Growing The Party
by Scott Shields, Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:14:53 PM EDT
These are two very interesting jumping-off points for Democrats interested in showing disaffected Republicans and independents that the Democratic 'big tent' certainly has room for them. Here's how Carville and Greenberg define Ross Perot's natural base, which they view as up for grabs in 2006.
His voters were the most anti-political and anti-elitist, anti-big government and big corporations, anti-free trade and anti-immigration. They were pro-military but anti-foreign entanglements. They were libertarian and secular, pro-gun and pro-choice. The Perot voters were younger, more blue collar and rural, and economically pressed and uneasy in the new economy. They were also angry with the political and economic elites that failed to represent them.They argue that this was the group that helped shift the House to the Republicans in 1994 as well as breaking for Bush in 2000. Examining this list point-by-point, it's easy to see how this group could be swayed to the Democrats in next year's midterms.
...Democrats created a near majority with their coalition of suburban and more secular voters, the best educated and more cosmopolitan, union households, and the growing number of minority voters, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. But that has been more than offset by their dramatic decline among white rural and blue collar voters - the consequence of the values issues but also of Democrats not figuring out how to incorporate the dislodged Perot voters.This echoes some of what we heard from Howard Dean during his presidential campaign. It also lines up well with what we know about the recent successes in Montana Democrats championing a progressive populist message. My fear is that many of the Perot voters are simply anti-government and therefore anti-incumbent. Though they very well could vote for Democrats in 2006, can we really count on them to stick with the party over the long haul?
The CQ Weekly story about the broadening interests of evangelical Christians could also play into a strategy of winning back white, rural, blue collar voters. Though evangelicals have been a core constituency of the Republican Party, there is some reason to believe that at least a handful of these voters can be peeled from the shaky Republican coalition.
Issues like environmental stewardship, the elimination of poverty, and fair trade are very important to some Christians. While abortion has been the dominating political issue for evangelicals, it's certainly not the only one. And as the Miers nomination has shown, more and more of these voters feel as if the Republicans have been paying them lip service all these years. If the politics of abortion are taken off the table, the fact of the matter is that these voters have more in common with progressive Democrats than they do big business Republicans.
No one is suggesting we should align ourselves with Falwell and Robertson. However, if we vigorously and (unlike the Republicans) honestly make the case to evangelicals that Democratic ideals are much in common with their ideals, we'll win some converts and strengthen our coalition.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
20 Comments