Ever since the political realignment of the '60s, whoever wins the center wins the election

[scheming daemons]

Following the Civil Rights Act, the politics in this country realigned.

Middle class whites, who were strongly Democratic, began to migrate to the Republican party just like their Dixie-crat senators and congressmen (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc).

African Americans, who were pretty solidly Republican going all the way back to post-Civil War and the reconstruction, began to switch to the Democratic party.

Our politics have been generally aligned that way ever since.


And in almost ever election starting in 1968, whichever party won over the moderates... the center... has won the election.

They're fickle. They change their minds often. They vote for the party in power when the economy is good, and they vote for the party out of power when it isn't.

In almost every election in more than 40 years, 80-90% of liberals vote for Democrats and 80-90% of conservatives vote for Republicans.

This year is no different.


The side that gets a majority of the political moderates always wins.


Democrats aren't losing this year because they failed to go left enough. That's a fallacy that is talked about on sites like DU, but it is NOT the reality.

80-90% of liberals, if not more, will vote for Democrats today.
80-90% of conservatives, if not more, will vote for Republicans today.

But if Republicans take over one or both chambers of congress, it will be because political moderates tipped right this time.


And the lesson that Obama and the Democrats will take from the election is that they need to swing more to the middle before 2012.

It is not the lesson we on DU would like them to take from today. But it is the political hard reality.

To win elections in this two-party system we have in this country, you must win over the hearts and minds of the political center.

Call it a "sellout" if you must. But Bill Clinton knew this political hard truth.


Don't give me stories about FDR and Truman and JFK. Politics in this country realigned following the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson and they've been in that new alignment ever since.

The only time Democrats have won since that time is when they've catered to the middle.


Obama will come out of today facing a political reality. Win over moderates before '12, or be a one-term President.

[Selatius]

1. Bill Clinton would've been a one-termer had it not been for the Reform Party running in 1996.

They split the right wing voters, and Clinton was able to win as a result of having a relatively unified voting bloc.

[BootinUp]

5. Clinton and his advisors were experts at adjusting policy and tone

to win against whatever they faced. So I must put that little cautionary note out there when making a judgement like that.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Actually Perot split the middle.

And as such he did not really have a measurable impact on the elections of 92 or 96. His participation in the 96 election was crippled by the fascinating spectacle of the supposedly non-partisan 'debate commission' barring a candidate who captured 19% of the vote in the prior election from participating in the official debates.


Long Live the Duopoly!

[Jennicut]

14. Or Bob Dole was just boring and old.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

15. I don't think so.....

The Perot people were just big fans of his. I think they would have stayed home in '96 if he weren't on the ballot. Republicans who voted for him in '92 because they despised Bush for breaking his no new taxes pledge went back to Dole in '96.

[joeybee12]

36. Um-no...all they did was keep him from getting 50% of the vote...he

would have beaten Dole even more easily just one on one.

[Uben]

2. A lot of people might disagree.....

...but you are spot on in your assessment. It has been that way for quite some time, and looks to remain that way for years to come.
That's why it's difficult for both far-right and far-left candidates to get elected if their districts are not deep blue or deep red.

[leveymg]

3. May I suggest that narrative serves the other side. You also have to keep your base mobilized

That was the one thing the Repugs did right after their '08 defeat. They voted as a solid, organized bloc, loosened the strings on party control to allow the radicals some room, kicked in a bit of money, and the Tea Party emerged. As a result, the baggers have been knocking doors, planting signs, making calls like crazy. GOTV makes the difference in most elections - the so-called Independents are people without much conviction or interest in politics who will probably stay home.

A solid, consistent message and delivering results for the Blue Collar and Middle-Class gets Democrats elected, not becoming a fade-image of the other side.

Triangulation lost election after election for the Dems until things got so bad even some of the Repugs started to vote against the GOP. Now, things are still bad - in some ways worse - and we're paying the price for not delivering the goods to our constituents, which would be in itself a radical act requiring the drastic re-regulation and control over banks and multinationals - an assertion of power beyond the ability of any party that has itself become the captive of corporations.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Notice how the Republicans manage to keep moving us to the right

with the same political facts on the ground.

[leveymg]

8. Exactly. Now they're trying to move the center peg (Obama) to the right for another go around.

It's very organized and methodical. Been going on since 1980.

I'm sick of the narrative - it only moves in one direction.

[BzaDem]

19. GOTV makes almost no difference in any but the closest elections.

Independents and moderates, on the other hand, make the difference in almost every election. The OP is right, even if that truth makes you uncomfortable. You could call it a "narrative" that "serves the other side," but last I checked knowing the truth serves everyone.

[leveymg]

22. I've been working elections since LBJ. Gotta tell you, you're dead wrong about the

value of a mobilized base and an army of volunteers. It makes all the difference, except in blow-outs.

The independent vote is important, but not nearly so much as motivated party workers. That personal knock on the door and a friendly chat with a neighbor is worth more than millions in TV ads and a carefully-scripted appeal to moderates - most of which come across as pandering and insincere. You need your committed faithful and the activists to not only turn out to vote, but to urge their neighbors to the polls. This time, not so many of us are really all that motivated.

[BzaDem]

28. Political science research says otherwise. n/t

[leveymg]

39. If you could cite or link on that point, it would be appreciated. Thnx

[LoZoccolo]

34. Which of these tea party candidates do you think is going to win though?

Maybe Sharron Angle would win, but Nevada was red before Harry Reid anyways, and she's avoided the media who might ask her questions that would either alienate her radical base or the moderates.

I see what you're saying about getting the base motivated to volunteer though, but I'm wondering how much they had to sacrifice to do that.

[BootinUp]

4. Well I think you oversimplify

there certainly is the base factor in play especially in mid terms. I think the base factor is overstated most of the time in the blogosphere but if there is one thing Rove has convinced me of is that there are strategies that can make it (the base) an election winner.

But the independent vote is certainly important, and depending on the region it probably has varying levels of importance.

[AlabamaLibrul]

9. I don't care what truth Clinton knew, because he sold out everyone.

I'd rather have one term of great than two terms of R-lite.

DOMA?
NAFTA?

[mmonk]

10. Why did Roosevelt keep getting elected?

Because there was no center, just like today. In the 60's, there was.

[creon]

13. Different era

FDR lived in a different country.
Unified Democrats - no race question
National emergency of the Great Depression
National emergency of WW2.
I think those are three important reasons.

[mmonk]

25. But yet many similarities.

Especially the National emergencies of the "war on terror" and the National emergency of the greatest downturn since the depression.

Very different from the 60's and the progression of fighting for equality of the races, progressively fighting environmental pollution, equal rights and economic advancement for women, and a free press willing to show a tired public the realities of war.

[Selatius]

27. The Democratic Party is different. They are no longer unified on economic policy.

There are right wing Democrats now. If you were right wing back in the 1930s, chances are you ran as a Republican, not a Blue Dog or a DLCer with backing from Wall Street.

[mmonk]

29. True.

And that's the real story I guess.

[Selatius]

35. This is why I said elsewhere that Blanche Lincoln should've run as a New Deal style Democrat.

A liberal probably couldn't get too much traction in the Deep South, but somebody who ran as an economic populist favoring programs to help the working class would. It was the bread and butter of folks like Huey Long. Granted, Long lived during the Great Depression, but the vast majority of people everywhere are still working class. If you can connect on the economic policy with voters and avoid the social wedges pushed by Republicans, you could conceivably win. You just need to hammer away at the economic issues and bluntly call out the Republicans on their anti-worker policies, chamber of commerce money and the "good ole boys" be damned.

[mmonk]

40. I agree.

[marmar]

11. Actually, I think it's whomever seizes on populism wins......

If the Democrats had genuinely been perceived as the party looking after the interests of the working class and their struggles, and not placing the needs of Wall Street and the Banksters first, then the center would have moved left with them. Look at 2006/08 - populist rhetoric works.

[creon]

12. working majority

We do not have a working majority in the USA. If we have one, it is not for very long. What that means is that problems will not be solved; we will dither and work around the edges, as no one is willing to make the big changes that our problems require. That takes a lot more energy than this country has. That applies to both parties.

And, in a two party system, we have political ideas all jammed into two parties. Not four, five or six.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. It's all about the independents who don't pay attention....

....beyond "things are bad, we need to punish someone".

[BootinUp]

17. Don't forget tax cuts. nt

[Cresent City Kid]

18. I think voter turn out percentages among the bases is key

I think your assessment is essentially correct, but the turn out among non-moderates on both sides should be factored in. In this election, the non-voting Democratic base may be as important if not more than unconvinced moderates and independents. What frustrates me is that the Democrats have discouraged the base in an effort to win the moderates and have lost both to some degree.

Sigh.

[BzaDem]

20. Maybe. But in 2012, turnout of the base generally won't matter, since most of the electorate will be

voting. Turnout of the base matters much more in 40% turnout elections than 60% turnout elections.

But even that overstates its importance in midterm elections. There is very little we could have done to increase turnout among the base. Believe it or not, the people happiest with the country are the ones that are staying home (due to complacency). Fear drives midterm elections -- not optimism.

[dawg]

21. Wrong!

You're right about the liberals and conservatives, but the "center" is a myth. The swing voters aren't a bunch of well-informed centrists who thoughtfully change sides depending on the issues of the day. They are low-information voters who react to economic conditions more than ideology. They also have a tendency to vote against the party that holds the white house, regardless of their stand on the "issues". They aren't "centrists" or "independents" so much as they are *fickle* and demand instant results or else they'll vote for the other guys.

Moving to the center will not capture their votes. An improved economy will. And we would be much better off right now had President Obama pursued a much more liberal agenda, greater aid to the states, a larger stimulus, more infrastructure spending, more aid to homeowners and the unemployed - deficit be damned.

[bvar22]

23. Having several million grateful 50+ Working Class (or unemployed) Americans..

...marching across the stage saying, "Thank God Obama & The Democrats lowered the eligibility for MEDICARE" would have carried the Mid-Terms.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[dawg]

24. Agreed.

Simple. Easy to understand. Helps the people we are supposed to care about.

By the way, I love the Wellstone quote in your sig.

[kwolf68]

30. I am in a pissy mood today

But i can't find anything at all wrong with this post. You sum it up very nicely. Great points. I especially like the way you suggest basically stick to your guns, that will improve the lot of the masses and the 'centrists' will vote with you.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

31. I agree about the swing voters

For the most part they are "muddle of the road" types that don't otherwise pay much attention to politics. And a lot that I know will vote for someone if he/she is good looking, or has a catchy ad, and then they'll go back into political hibernation for another 2 or 4 years.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. So the "lefties are going to hurt the Democrats by sitting out" meme is BS.

But I knew that already.

[andym]

32. Well it does explain why the GOP is polling well

the uninformed middle is blaming those in power....

[LoZoccolo]

33. People know this, and yet they make no effort to pull the center to the left.

That's the way to really change things. It's a slow and involved process to work on the electorate, so it's much easier for activists to try to take a shortcut and set up this elaborate Internet street theater where they complain about their elected Democrats and threaten to mutiny. But that's a big waste of time; you have to change the electorate in a democracy, and they might not change as quickly as you like but that's just what has to be done if you want a solid foundation.

And what's worse is that a lot of the same people know that the center moves as well; they'll remark that Nixon was more liberal than Gore and things like that.

[BootinUp]

37. I don't believe that

politicans or activists really change the electorate. Its more like the electorate finds activists/politicans (or NOT) that speak for them and have enough support to get anywhere.

(is this too pessimistic for DU today?) :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Which will continue until we finally rid ourselves of the dominance of the 2 capitalist parties.

Both of which are in thrall to their bosses the corporations and the rich.

[ibegurpard]

41. they can't swing more to the middle

they're already past it