In Search of the Elusive Swing Voter

The Atlantic Monthly ^ | January/February 2004 | Joshua Green

[Publius]

Interesting analysis from the Establishment Left.

[Hodar]

I question the entire concept of 'swing voters'. It is my opinion that people who bother to vote (time, energy and inconvenience to an everyday lifestyle) actually have their opinins pre-formed months before the primaries. The 'swing vote' is just an illusion of those who can get out and vote, and do it; or falsified ballots.

There is only one way to mass-produce "dimpled chads". I challenge anyone to take a ballot, and produce a dimple, without at least breaking a corner. I tried, it's almost impossible (yes, I later correctly tore the chad free).

However, I can mass-produce as many as I want, at will. All it takes is a hammer, a punch and a stack of ballots.

Hmmmm, and how many votes did AlGore pick up due to hanging, and dimpled chads?

[thoughtomator]

This is the most realistic piece we've seen from the Left yet. They're still clueless about how bad they will lose in Florida, though. Florida is no longer a swing state, having shifted GOP quite significantly.

[duckman]

What I don't understand is the 'undecided voter'. How can you come to within a week of an important election and still be undecided?

[Publius]

I have to disagree with you, honorable Hodar, and I have to answer your question, duckman.

There are truly undecided voters in the world. They're just not FReepers.

Here the lifeblood of the forum is politics. It's why we're here. But a lot of people don't have an interest in that kind of thing until the week before the election.

Put yourself in the position of a working stiff who is buried in his job, comes home, has a brew with dinner and sits down to watch TV. He may watch the news unless the news is too depressing. He watches sports and some TV shows he likes, but doesn't spend time watching CNN or PBS or Fox News. Politics is what "they" do, and he thinks that "they" are a bunch of egotists and crooks. He is disconnected from his larger society because he works too damn hard to connect.

A single mother trying to hold down a job and worrying about daycare or school fits the female description. These are people who read "People". They don't care about politics, and they don't even have time for TV because they're doing the laundry or cooking or helping their kid with the homework.

Not everybody has time for politics. And these are the people who don't make up their minds until the last minute -- assuming they vote at all.

[Puppage]

[Publius]

The last time I saw that magazine was in the workshop of the cabinetmaker who made the CD cabinet I designed.

[Hodar]

May I submit that those who do not concern themselves with politics may not bother to either register, let alone take the time away from work to go and vote.

With the voter turnout at ~35% on a good year, this corresponds (IMHO) with a sumation of the population made up of the politically involved, the retired population, and the unemployed. Given my life experiences (people I talk with at work, ect), not a lot of people vote, thus I believe that voter fraud is MUCH larger than imagined.

[AuthenticLiberal]

I am one. I vote for a mix of 2-3 parties when availible: Libertarian, Republican or Constitution. I will probably vote against Bush in 2004 over his "compassionate" streak in favor of the LP. It was the amnesty issue that did it. If the LP were solidly in power we'd have few illegals because there'd be no welfare programs. The ones that'd come here would be the ones that actually want to work. All of y'all that support Bush whole-heartedly (not saying most of y'all do) should think about that before y'all dismiss the "liberdopians" for the "clean, conservative" Republicans. I am fairly conservative and find basically nothing of value in the RP anymore. They're the new socialist party.

[Hodar]

I would not dream of telling you how to vote. That would be wrong; plain and simple.

However, as much as I agree with you on your illegal's and the whole amnesty mess; I look at the financials. Financially, the Lib's aren't even on the radar. Thus, voting for the Libs would be like doing a 'write-in' vote. You may take a moral high ground (I voted, but not for him); but you are allowing the Dems to lose an opposing vote.

I will hold my nose, and vote for Bush. He is not perfect, but he is the best choice presented. If Pres. Bush would listen to his constituents, his roots and fellow Texans; I doubt he'd champion the amnesty program. If he took a tough stance on illegals, then he would be as close to perfect a choice for me, as I'll likely see in my lifetime.

[AuthenticLiberal]

but you are allowing the Dems to lose an opposing vote.

At this point it the dems winning would barely change anything.

If Pres. Bush would listen to his constituents, his roots and fellow Texans; I doubt he'd champion the amnesty program.

That's a pretty big if! Bush's supporters should have learned by now that he is too proud to listen to others. When he wants to do something, he does it. That is not the same thing as being a straight-shootin' man of principle. It is just further proof that Bush is not a real leader. My-way-or-the-highway doesn't work for Presidents. They have too much power to think that they have the wisdom of God and are surrounded by a sea of fools.

If Bush loses this election it will be because he's been consistently a damned fool on domestic issues. He's basically handed the even more left-wing democrats the economy by letting Congress spend like a hooker with a Japanese businessman's credit card. On the civil liberties side he's consistenly done the most expedient thing (heh, sounds like Clinton!) which is to limit them. The PATRIOT Act was not necessary. If Bush really wanted to protect his base he'd have shutdown the border, ordered the INS/Customs to ignore NAFTA and search all the Mexican trucks, expelled all aliens from the "Axis of Evil," Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc and things like that.

Don't get me wrong, he's a good man, but not a real leader. He does not know how to play hardball with the left (or maybe he does, but is too much in agreement?) and certainly does not understand that redistributing wealth is not charity. Point is that he's more or less on the issues Bill Clinton with ethics and a strong support for the military. There really is not much of a difference in what they think the government should do, just differences in terms of character. And for me, that alone isn't enough.

f he took a tough stance on illegals, then he would be as close to perfect a choice for me, as I'll likely see in my lifetime.

But the problem is that he won't take that tough stance.

[Hodar]

At this point it the dems winning would barely change anything.

The war against Terrorism would come to a quick halt. And once again, some group of unwashed, woman-beating psychopaths would try to blow up a building 2 or 3 times before being successful. Thousands if not millions of innocents will die; we'll do the traditional $1 Million cruise missle into a $10 tent response; and pronounce how we won't forget ... then do nothing.

With the Bush tax cuts, the economy is improving and things are getting better. Two Countries that actively worked against us, are now under new management. Others have received the message that the sleeping giant is awake. If it weren't for the whole 'amnesty' thing, Bush wouldn't have a dent in his armor.

[FairWitness]

Florida is no longer a swing state, having shifted GOP quite significantly.

I have always thought, based on the ratios in the Fla. state legislature at that time, that that shift had largely occurred by the time of the 2000 election, but was masked at the time by Democrat vote fraud.

[Gorjus]

There are truly undecided voters in the world. They're just not FReepers.

Actually, the largest block of voters is undecided until the last moment, and many of them are Freepers (or at least voters who are solidly conservative).

But . . they're not undecided on who to vote for, they're undecided on whether to vote at all!

A voter who stays home is a vote lost. The 10,000 Panhandle conservatives (Lott's estimate) who stayed home after the false call that the Florida polls had closed - and by the way, that Gore had won - were undecided voters. They were more or less planning to go, but changed their mind at the last minute. That would have made Florida an easy win.

How many conservative voters just decided at the last moment not to vote in Iowa? Or in New Mexico? Or in Wisconsin? Or in Oregon?

The key, and at least this silly article recognizes that as a factor, was getting out the vote. The Dems (through fraud and corruption, but still . . .) got it out in 2000. The Republicans did a better job in 2002. Who will do the best job in 2004?

In my state (Texas), there's not a lot of value in Bush spending campaign money. He comes here to get money to spend elsewhere. But he (actually Karl Rove) may pursue the swing voter so hard he convinces a lot of conservative voters there's not enough difference between him and the Dems to bother to vote at all. They won't vote Dem, but they may not vote at all. How many Freepers in this forum have said just that over the illegal alien 'guest worker' program, or the prescription drug for seniors program?

[Publius]

Concerning the false call of Florida, read Collusion: The Day Before the 2000 Election.

[rdb3]

Sure thing, retread.

[Gorjus]

(On 'Collusion'): Good post. As you said, it's only speculation, but it does show the mindset. Frankly, I don't believe anything like that happened because the 'deniability' is an issue with them, as well. It's like King Henry and Thomas a Becket. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" He never actually asked anyone to do anything, but a 'wouldn't it be great if. . . ?' sort of comment can go a long way.

The liberals, who dominated VNS, had the, "Wouldn't it be great if Florida went for Gore? As soon as we have any indication at all . . . " I have a chart (not here, or I'd find some place to post it and link) that showed delay time in calling a state versus final margin. Margins of a couple of percent were called within minutes for Gore, while margins of 10% took up to 90 minutes for Bush. The result, as your little play noted, was that in other states the seeming trend would discourage Republican voters.

My personal feeling is that no one should be permitted to call ANY state until the outcome of the entire election was clearly determined. If that means we all had to wait for Hawaii, so be it. (Of course, if there is no way that Hawaii could make the difference, then you could call the election once the Left Coast voted. Or the Mountain states, if things were clear at that point.)

After all, if freedom of speech can be taken away for the 60 days before the election, why not take away freedom of the press for an hour or two after?

[Zack Nguyen]

I question the entire concept of 'swing voters'.

I heard a speech Ralph Reed gave a few weeks ago. He said that the number of true swing voters has shrunk to about 10% of the total electorate. The game today is about turning out your voters and base voters, not as much going after the shrinking "swing."

[Zack Nguyen]

independents listen to a disproportionate amount of country radio, and they watch SportsCenter more often than other Americans—a taste, the poll reveals, that corresponds more closely with Democrats' than Republicans'.)

This doesn't make any sense. I would guess that people who are fans of country and western would be more culturally conservative, and thus trend Republican.

Other than that, I found the article fascinating.

[Zack Nguyen]

At this point it the dems winning would barely change anything.

This is simply incorrect. It would change immensely the make-up of our courts, making them aggresively pro-choice instead of pro-life.