Ray Malone's Commentaries

There are two erroneous beliefs that have been held by both major political parties. Republicans once failed by believing them. Now Democrats are engaged in massive self deception.

The first is the certainty that a party can be ideologically pure and have success implementing its agenda.

The left has never exceeded a third of the voters by more than 4 or 5 percent. Liberals have never consisted of more than 40 percent of the voters. Today that number is below a third. In the past Democrats have always believed that if they limit their appeal to just liberal ideology it can never win 50 percent of the votes. That is no longer the case. Liberals think they have the means to become a majority party containing nothing but liberals. Liberals and right wingers often share the same fuzzy math. They think 36 percent of the voters can cast 51 percent of the votes. It will never happen, but the Democratic leadership think it can.

Today largely because the left misunderstands the research of Karl Rove, much of the Democratic leadership thinks they can, with only liberal support, garner 51 percent of the voters. They cannot.

The second mistake both parties have made is their belief that the arguments that convinced them to be who they are, are arguments that will convince moderates to join them.

To which I say.
If the reasons that convinced leftists convinced moderates, then all moderates would be leftists.

The failure of the left to sway voters is based on their belief that what appeals to them will appeal to those that do not share their ideology. They think they just have to get their message out. They refuse to believe that their message is being rejected. They think are just not saying it loudly and forcefully enough.

In 1968 Nixon took a tact he described as run to the right to win the primary, then run to the center to win the election. That was based on the fact that the center is not ideological. Centrists, often called swing voters, sometimes vote for the left and sometimes vote for the right. It is not unusual for them to vote for a conservative president and a liberal senator in the same election... or vice versa. They are not ideological. If a candidate appeals to the center using arguments that appeal to the center that candidate is likely to win. Nixon with tons of baggage proved it in 1968 and 1972. Since neither major party has a majority, the conventional wisdom has been, to win a party must carry the centrist vote.

Karl Rove took a new tact in 2004 which the left copied but did not understand. Rove noted that over the last 50 years the turn out of registered voters has ranged from 52 to 58 percent. That means between 42 and 48 percent of those who are registered to vote.. do not vote. In 2004 that was a potential voter pool of 90 million registered voters. To vote all they have to do is show up at the polls.

Rove and the Bush campaign went after a segment of the registered non voters. Rove reasoned that if the non voters who were likely to vote for Bush were motivated to actually vote, they could be the margin of victory. That turned out to be the case. Rove went after the best Bush prospects among the non voters using single issues to motivate them. Those issues included gay marriage, abortion and gun control.

The Democrats recognized the value of Roves reasoning. When they looked at polling data the Democrats noted that in the past larger turn outs favored Democrats. Note that Democrats always do better on polls that measure registered voters than they do on polls measuring likely voters. Democrats do best in polling that just measures adults. That leads them to believe that there are lots of closet leftists that could be theirs just for the motivating. They just need to get the registered ones to vote and the non registered ones to register and vote. The logic is they do not need to compromise their beliefs.. They just have to get their natural supporters to the polls. That is what motivated Soros to fund 527s for the sole purpose of registering new voters.

The Democrats have come to believe that these non voters are just discouraged. They don't vote because the Democrats are not pure enough. Democratic leaders like Dean, Reid and Pelosi, think that if they just stand up and fight for the left with all their might, they will increase their turn out by millions. They blame John Kerry for deserting his liberal roots to appeal to the centrists when there was a huge pool of natural leftists who could be motivated to vote. The typical view of many Democrats is it was Kerry's fault they lost. Much of the Democratic leadership feels certain that if they can just motivate the disaffected Left, they can become a true majority party. They don't think they need the centrists to win.

If you poll the non voting registered voters a huge majority will tell you they do not vote because there is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. So the Democrats are doing all they can to point out their major differences. They see no down side to obstructionism because it will cause all those non voting liberals the polls say are out there, to show up at the voting booths. They will win the contest for the non voting voters by making sure everyone understands there are real differences. For the first time in nearly a century the Democrats are flaunting their militant leftism.

Dean, Pelosi, and Reid believe there are millions of closet leftists who will come to the polls to vote if the Democratic party is just pure enough... obstructionist enough .... and left enough to motivate the non voting leftists to vote.

The Democrats know that Rove and the Bush Campaign picked up a couple of million voters from the 90 million pool, but they think they can pick up tens of millions. They feel certain that if they can turn registered voters into likely voters they can win.

That is the reason the Democratic leadership is throwing caution to the wind. They firmly believe that if they motivate the disaffected leftists they will not need the middle. They will be the majority party.

There is just one little factor the Democrats over look. The people who don't see a difference between the two parties are not ideological. If they were ideological, the differences would be obvious. They are people who can be motivated by personality (likeability) and single issues that directly effect their lives. They poll higher for Democrats because a majority of them are hereditary Democrats. Daddy and Granddad were Democrats, so they are sort of.... well. ... they might be..... except they don't vote.

However most of the Democrat's target audience is registered to vote. The question is why did they register if they are not going to vote? The fact is they do vote on things that are important to them. Some vote on property taxes. Some have kids and want more money for schools. Others vote against tax levies. Others vote for or against zoning, or other local issues. Some vote for local candidates they believe directly effect their lives. But for the most part they just want government to leave them alone. If they really cared about government, and wanted government involvement in their lives they would vote. People who don't care much about ball games don't go to games, voters who don't care much about government, don't vote. Sports fans go to games and government fans vote. Offering more ball games to someone not into sports is not an appealing offer. Well, you get the idea.

What the Democrats do not understand is that if these people get motivated to study the issues and vote, they will mostly vote Republican.

I think that Rove was right about how to get unlikely voters to vote. He went after some of this group on single issues. He went after the non voting church members on gay marriage and abortion. He went after non voting hunters on gun control. He went after non voting families with relatives in the military with a pro military appeal. In other words Rove went after the non voters on single issues that motivated them to vote.

But what about the Democratic Strategy of going after the disaffected left. First of all there are not many of them. They are mostly the leftist fringe. They belong to a group for whom Al (Earth in the Balance) Gore is not Green enough. A group for whom Kerry was not anti war enough, and Reid is not obstructionist enough.

A real study of the 90 million non voters in 2004 will show they are very much like the centrists only they don't have an interest.. They really don't care who wins. The House, the Senate, the Courts and Presidency are not part of their lives. They may be hereditary Democrats but they are for less government in their daily lives... not more.

I have just one line to explain why the Democratic appeal to the non voters will not work.

If the views on government that appeal to the left appealed to the non voters then non voters would all be voters.

What Karl Rove and George W. Bush understand and most Democrats do not, is that nearly all Americans know in general terms, where both parties stand. It is not that they don't know each parties message. They are not moved by that message or they find the message unimportant.

Many on the left and right think they have to change their views or positions on issues to gain support from both centrists and non voters. That is just not true. What is required is to find arguments that will appeal to the target audience. Democrats used to do that but they not any longer. The pitch that works is "Here is what we will have government do for you!" As Reagan proved 25 years ago, among the appealing things government can do is stay the heck out of peoples lives.

The belief that hereditary Democrats will come to the polls if the Democrats are just determinedly leftist enough is a major misreading of the voters.

The Democrats are in the process of driving the center away, and replacing them with non voters who will never vote as long as the Republicans can keep the economy good and oppressive government off their backs.

The Democrats with political sense, i.e. the Clintons. are hoping for the leftist leadership to fall flat on its face in 2006. If it does then, like the reconstituted Nixon in 1968, the rehabbed Clintons can ride to victory in 2008.

If that happens look for Hillary to run on a platform of... " It is not good for one party to retain power for more than two terms. It is time for a change... but not much of one."