Anonymous Democratic Strategists: "Play to the middle..."

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:30

Holding the loyalty of evangelical Christians has become one of the most surprising problems for the Republican Party.

Support among white evangelicals neared 100% after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the White House used pastors, church membership directories and other tools to mobilize evangelicals for the 2004 election. But Bush's support among these voters dropped to 44% in a June Pew survey, sparking concern in GOP circles that an unmotivated base would cripple the party's efforts to compensate for losses among independent voters.

The Republican base is white non-Catholic Christians with an emphasis on evangelicals as their activist core .  It's enticing to think that this white evangelical vote could be shifting, and I know Zack Exley among others believes this is so.  There's in fact a nasty little industry of DC insiders peddling the notion that appealing to white evangelicals by throwing away choice is a good strategy.  But there's also this.

An analysis of 30 competitive races found that the Democratic Party's voter turnout was strong, due in part to Republican troubles and unusual Democratic unity. But turnout of the hard-core GOP base was just as good.

In other words, right-wing white evangelicals did what they always do, which is vote for Republicans.  The only effective strategy I've seen for dealing with the white evangelical base is spending resources convincing them not to vote.  This worked in a few races around the country, based on some private data I've seen in 2006, but it also worked in 2000 when Chris Lehane got out opposition research on George W. Bush's DUI a few days before the election.  The corruption of the Republican leadership, headlined by figures such as Larry Craig, is setting a nice atmosphere for this set of tactics.

Of course, the conclusion that 'Democratic strategists' draw, which is the conclusion they always draw, is that progressives are irrelevant.

Some Democrats tried the soft-sell strategy in last year's elections. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, who took over a GOP seat in Colorado's 7th Congressional District, highlighted his moderate views on issues important to swing voters. In one direct-mail piece, he cited his daughter's epilepsy as his "personal" reason to back stem-cell research. The independent voters "call the shots," said Perlmutter, who stalks unaffiliated supporters at area supermarkets through his twice-monthly Government at the Grocery sessions.

Democratic analysts say the 2006 election underscored the importance of downplaying partisanship and campaigning to the middle.

This is just annoying.  A lot of people, including me, have touted the Colorado infrastructure as successful.  What I've seen since 2004 is a bunch of conservative Democrats, most notably but not exclusively the awful Salazar brothers, win office and screw things up.  Now Jared Polis, Third Way funder, is running for Congress in a very liberal Colorado district.  Anyway, go play to that middle, because apparently "independent voters are shifting their outlook on government, Pew found, putting them more in line with the Democratic Party in their concern about income inequality and belief in a government safety net for the poor."

We're all liberals now, you adorably anonymous Democratic strategists you.  Also, can you stop quoting anonymous strategists?  How hard is it to find someone to go on the record reciting conventional wisdom?  Seriously?