Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wooing independents
Washington Times ^ | April 24th, 2008 | Gary Andres

Posted on 04/24/2008 2:19:23 PM PDT by The_Republican

You're going to hear a lot about independent voters this election season. They will no doubt tip the balance in the November presidential contest, determining the next occupant of the White House. But who are these Americans? What share of the electorate do they represent? And what drives their vote choice? A closer look at this important electoral bloc reveals some startling facts and underscores why "independent" voters are among the most unpredictable when it comes to political forecasting.

I've been writing for the past couple of weeks about the changing nature of the American electorate. Winning in 2008 requires a different strategy for both parties compared to other recent national campaigns. Leading up to the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, political analysts noticed a curious and significant trend. The number of Americans identifying with and voting for both political parties had swelled over the previous decade. This meant the number of "persuadable" voters was shrinking. So, instead of consciously moving to the middle of the ideological spectrum as November neared, winning elections in this environment — more so than in the past — meant candidates needed to identify and mobilize the party faithful. This new hyper-partisan atmosphere helped coin phrases like "red" and "blue" states.

2004 was the crest of this rising wave of partisanship in America. It was what political operatives call a "base election." Both sides coaxed their respective partisans with massive get-out-the-vote operations. Republicans and Democrats stormed the ballot boxes like a political Normandy, each party boosting turnout from its own constituencies compared to the previous presidential elections. For example, the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reports that President Bush received 62,028,719 votes in 2004 — representing the most votes a presidential candidate received since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alluringohbaby; independets; seducing; wooing

1 posted on 04/24/2008 2:19:24 PM PDT by The_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
"2004 was the crest of this rising wave of partisanship in America."

The friction in our society is palpable, I bet that events in the not-to-distant future will prove the above statement incorrect.

2 posted on 04/24/2008 2:25:14 PM PDT by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

How about 1996 and 2000? Not exactly Kumbaya......


3 posted on 04/24/2008 2:26:29 PM PDT by The_Republican (Ovaries of the World Unite! Rush, Laura, Ann, Greta - Time for the Ovulation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
someone say "wooo!" ? Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

4 posted on 04/24/2008 2:31:32 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (Conservatives are to McCain what Charlie Brown is to Lucy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson