[lbo-talk] Colbert, Dafur, and Dems

Michael Hoover hooverm at scc-fl.edu
Sat May 6 08:50:06 PDT 2006



>>> mpollak at panix.com 05/03/06 2:41 PM >>>
I don't think this is true. In Bartel's original paper -- where he divides the electorate into third by income -- he says that the lower third -- the working class in his definition -- mainly cares about economic issues and holds economic policy preferences that are to the left of the other two classes. So by that analysis, going left on the economy should have the

potential to pull in lots of votes. Especially since this lower third already gives the greatest proportion of it's votes to the Dems already, and it has highest proportion of non-voters. Seems tailor made for a GOTV drive -- if you had the issues that would excite them.

In addition, he concludes that while the middle class (defined by income

thirds) has relatively conservative views on the economy, their vote is swayed by social issues more than economic ones. And they are more relatively more progressive.

So if Bartels analyses are true -- and they are kind of surprising -- it

seems you wouldn't have to give anything up. If the Dems went more progressive socially and more progressive economically, they should gain in both groups. Michael <<<<<>>>>>

as someone who believes that *the data* on above stuff has never *said* what pundits/most mainstream poli sci folks/political consultants/minions have claimed, i don't find bartels' assessment surprising...

as someone who has been critical of dem party for as long as i can remember on this matter, if one considers electoral strategy in terms of 'retrospection' rather than 'prospection' (a *theory?* that morris fiorina has gotten good bit of mileage out of, but that ed tufte probably first called attention to with 'economic-electoral cycle analysis), then issue-oriented campaigns are less attractive, that citizens do not follow campaigns closely and don't gain much knowledge of even high-publicized issues is pretty much a mainstream poli-sci truism...

if above has some merit, then gotv drives of sort suggested above will have little resonance among candidates/parties in that attention is largely directed towards those who already vote, principal emphasis (if, in fact, there is one) is to rely upon getting those who voted 'for the other guys' last time but who are now displeased with their performance in office to indicate their displeasure by reversing their vote choice, quite different species of electioneering from attempting to draw the 40%-50% of those *voting* 'none of the above' in prez elections (% is larger below that level) into the voting booth...

as mainstream poli sci folks like to say, retrospective voting is weaker form of public accountability/control given that it occurs after the fact, but that it forces public officials to anticipate voters' response in next election because of concern that they might be voted out of office...

so in this fall's congressional elections, the dems are banking on dissatisfaction with bush - and consequent spillover on some issues - returning them to majority party status (with reps essentially hoping that doesn't happen)... mh

Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list