shag wrote:
>
>
> one thought, though: the democrats, supposedly, _do_ try to appeal to
> republicans, don't they? that seems to have been their strategy with the
> constant appeal to the middle, attempts to steal away repubs. similarly,
> wasn't it Reagan who got some democrats to vote repub?
I've a tentative theory which would explain (or partly) explain that, though I haven't worked it out and don't intend to try.
The Democrats _think_ like a governing party, whether they are in office or out, and they campaign not primarily to win but to establish the parameters of their rule. Thus they have to be very very careful in appealing to their base, because their principles as a governing party (a "responsible" imperialist-capitalist party as it were) are really sharply opposed to the needs and concerns of their popular base. I'm not saying, of coursee, that this is how a Humphrey, a Dukakis, a Kerry puts it to himself, but it is how they act. Sometimes at the end of a campaign they will risk some "rabble-rousing" (Humphrey coming out against or sorta against the war, Gore going a bit populist near the end of the 2000 campaign), but on the whole they are _very_ careful not to come out in any clearcut fashion for the policies that woujld really aid their base. Wishful-thinkers ascribe this behavior to cowardice or opportunism or stupidity -- because if the DP is "really" good at heart and only stupid or cowardly, perhaps this time it will be different, they will get a backbone, they will get smart. . . . .
And of course, the Republicans can thus afford to be as irresponsible in their campaigning as they want to be. But NOTE: both parties still over the last half century have spent almost equal time in the White House. Neither 'strategy' wins more than about half the time.
Carrol