Ray Malone's Commentary

From a pure strategy standpoint, the question campaigns must ask is,...What is the net vote result of campaigning on this issue? The key to winning elections is to campaign on issues with which a majority of the voters agree, and not to campaign on issues where a majority disagree. It is also a waste of time to campaign on issues about which the public does care.

But if that is a campaign's only criteria, then wedge issues are not apt to be considered. Wedge issues have become very important in Republican victories.

Political pros often say single issue voters are reached using wedge Issues. The value of wedge issues is that they can cause members of the opposite party to vote for your party. Wedge issues are so named because they drive a wedge between a voter and his party. Such issues can be used to cause a voter to desert his own party.

What is a wedge issue? It is an issue where the voting decision of some of the other parties voters is based on that issue. It requires that the opposing candidate hold a position that is at odds with some of his own voters. The Democratic party is for abortion. There are Democrats who are opposed to abortion. Republicans can use abortion to drive a wedge between that voter an his own party. Abortion can cause some Democrats to vote for a Republican. Abortion works as a wedge issue because most pro abortion people do not vote based upon a candidate's position on abortion. An effective wedge issue has to pick up more support than it costs.

For example in 1984 the media was aghast as Reagan openly opposed abortion. Polls showed well over half the voters favored abortion. But the key was those that favored abortion did not use it to decide for whom to vote. Those opposed to abortion did.. The result of Reagan campaigning on abortion was a net vote gainer.

Opinion polls on issues shed no light on wedge issues. They have a margin of error of 3 or 4 percent. A wedge issue rarely effects more than a percent or two of voters. But a shift of less than 2 percent of voters can win or lose most national elections.

A wedge issue is used to pick up a half percent or so of an opponents supporters. If a candidate can effectively use 3 wedge issues he can pick up 1.5 percent of the opponents normal supporters. That makes for a 3 percent margin of victory. That is a lot of what George W. Bush did in 2003. The wedge issues were the Iraqi war, abortion and gay marriage. Bush won by just 3 percent of the votes. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. He used wedge issues to win the popular vote in 2004.

Even if the public polls show 60 to 40 against your position, an issue may still work to a parties advantage. It can not be the deciding issue of voters on the wining side. It must be a deciding issue for some on the losing side of the poll results The decision to try to use a wedge issue is based on how strongly the views of the majority are held, as opposed to how strongly the opposition holds its views. A significant number of the opposing parties voters must be on your side of the issue.

If one can attract the other parities single issue voters on an issue, with out losing the votes of those that hold the majority opinion, a party can pick up net votes while holding a minority position.

Many issues are not the deciding issue for those holding the majority opinion. Consider the current situation. Sanctity of life is a deciding issue for a significant percent of those who wanted to save a helpless woman's life. Some of those who believe in the sanctity of life are also members of the Democratic party. The sanctity of life issue was down 60 to 40 in the polls. But it can be a net vote getter for the party who takes the Sanctity of Life side.

For those who do not believe in the Sanctity of life, dehydrating a woman to death is no big deal. Few if any Republicans are saying... "I will not vote Republican because the Bush Brothers tried to save a woman's life." However there are a significant number of Democrats saying, "If my parties candidate wants to kill helpless people I will not vote for them." That is what a wedge issue is all about.

Killing a brain damaged woman is not an important issue to most Democrats and even some Republicans. But to those Democrats where it is an overriding issue, it is a Republican plus. To the Republicans and Democrats who did not care if she died, sanctity of life will not be a deciding issue on election day. But it will be to those that really cared

Not many issues are wedge issues. For example Blacks tend to be very pro life. Yet it is not a wedge issue with blacks. Blacks support school vouchers. Blacks vote for Democrats. Blacks vote against Republicans with whom they agree with on nearly all moral issues. Blacks like many other groups can agree with a candidate on many issues and still vote against that parties candidates. It is not the opinions but the weight the opinions carry that count.

The biggest mistake the media makes is confusing public opinion on issues with how people will vote. A candidate only needs support on the issues people use to decide how to vote in a specific election. Often issue polls done by the media have nothing to do with issues most voters use to make decisions or even wedge issues. The results of such polls are not likely to tell who will win future elections.

Nuking Japan was very popular in 1948. It helped re-elect Harry Truman. It was not even on the radar in 1952. it did nothing for elect Adlai Stevenson. That is to say today's issues may not be tomorrow's issues. By 2008 Iraq will no longer be in the media spotlight. Only to those to whom it is a big deal will care. That makes it a plus issue, albeit a small one, for Republicans in the 2008 election.

But Sanctity of life can be a major wedge issue for Republicans. It can make a 1 to 3 percent difference in the result ... but only if the Republicans make it an issue.

The biggest mistake anyone can make is the believe that what is important to them is important to others. The media does it all the time. It is why they constantly get blindsided by how people vote. The media was certain that George W. Bush was destined to be a one term president. The beltway bunch including the media felt that voters were for abortion, against the Iraqi war, and for gay marriage. It was their view and polls showed these issues a wash. But to people for which these issues counted, the results were positive for President Bush. For those that did not see these items as issues, they were not a positive for Kerry.

The media has attributed the results to the Rove run campaign to the get out the Republican vote efforts. And Rove did put together an organization that got out the Republican vote. But the Democrats also got out their vote. If you check you will find that here in Ohio, and perhaps in other states, nearly every member of a fundamentalist church was contacted by a Bush volunteer. Most often by a member of that church. Rove's surveys showed that 70 percent of those voters went for George W. Bush. You will also find that about half of those voters normally vote for Democrats. That was using wedge politics to full advantage.

The media never understands that there are issues where it is better for a candidate to be in the minority. That fact that sanctity of life can be a very effective wedge issue in both 2006 and 2008 should not be missed. It is a loser in the opinion polls but a winner in the voting booth. For those that believe in the sanctity of life, it is a defining issue. It is a single issue that will define how they vote. But the issue will not effect how Republicans vote. Only a handful of Republicans oppose the principle of the Sanctity of life. But there are many Democrats where the Sanctity of Life can trump the issues that caused them to vote for Democrats in the past.

It is a cumulative effect. Some can tolerate abortion.. anti American foreign policy, and gay rights. But if we add sanctity of life the list of Democratic negatives. the list will become longer than some Democrats can tolerate. It is how re-alignment takes place. As the list of negatives for Democrats goes up, the support for Democrats goes down. The chances of victory can is increased by adding to the number of negative issues that some Democrats have to face. We need to add issues that contribute to the total Republican vote.

I remember the puzzlement of the media when post election polls showed that many of the people who voted for Reagan disagreed with him on many issues. The media put it down to people trusting the great actor. But the truth was Reagan held positions where the net result of holding those position was a greater number of votes. They agreed with Reagan on the deciding issues. And that is all it takes to win. The fact that some of his supporters disagreed on unimportant issues, was just a non factor that confused the pundits.

Reagan understood when it was politically best be in the majority and he also understood when it was politically best to be in the minority. He also understood that there were some of his positions upon which it was counter productive to campaign at all. Reagan picked out the things he strongly believed in that he also felt he could get done. Then he tried to do them. He did not try to do things he felt he could not get done.

Reagan's example should be a lesson to us all. Campaign on those issues that will increase our sides vote total. Do not campaign on those issues that will decrease our sides vote total.

Put another way... Politics is the art of the possible. Every politician who ever had any impact limited campaigns and efforts while in office to what was possible.

Those that figure it out. .Those that figure out that a candidate must do things that increase his net support and avoid those that tend to decrease it, tend to win a lot of elections.... and tend to get a lot of their agenda passed.