An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Chris Bowers: Democrats Must Get People Out To Vote
Chris Bowers writes at MyDD that ‘registered voters’ will, quite overwhelmingly, vote Democrat. That is, if they will actually use their vote.
Continue reading at Liberty and Justice
16 Responses to “Chris Bowers: Democrats Must Get People Out To Vote”
Bowers is right about turnout. But he’s wrong about the demographic. For Senate races, black turnout in MO, TN, VA, OH and PA will be important. But for the House races, it matters less. Most of the pickup opportunities are in mostly white suburban districts. Most black voters live in heavily Democratic districts already. The key for Democrats is to get moderate suburban women in the Northeast and Midwest to the polls. But Bowers is right that turnout is key. If Democrats can’t get up to go vote this cycle, then they’ve got serious problems.
Yes, but why do the Democrats have such a hard time getting people to the voting boxes, while the political climate is extremely partisan and while Bush and the GOP in the general, are… not exactly popular?
If it made sense for people to vote… it would be now… no?
Why is that, STILL, the Democrats have a more difficult time getting voters to the freaking vote box?
How about the general difference in the Republican vs. Democrat mindset? I am not talking about the politically active, which are a small percentage in either party, but the ‘just plain folks’.
Ignoring some of tendency of the current administration to act like drunken sailors with our money, most Republicans believe in a world where they are responsible for themselves and their lives, good or bad, and governement should be limited. they are more individualistic in the sense that they feel an obligation as an individual to be involved in bettering both themselves and the community. That leads to a feeling of ownership of your own life and destiny, and an obligation to take proactive steps to your own benefit such as voting.
Like or not, the Democratic party at the same level is still populated primarly by those who look to the government for the solutions to problems in their lives and the country. That is a more passive attitude towards life, and a feeling that ‘someone else will take care of it for me’ and that they as an individual do not have an obligation to the community, but rather the communuty has an obligation to them. That does not translate to feeling a need to express your right to vote, as the individual is not responsible for the results.
Austin Roth: great comment. That is a very interesting topic. In fact I was talking with someone about that – about that different mindset, thus yesterday I believe. (it had somewhat of a different focus but I recognize a lot of that conversation in your comment)
Austin is correct. That’s what Democrats keep advocating all sorts of crazy ideas to make voting easier and more attractive.
There should be a bit of work involved in voting. This keeps the process from becoming a lottery, In today’s primary in Massachusetts one angry voter asked why he couldn’t vote for independent Christy Mihos . Do we really need more guys like this in a polling booth?
over on that myDD link was a pretty humorous post.
How getting over 59 million votes (over 48%) in last presidential cycle is “no one ever respects us” is beyond me.
Michael,
Of course the mind set AustinRoth speaks of also denies the reality of poverty as an inevitable by-product of our system. If you talk with them and point out the part of our population in poverty there will inevitably be anecdotal evidence purporting to show that it’s all their fault. This of course provides the perfect reason for them to wax rhapsodically about how they shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes to help support the bums.
This is a good country. But it has problems and they’re not getting any better. I don’t see any Republican solutions to this problem except that the rich should keep more of the wealth and we should trust in them to invest in this country instead of factories in China and a multitude of offshored jobs in India all of which help to provide downward pressure on wages in this country.
Jim S – will all due respect, please go have intercourse with yourself.
How dare you purport to know what I think or stand for beyond my actual words?
Bullshit. What system has no poverty? None.
Our economic system, which is called Capitalism, BTW, not Republicanism, is still the one that provides the greatest possible chance for people to list themselves out of poverty.
To the vast majority of those who live in other systems, the economic class you are born into is the ONLY one you will ever know. That is a radically different point of view though than saying that for “the part of our population in poverty there will inevitably be anecdotal evidence purporting to show that it’s all their fault.”
And if you equate Capitalism with being a Republican, is it safe to assume that you also equate being a Democrat to being a Socialist or Communist?
Well, to an extent, i may grant you a partial on this one. I believe that charity is a personal decision, and when it is removed from being a personal decision, it stops being charity and becomes Socialism. I believe overall that I trust private charities over ANY government agency to be focused on helping the poor over creating a bureaucracy that guarantees them employments, and takes 2 -5 dollars in overhead for every dollar of benefit disbursed. I also firmly believe that there are government programs that do fill roles that no private organization could ever fulfill, and have no problems with helping those in true need. I do object to my money being taken away to be given to more spurious programs, and the aforementioned bureaucracies.
Of course, the fact that it is the Democratic party that actually gets the lion share of corporate donations and big-pocket individual donations, while the Republican party gets more if its money from small individual donations, is always the dirty, shocking little secret no Democrat wants to talk about. Such Democratic stalwarts in the business world such as Apple, Sun, Nike, Dell, and others are among the largest off-shorers and abusers of low-wage workers (until caught, when they get a free pass by being shocked, shocked I tell you by the conditions their subcontracts didn’t tell them about, and promise to do something high-profile and feel-good [that doesn’t affect real profits, not that they are Capitalists, mind you] so everyone on the Left can continue to feel superior and smug while sipping).
The difference between Republicans and Democrats, again at the ‘just plain folks’ level I was talking about, is that Republicans just plain seem to have a better grasp of the real world than their ‘Reality-Based’ brethren.
Austin,
I think your formulation of differences between Democrats and Republicans was largely true between the 1950s and 1980s. But the great Southern wave has somewhat changed this, and the Northern reaction has completed the new alignment. Note the rise in so-called “Big Government Conservatives” that Pew has identified. Most of these voters are lower-middle class white Southerners and Midwesterners living in rural or exurban areas. Others call them “Wal-Mart Republicans.” These folks love their Social Security and Medicare, and would probably support some kind of national health insurance. But they vote Republican for cultural reasons. That’s a huge chunk of the modern GOP. In fact, it’s the voting base of the GOP in the Rove era.
On the Democratic side, while African Americans, union workers and the poor in general tend to support the Democratic Party in high numbers, the greatest base of the party these days is the wealthy coastal cities and suburbs of NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, as well as midwestern cities like Chicago and Minneapolis. Most of these voters are not interested in government handouts or intervention in their lives. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Most of these core Democratic voters (who make up a gigantic chunk of the Democratic electorate) are more culturally liberal than driven by wealth redistribution. They are more driven by opposition to the Terri Schiavo Republicans than they are by opposition to “tax cuts for the rich.”
Elrod -
Given your take on the shift in demographics as compared to mine (and BTW – I still think I am right, as I believe that type of shift you describe is a smaller percentage of each total base that you do), then what do you see as the underlying failure of Democrats to ‘get to the polls’?
Austin, do you have numbers to back up this?
Just curious, I thought Dell was largely a Republican donor, but I really don’t know. And if you think they throw a lot at the dems, what about the other side that throws a ton to Republicans? Lets go w/ Oil, Auto industry, Home building industry, Defense industry.
Or we can all be honest here and say, no more corporate donations allowed period, and max per person of $100 a year. Then we’d see what politicians were really made of.
For the record, I believe I live in reality, and still won’t vote Republican again, I just flat out don’t trust them anymore. I don’t believe they have a grasp on the real world, I think they convice the masses that they do, and that is what continues to get them voted back into office.
AustinRoth, I would post something, but I really couldn’t add much to what you’ve said.
I agree with BrianOfAtlanta, great job, AustinRoth.
I would just add this, since Jim S brought up the issue of poverty, that Republicans on a whole aren’t callous about poverty as Dems would like to think that they are. We simply do not believe that government redistribution of wealth is the solution to it. There is no utopia, and as AustinRoth said, no society without poverty. The best we can do is get government to stay out of the way as much as possible, but intervene to protect and create opportunity for upward mobility. Also, to create policy that encourages maximum growth of the economy, because contrary to what ‘class envyists’ think, economic gain is not a zero sum game. We can actually grow the pie so that more people can share it.
And one final point, I agree with AustinRoth’s statements about charitable organizations being more efficient at delivery of aid to those in need, but I would also add that whenever there is a role for govt services it should at least be administered by state or local governments instead of the federal government.
Jim S -
Open Secrets
Local charities have a better grasp as to who is generally in need and can deliver it more efficiently. It just so happens that one of my favorite charities will soon be holding its annual auction. All the items are donated including the hall, the food, and the entertainment. Almost all of that money will go directly to people in need. Even the way aid is delivered is almost entirely done by volunteers. We have no paid positions. Aid is delivered almost immediately. For example, a man suffered an injury while working on a propane tank. His employer responded by pointing out the rules concerning workers’ compensation insurance. Imagine the grief and shock the family was suffering at the time. Instead of having to search for help from the proper State authority, deal with complicated paper work, and to wait for any help to be delivered, the family was able to get help almost immediately.
C stanley said:
I would just add this, since Jim S brought up the issue of poverty, that Republicans on a whole aren’t callous about poverty as Dems would like to think that they are. We simply do not believe that government redistribution of wealth is the solution to it.
Spot on! Another thread could examine exactly why redistribution of wealth doesn’t work and how it hurts the very people it is intended to help. Of course that only touche on the negative effects on the economy.