant. However the crackpot fringe on FR seems to favor the latter position.

[aruanan]

No, he is not mistaken. Republicans amount to roughly a third of the electorate. Democrats a third and independents a third. One third of the vote doesn’t win. Period.

At election time you get a portion of the center or you become irrelevant. However the crackpot fringe on FR seems to favor the latter position.

Again, you, like he, are making some fundamental errors.

First, even given the assumption that registered voters are split in every voting district of every state in the proportions you believe, you assume a 100% turn-out. This almost never happens. Bill Clinton was elected twice with less than 50% of the cast vote which itself represented only a fraction of registered voters.

Second, to win you have to motivate your own people to turn out at the polls in greater numbers than the opposition. This means they have to believe in their candidate more than the opposition believes in their candidate.

Third, to win really, really big, like Reagan won, you have to motivate others outside your party in the same way you motivated those inside your party to support your candidate. The way this happens is two-fold:

1. to have a candidate that is fundamentally different from the opposition candidate in a way that is consistent with the underlying political beliefs of the majority of your party's base. In the case of Republicanism, this is a conservative candidate. If you field a candidate that is trying to attract "uncommitted" voters by making himself more like the opposition, you will simultaneously depress the turnout of your base as well as the turnout of the "independent" or "uncommitted" because you are giving both of them less, rather than more, reason to vote your candidate;
2. to have an opposition candidate who is really, really extreme in a way that is demonstrably anathema to the majority of people who will actually be motivated to vote for your candidate and against the opposition. This happens more often and to a greater degree nationally when the opposition is a socialist, dirigist, international-accomodationist freak and your candidate declares that he's not going to use the government to remake society into some heaven on earth by making everybody's economic and health choices for them whether they like it or not and that the nation's health and safety are not subject to the whims of foreign enemies.

Fourth, you're assuming that an election is won by total number of votes cast. This is not the case. And in a close election, it is even more likely not to be the case. Ever hear of the electoral college?