http://www.geocities.com/statechurch/e2000map.jpg
Draw your own conclusions.
Tom
Nathan Newman wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seth Ackerman" <SAckerman at FAIR.org>
> To: "'LBO-Talk'" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
> >http://www.thenewrepublic.com/112000/lizza112000.html
> >The New Republic
> >NEWARK DISPATCH
> >Knock and Drag
> >How to get out the black vote
>
> Yep, not always pretty but for a few decades progressives like Frances Fox
> Piven and Jesse Jackson have argued that Democrats spent too much time and
> money on media campaigns appealing to swing voters and not enough on ground
> operations to increase turnout among the party's base supporters who were
> not voting.
>
> As the article notes in New Jersey, gubernatorial candidate Florio ran a
> standard media campaign in 1993 and lost badly to Whitman. Four years
> later, a little known Democrat shockingly came within a few thousand votes
> in 1997 of unseating Whitman, largely because of a massive turnout operation
> targetting black voters.
>
> Like the union turnout lesson from California in 1998, these lessons
> convinced Dem party leaders that mobilizing the base was as key to victory
> as appealing to swing voters.
>
> The bottom line is that the larger the percentage of the Dem vote made up of
> african americans, union households, latinos and other base voters, the more
> the Dems have to pay attention to those voters for fear of their
> "defection", not defection to a third party but to not voting at all.
>
> When people look back at this election, Nader's campaign will be
> interesting, but most analysts I suspect will see the massive rise in black
> and union turnout as far more significant in effecting the Democratic Party
> and politics in general for the future.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
