Are people really banking on disgruntled conservatives?

[vi5]

Honestly, I hear that a lot on here. Call me a cynic but I really hope that nobody is actually counting on these supposed disgruntled conservatives as being either sit-out votes or votes for a dem.

I think the piece on here a few days back from the Log Cabin Repubs proves that point nicely. Just because one particular group, be they libertarian republicans, or log cabin republicans, or religious right republicans may be disgruntled with one or the other aspect of bush policy, the fact is that they are still going to vote for him. Just like we may dislike one or the other policy of a democrat, in the end we are going to vote the overall big picture.

All these alleged "conversions" are well and good and make us feel all jolly and such, and may prove that there is some slight glimmer of hope. But I just do not believe anyone who is a self identified republican is going to vote for a Democrat just because they are mad at bush's spending in one particular area, or his stance on gay marriage, or his failure to pander to the religious right on 1 or 2 issues. At least not enough to make any kind of dent in the numbers we are talking about needing.

God, I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But this just seems like a total pie in the sky thing for us to be counting on or banking on in any way.

[bowens43]

1. Fortunately

we don't need the votes of ANY republicans to win the election. The continuous drift to the right that our party has been experiencing for the last several years has to stop. We do NOT need the votes of any republicans to win. We need to get out the Democratic vote. We out number them.

[vi5]

2. That scenario completely ignores independents...

Yes there are something like 10 million more registered dems than republicans. But this isn't an election where only dems and republicans get to vote. So yeah, if every single registered democrat votes and every single registered republican votes then that works. You're also assuming every democratic voter is left leaning and a self identified liberal.

[Bandit]

4. Independents usually means a thinking mind

If they were just blind followers they would be registered to a party and vote with the party no matter what. Independents usually are so because they don't wish to be mindless followers. I would venture to bet the majority of independents have had their fill of this Bush* Cabal. Your post was about Conservatives not Independents. Why did you pull a switch on us. I doubt any Democrat that voted for Gore will switch their vote to Bush* and I think a few who did vote for Bush* may have some serious second thoughts. As far as Conservatives switching I doubt it.

[vi5]

5. Yes, my post was about conservatives...

But he responded with a completely unrelated scenario of not having to worry about anyone other than registered democrats.

On edit: Independent just as often means "lazy" as it does a thinking mind. At least in my experience independents are just not politically involved or aware enough to get involved with a particular political party.

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. wtf?? wasn't there a thread here just the other day saying how badly

they outnumbered us? which is it? i've been losing sleep since that thread popped up. if it was wrong, i'd really like to hear it.

[vi5]

9. It's possible but the number I've gone off of...

...is something like 39 million registered dems to 20 million registered repubs. Admittedly those numbers could be out of date. I don't know. This was like a year ago.

[YNGW]

3. Just Wondering

This "continuous drift" of which you note would be individual Democrats deciding they personally need to move that direction based upon what the voters in their district or state are telling them I would have to believe. There may be some representatives determining on their own to move right when their district/state as a whole wants them to stay put/shift left, but I have a question concerning that. Wouldn't a continuing rightward shift by representatives of our party against the wishes of the constitutancy be political suicide for those representatives moving to the right? Why would they purposely do that?

Thank you for your reply in advance.

[elfin]

6. No - but I AM interested

in those "moderates" who voted for Clinton, but not Gore to put us back in the electoral win column. They will be the victory margin IMO.

The true fiscal conservatives will ALWAYS knee jerk for Repubs unless there is a contested Repub primary.

[BurtWorm]

8. Cointelpro Project: Get the news to wingers that Bush is growing the govt.

by growing the deficit. Hit them where they live, which is by the proposition of smaller government by all means necessary. Many probably believe that growing deficits is one means necessary, as it leads (in theory) to a starved Treasury. But how will they feel about the growth of a whole new Homeland Security bureaucracy?

These pargraphs (from a Steve Chapman column in ther Washington Times) expose the Bushocracy's vulnerable underbelly:

"Mr. Bush's Inauguration was to big government what the repeal of Prohibition was to distillers. He has yet to propose the abolition of a single major federal program, and he has lavished money on many of them. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that by 2005, federal spending will be $540 billion higher than it was in 2001 — a four-year increase of 29 percent that dwarfs the 14 percent increase during Bill Clinton's first term.
It's hard to blame all this on Democrats in Congress, since (1) Democrats don't control either house of Congress and (2) Mr. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. By contrast, his father, never a favorite of the right, repeatedly used his veto power to keep spending under control."


http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030929-090655-1429r.htm

[vi5]

10. That's my point...

Yeah, you can point this stuff out....and it may even piss them off.....but there are still probably inumerable issues where they still think that even though bush* is not doing a good job, that a democrat won't do any better.

[BurtWorm]

11. But in an election that will probably boil down to 2004 numbers

every disenfranchised winger counts. Every single, blessed one of them.

[vi5]

12. I still don't get the math here....

Let's use my father in law as an example. Voted for Bush in 2000. He disagrees with bush vehemently on any number of issues, up to and including the iraq war and the enlarged government role. He is the epitome of disgruntled.

However, when it comes time to vote in November he's still going to adopt a "devil you know versus the devil you don't" approach, especially when one has an R after his name and one has a D.

[BurtWorm]

13. Net change from 2000, in other words, = 0.

My sense is that Bush will retain his core but could lose enough at the periphery if the Dems attack there. Make the periphery lose the will to bother to vote.

Here is the math: in 2000, only 40% of eligible voters voted. Of those, 48% went for Bush, and 48+% went for Gore. If you assume that the same 40% vote in this election (and if it follows trends in recent history, it will actually be less than 40%), then Bush will have to score his same numbers plus some of the Gore voters in order to win. But this assumes the 3% who voted for Nader will again not vote for the Dem, which is probably not the case this time around.

Can Bush inspire some of the 60% who haven't been voting to go to the polls? Is terror enough of a reason to vote FOR Bush? I don't know. I doubt it, but it can't be ruled out. But it seems at this stage that Bush will have to work a LOT harder to get non-voters fired up to vote for him. Chances are, they will continue to try to win this at the margins, by working extra hard to shave off Democratic voters through disenfranchisement techniques (like felon scrubs) and intense negative campaigning against the Dem. Their goal, as usual, will be to make the electorate totally sick of the whole campaign. If they succeed, turned off Dem voters will stay home and the automatons who vote Republican will once again depress the shit out of us.

It would be nice to wake up some of those automatons to their humanity. Just enough of them.