Ensuring a large GOP turnout more important than winning swing voters for GOP. Kerry's focus remains the undecided.
Typically, Democrats outnumber Republicans in presidential elections.
The Bush campaign strategy fits with a presidency that often has appeared more intent on deepening than broadening support.
On most major issues — from tax cuts and environmental protection to the decision to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization — Bush has embraced policies that draw much better marks from his base than swing voters.
Like the GOP, Democrats are mounting a major effort to identify and turn out base voters. But most top Democratic strategists still expect swing voters to decide the election.
One senior Democratic strategist said the party was anticipating a large increase in participation this year that could swell turnout to as much as 118 million — more than 10% higher than the 105 million in 2000. The strategist said the party expected that much of the increase would come from independent and less partisan voters.
That assumption helps explain Kerry's tone in the campaign. For several months, he has focused more on reassurance than persuasion — more on trying to establish his credentials as a centrist (especially on national security) than on articulating an aggressive case against Bush.
This approach has stirred some quiet dissent among liberals. Some worry Kerry is allowing Bush to maintain the offensive in much of the campaign debate, and that the Massachusetts senator is not providing a contrast sharp enough to fully motivate the Democratic base.
But the Kerry camp, and many independent Democratic strategists, defend the emphasis on swing voters, arguing that antipathy to Bush alone guarantees a large Democratic turnout.
It is an article of faith among political consultants in both parties that voters undecided late in a race trend against the incumbent.
But given the conflicting impulses the polls find among these voters this year, [Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist,] predicted they would not break decisively for either Bush or Kerry. And many, he predicted, might not vote at all. In such a scenario, he said, turning out the party base would grow in importance.
With that emphasis, the Bush campaign appears to hope it can replicate the experience of 2002. In states such as Minnesota, Missouri and Georgia, Republicans made unexpected gains in the Senate and House mid-term elections largely by swelling their margins in GOP-leaning areas.
Post-election surveys in 2002 showed that Republicans outnumbered Democrats among voters, 38% to 35%. In 2000, self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 39% to 35%, according to exit polls.
"My hope is that [turnout this year] is even," Dowd said.
Other GOP strategists warn it may be difficult to achieve that goal, with surveys this year showing Democrats holding a small but steady advantage over Republicans in party identification by voters. But even skeptics acknowledge the Bush campaign is showing impressive discipline — through get-out-the-vote programs and a message emphasizing tax cuts, traditional values, military strength and other core Republican themes — in attempting to hit its goal of turnout parity.
Bush has spent much more than Kerry on cable television buys targeted at sympathetic constituencies, like those watching networks emphasizing country music, fishing and hunting, and NASCAR racing, according to data from TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Some Bush supporters worry that focusing on Republican areas, the approach that worked in 2002, may be less applicable in 2004 because so many more people — including swing voters — cast ballots in a presidential election than a mid-term election.
"I admire their ruthless execution," said the veteran Republican independent of the campaign, "but it's a scary way to win an election."
(8-22-04 L.A. Times)
_______________
Interesting article. I do wish Kerry would quit letting Bush set the agenda for the election. Also, I do not think Georgia should have been included in the above list with Minnessota and Missouri. We lost in 2002 for reasons other than a large GOP turnout.
The Bush campaign strategy fits with a presidency that often has appeared more intent on deepening than broadening support.
On most major issues — from tax cuts and environmental protection to the decision to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization — Bush has embraced policies that draw much better marks from his base than swing voters.
Like the GOP, Democrats are mounting a major effort to identify and turn out base voters. But most top Democratic strategists still expect swing voters to decide the election.
One senior Democratic strategist said the party was anticipating a large increase in participation this year that could swell turnout to as much as 118 million — more than 10% higher than the 105 million in 2000. The strategist said the party expected that much of the increase would come from independent and less partisan voters.
That assumption helps explain Kerry's tone in the campaign. For several months, he has focused more on reassurance than persuasion — more on trying to establish his credentials as a centrist (especially on national security) than on articulating an aggressive case against Bush.
This approach has stirred some quiet dissent among liberals. Some worry Kerry is allowing Bush to maintain the offensive in much of the campaign debate, and that the Massachusetts senator is not providing a contrast sharp enough to fully motivate the Democratic base.
But the Kerry camp, and many independent Democratic strategists, defend the emphasis on swing voters, arguing that antipathy to Bush alone guarantees a large Democratic turnout.
It is an article of faith among political consultants in both parties that voters undecided late in a race trend against the incumbent.
But given the conflicting impulses the polls find among these voters this year, [Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist,] predicted they would not break decisively for either Bush or Kerry. And many, he predicted, might not vote at all. In such a scenario, he said, turning out the party base would grow in importance.
With that emphasis, the Bush campaign appears to hope it can replicate the experience of 2002. In states such as Minnesota, Missouri and Georgia, Republicans made unexpected gains in the Senate and House mid-term elections largely by swelling their margins in GOP-leaning areas.
Post-election surveys in 2002 showed that Republicans outnumbered Democrats among voters, 38% to 35%. In 2000, self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 39% to 35%, according to exit polls.
"My hope is that [turnout this year] is even," Dowd said.
Other GOP strategists warn it may be difficult to achieve that goal, with surveys this year showing Democrats holding a small but steady advantage over Republicans in party identification by voters. But even skeptics acknowledge the Bush campaign is showing impressive discipline — through get-out-the-vote programs and a message emphasizing tax cuts, traditional values, military strength and other core Republican themes — in attempting to hit its goal of turnout parity.
Bush has spent much more than Kerry on cable television buys targeted at sympathetic constituencies, like those watching networks emphasizing country music, fishing and hunting, and NASCAR racing, according to data from TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Some Bush supporters worry that focusing on Republican areas, the approach that worked in 2002, may be less applicable in 2004 because so many more people — including swing voters — cast ballots in a presidential election than a mid-term election.
"I admire their ruthless execution," said the veteran Republican independent of the campaign, "but it's a scary way to win an election."
(8-22-04 L.A. Times)
_______________
Interesting article. I do wish Kerry would quit letting Bush set the agenda for the election. Also, I do not think Georgia should have been included in the above list with Minnessota and Missouri. We lost in 2002 for reasons other than a large GOP turnout.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 7:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home