Ray Malone's Commentary

George W. Bush refers to Karl Rove as the architect.. that is the man who planned the strategy of all the George W. Bush Campaigns. If one looks at the logic and analysis that created the Rove methods of structuring campaigns it all seems so simple and logical. The fact that it works should not surprise anyone who has examined his plans.

For many years politicians have followed the plan once articulated by Richard Nixon. Nixon said run to the base to get the nomination and then run to the center to win the general election. That makes sense. If one examines any election and groups the voters from right to left there will be distribution of voters. Since a candidate has to win the primary, and usually only party members vote in a primary, a candidate has to do well with his parties base to win the nomination. But to win the general election in a two person race a candidate must get more than half the votes. More than half demands at least some votes from the other side of center.

That would always be true except for one fact. Election turn outs in the USA for the last hundred years has ran ged from 50 to 58 percent of registered voters. We all know that Democrats do better in polls of registered voters and Republicans do better in polls of likely voters. That has to mean that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.

But consider the 2004 election. It was one of the better turn outs. 58 percent of registered voters actually voted. If 58 percent of registered voters voted then 42 percent did not. Since registered voters tend to be more liberal as a group, lets guess that 22 of the 42 tend to be liberal to center and 18 of the 42 tend to be conservative to center.

What Rove saw was that if the Republicans could get more of the right that did not normally votee, and held most of the center, they could win. In the past, elections had been won by the candidate that got the most undecided (that is swing) voters. But in recent years only about 8 or 10 percent of voters can be categorized as undecided ( swing) voters. If the Bush campaign could increase the turn out from 54 to 56 percent by getting 2 percent from the 18 percent that normally don't vote they would not have to win all the swing voters. Bush would only need to break even on swing voters.

That was not lost on the Democrats. They made a real effort to get lots of those non voting registered Democrats to the polls. Thus in Ohio the turn out went from 62.5 percent in 2000 to 70.5 percent in 2004. Both parties put a huge effort in getting out their base and in registering new voters. Nationally the turn out went from 54 to 58 percent.

The Democrats big mistake was in hiring people to register new voters. But Democrats don't have a lot of options. Consider that most Democrats think in terms of what the party can do for them, not what they can do for their party. Republicans tend to think they have to get involved to limit what government can do TO them. Thus Bush has lots of volunteers to get out the vote and to register new voters. But when Democrats people 10 dollars for each r new voter registered , they were just inviting people to make fake registrations. Not that paying people to register voters can't work. After all we pay people commission to sell insurance. But there are checks in the insurance industry. One can't make a living turning in fake insurance policy applications. Many activist Democrats just don't understand managing sales people. They had to learn the hard way.

Bet the farm that in 2006 and 2008 the Democrats will not make the same mistake.

What are Democrats like Howard Dean are thinking? They almost won with Kerry. But even in a big turn out year like 2004, only 121 million people voted out of the 208 million who were registered to vote. That leaves 87 million who did not vote. They think about 45 million of those who did not vote would have voted for Kerry. So if they can hold the left and get 10 million of that 45 million to vote in 2008, they can win with a very liberal candidate

That is why Democrats are thinking there is no need to go centrist. They just need to get out a larger percentage of the base.

Getting non voting registered votes who agree with your side of the spectrum to come to the polls is seen by both parties as the way to victory. That is why Dean, Kerry , Kennedy, Reid, and Pelosi think they can turn hard left and win. They undoubtedly plan to use the Rove technique to win in 2006 and 2008.

That in my opinion is a fallacy. They just don' t understand registered voters who don't vote in presidential elections.

Ask the question, why do people make the effort to register and then not vote for a president? If one bothers to poll such people, you will find they are not very ideological. Some are people who registered to vote for or against a tax issue on the ballot. Some have kids and want to vote for school. levies. Some don't want to pay more property taxes and register to vote against local levies. Some don't like a candidate for mayor or they are for or against zoning. The common characteristic of registered voters who don't vote in presidential races is they only vote for candidates ore issues that directly effect their own lives. And a presidential candidate that does not either threaten, or directly enhance their lives, will not get them out to vote for or against anyone

My point is if they really cared about ideology they would come out to vote for one side or the other. In fact they may say they are Democrats or Republicans but that when probed you will find party affiliation most often an inherited characteristic. "Dad and Mom were Democrats and so am I. But I don't pay much attention to politics." is a typical response... 'But they'll take my guns over my dead body!"... is a common add on. A simliar sort of add on is often made on gay marriage and abortion. It takes wedge issues to get them to the polls.

Karl Rove understands exactly who those non voting "Republicans" were. He knew President Bush needed issues that directly effected their lives. Those issues were, Gay Marriage, Abortion and Gun Rights. Those issues effected enough voters to give President Bush the victory.

Democrats by moving to the left will have to find some issues that will motivate the non voting voter to vote for their candidate or against the Republican candidate. Bush found issues to help him get the national turnout up from 54 to 58 percent. As of now the Democrats don't have any wedge issues.

The question is do Democrats really understand the Rove Architecture. Do the Democrats know what is required? So far they seem to see the task as taking gay marriage, abortion and gun rights off the table. But that is not a good tactic for Democrats. Trying to taking those issues off the table when Republicans keep them on the table will not work. Those are issues that either of the possible positions taken by democrats costs them votes. Anti Abortion, anti gay rights, and pro guns stances by a Democrat candidate would reduce the Republican turn out. It would drive the Democratic base to sit on their hands big time.

Right now I can't think of an issue that the Democrats can use to get more turn out. And with out more turnout they have to go for the center.

Do the Democrats t understand that without wedge issues the non voters and the swing voters are motivated by the same positions on the same issues? Hillary and Bill understand fully. But does the rest of the party? More importantly does the media understand? The media will likely want to trash the 2008 Republican nominee with abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage. They see those issues as get out the Democratic vote issues. They are issues the Democratic base will love. But the base is going to vote for the Democrat anyway..

As of today the situation for both 2006 and 2008 look good for Republicans. Many are afraid of Hillary. But Bill and Hill are media candidates. They think CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN can elect her as they elected Bill. But that is not where elections are going to be won post Karl Rove. They are won at the grass roots getting out the party faithful and using wedge issues to increase the turn out. Karl Rove and George W. Bush have built a grass roots organization that is better than the Democrat organization.

Democrats don't have wedge issues... The question is ... can Hillary create some? Will Hillary make major improvements in the Democrats grass roots organization? She had better if she hopes to win.

2008 will not be like 1992. Ross Perot is long gone. The Democrats need a real strategist.. They don't have one.