While it is certainly true that a ten point gain is a ten point gain no matter where it comes from, it is also certainly true that it will be more difficult for us to make gains in areas where we are already doing extremely poorly than in areas where we are already doing well or areas where we are roughly even.

Also, by making gains in areas we are strong, we reinforce the Dem brand, tackling the "Dems don't stand for anything" meme.

Didn't Limbaugh just get cancelled in Baltimore?

That sort of thing doesn't occur unless an audience is shrinking.  

Dems courting the limbaugh vote makes as much sense as Bush Courting Black Voters.

That is unless, something like this happens:

WHILE Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove raided suburbs and exurbs for unregistered Republicans, a small group of non-party irregulars laid siege to the Democratic citadel: the minority precincts Al Gore carried by huge majorities in 2000.

This year, conservative 527s spent roughly $3 million to run 30,000 broadcast spots courting voters via Spanish-language and black media. On November 3, I reported the results of these efforts to Dan Perrin, executive director of the Republican Leadership Coalition. "Kerry outpolled Bush 84-16 among blacks in Ohio, and 86-13 in Florida," I told him. "And he outpolled Bush 56-44 among Hispanics in New Mexico."

"That's fantastic!" Dan exclaimed. "Let's get out a press release right away!" So it went in the wacky world of Republican minority politics. Bad news was our stock in trade. In 2000, Democrats had taken 90 percent of the African-American vote to the Republicans' 9, and the Hispanic vote went for the Democrats 64-35. Many consultants considered an electoral assault against these bastions of liberal loyalty a waste of time and resources.

In 2004, the good news for Republicans was not that the GOP had won minority support (clearly, it hadn't)--but that it was winning marginal increases. Nationwide, exit polls showed Bush's vote share increasing 2 percent among blacks and 9 percent among Hispanics. In crucial swing states, where conservative 527s waged vigorous campaigns on behalf of the GOP, the president fared better still.

I have to disagree with you Chris about the comparative value of 10 point gains on issues.  Just like a 10 point swing in white married males would be more valuable than one in asian unmarried females, a 10 point boost in, say, handling of terrorism would be a lot more important than one in education.

It just so happens that a LOT of people vote based on one or two issues where Dems perform poorly.  The idea that we need to address those perceived shortcomings is conventional wisdom, but I think it is also correct.  All issues are not created equal.

There's a big difference between connecting with a targeted demographic by finding key issues that can sway their vote.

Republicans do it with gay marriage and abortion. they don't change their position on any issues, or betray their values, they just find the few that connect with their demographic.

Democrats, at least recently with the DLC, find the key issues to connect to a certain demographic ("Libaugh-votes", you say), and then abandon their values and change their stance on the issue hoping to sway some of them. The problem is that the centrist group they're courting smells their fakeness a mile away. And, they alienate their progressive/liberal base.

It's time we, as the progressive base, say once in for all that we will not support the selling out of our values. It's killing our party.

What frightens me most about the simplistic Dem notion that they have to get right with the God crowd is that they'll end up abandoning choice (hell, many of them are there already), turn on gays with a vengeance, and then expect Republicans to raqlly around and progressives to not notice or not mind.

Lyndon Johnson gave the South to the Republicans when he pushed through civil rights legislation in the 1960s. It was the right thing to do, but it set off the GOP's "Southern Strategy" that (with modifications to embrace theocracy and homophobia) continues to keep Democrats out of office. At least, back then, Democrats didn't change their minds and abandon blacks and civil rights.

Democrats must show some courage. And they must convince Americans of the rightness of their convictions.

It is stupid to go after Limbaugh voters by switching our positions on issues. But let's persuade them to switch ideologies and grow our base!

On Democrats and self-described evangelicals: White evangelicals are not just white evangelicals.  They are often also, for example, working class people, single mothers, people who send their kids to public schools, people worried about health insurance, union members, and people resentful against corporate power.

SOME white evangelicals are part of the religious right, but many aren't.  Bill Clinton got over 40% of the self-identified evangelical vote, as I recall.  

The lesson is to do the sort of things that Clinton did.  He didn't change positions on abortion or school prayer or private school vouchers.  What he did was present himself as an enthusiastic Bible-reading Christian himself, which to some extent he is.  He found ways to communicate that he totally respected evangelical Christians and that he didn't identify them with the religious right.  

Also, I think it's a mistake to equate Limbaugh voters with evangelicals.  Limbaugh's core audience is rich white guys.  They're your standard wealthy Republicans.

So maybe this should be framed as being about the "Dobson vote" rather than the "Limbaugh vote."  But I'd estimate that less than half of self-ID'ed evangelicals would actually be part of the religious right -- i.e., the Dobson vote -- in terms of consistent voting patterns.

I think we should target evangelicals or other groups with which we do poorly.  But its how you do it that counts.

Similarly, I think the Bush Republicans are right to "target" blacks and hispanics.  Here is the difference though in how they try to accomplish outreach and how our Democratic bretheren do it.  For the most part when centrist Dems talk about reaching out to groups that typically dont vote for us, they believe the best strategy is to adopt Republican positions (e.g. see Hilllary Clinton) (Note-I threw in this gratuitous anti Hillary jibe for Chris' benefit-I know how much he loves that).  This is the wrong approach. . .it dampens the enthusiasm of the base, looks weak, causes long term harm to the party by accepting the premises of the other side, and most importantly, IT IS BAD POLICY.

But, the Republicans do this better.  They look at a group like blacks or hispanics and try to figure out what within their worldview, ideology, policies, etc will appeal to them and they concentrate on that.  For example, they dont adopt affirmative action, that would anger their base.  But they do funnel "faith based" grants to black churches, or closely align themselves with conservative catholics.

So, if we go after evangelical votes, I am for it.  Not to win them over but to cut down the margin of victory for the other side.  But how we do this is key.  We can and should build bridges to the growing number of "green" evangelicals.  And I have no problem with wrapping issues like the minimum wage and health care in moralistic, or even biblical language. I am pretty sure that Jesus said some nice things about poor people.  I have no problem with using that.

I just dont think we have to become more like them to steal some of their votes.  Especially since their rule is proving to be so disasterous.

It's probably indeed moronic to try to peel away the Limbaugh voters from the GOP.

But going after the Buchanan GOP voter? Now that on the other hand has much to recommend it. Not least of which is the fact you don't have to give up your ideals on choice and gay rights.

As Paul Hackett proved.

Further, you don't have to be a 3rd way DLC-style dem to pull it off - the Buchanan GOoPer is with us on labor issues, on many if not most civil liberty issues (just a matter of emphasis), on trade and on bread-and-butter economic issues.

Unfortunately, most beltway Dems are NOT with us, which is why we mostly hear of their version of triangulation, and why Hackett was ultimately seen as a threat.

Why stop at Limbaugh?

Why not go after the Michael Savage audience?

There were a lot of moderate Republicans who didn't like Kerry in 2004 so didn't vote for anyone.  That's a loss of a vote.  We should court at least the moderate Republicans, and some of the conservative.  A vote is a vote.

I agree that Dems shouldn't aggressively target the most Republican demographics.  And to the extent that the Democrats do go after white evangelicals they should do so by appealing to common values, like Christian charity, rather than "admitting" that there is a big, progressive hate-religion movement.

But I do take issue with this: "If all issues are of equal importance to the electorate, and the electorate has equal swing potential on all issues, than it does not matter what issues Democrats make gains on, as long as they make gains."

All issues are not of equal importance to voters. There are many people who agree with Dems on domestic issues, but will not vote for them until they can be reassured that they will defend America strongly against foreign threats.  

Similarly, there are many progressives who are primarily concerned about preserving the political structures of our government.  Sure, they would like to have the luxury of worrying about health care, education, pollution, infrastructure improvements, etc.  They would like to vote for the best policy wonk.  But they will only support a candidate who can demonstrate that he or she recognizes the threat that Bush and the GOP pose.  

You have a great single-payer health care plan but haven't heard about Diebold?  Take a hike.  You want to increase automobile gas mileage but can't defend yourself against swift-boat style attacks?  Next!  You want to fully fund NCLB but don't know how Neil Bush is involved or how public education is being willfully sabotaged?  Go back to grade school.

i wish the democratic party could stop being so judgemental about evangelicals (and christians for that matter).  not every evangelical is a monster.  many of them are in fact people, americans, who vote.  comparing them all to limbaugh, mike savage, et. al. is disrespectful, ineffective, and represents the worst of our party.  its attitudes like this that make republican talking points like "liberal elite" or "out of touch with mainstream americans" ring true for the majority of voters.

lets turn the analogy on its head: say what you will about the republican party spending millions of dollars on courting the minority vote, but the success they did have did not come from them saying, "screw them, they're all a bunch of drug-addicted welfare queens and gangstas." think about it.

Limbaugh appeals to people through both style and substance.  We won't get votes from people who agree with what he says, but we have to consider those who like his entertainment value first and pay attention to his politics second.

Limbaugh is a confrontational entertainer with an incredible talent for mockery.  He is the right wing version of the most vicious Satuday Night Live sketch you can imagine. This is his primary appeal for many people, who would rather identify with his perceived toughness than the perceived weakness of left wing spokespeople.

We do not need to abandon our ideals, but we need to present ourselves in a way that voters can identify with. There is nothing new about this idea. Martin Luther King Jr.'s colleagues marched in jacket and tie, so that the people watching TV could identify with them.

I've heard it said that liberals need to "stop hugging trees and start kicking ass".  I couldn't agree more. If that means cutting our hair, putting on ties, and talking tough, so be it. We could do worse than make fighting for justice seem macho and cool.

If you really want to understand how progressives can reach out to evangelicals without compromising on our ideals, read "God's Politics,  Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" by Jim Wallis.

Wallis, an influential evangelical and remarkable   activist, calls on Christians to judge all candidates, Republican and Democrat, by how they will actually act on the full range of Christian concerns, includeing poverty, war, civil rights and social justice.   He argues that effectively that every great progressive movement in the United States, from the abolition of slavery, to voting rights for women, to the end of child labor laws, to the Civil Rights movement included, and was often led, by religious leaders. He also makes the case that progressive politics is in the best tratdition not of of American citizenship but also Christian citizenship.

My favorite quote so far (Wallis is at a meeting with a Republican strategist right after the 2002 midterm elections):

"This very smart political operative said that Republicans won middle-class and even working-class people on the 'social' issues, those moral and cultural issues that Democrats don't seem to understand or appreciate.  He even suggested that passion on the social issues can cause people to vote against their economic self-interest.  Since the rich are already with us, he said, we win elections.

I raised my hand and asked the following question:'What would you do if you faced a candidate who took a traditional moral stance on the social and cultural issues?  They would not be mean-spirited and, for example, blame gay people for the breakdown of the family, nor would they criminalize the choices of desparate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners.  But the candidate would be decidedly pro-family, pro-life (meaning really want to lower the abortion rate), strong on personal responsibility and moral values, and outspoken against the moral pollution throughout popular culture that makes raising children in America a counter-cultural activety.  And what if the candidate was also an economic populist, pro-poor in social policy, tough on corporate corruption and power, clear in supporting middle- and working-class families in health care and education, an environmentalist, and committed to a foriegn policy that emphasized international law and multilateral cooperation over preemptive and unilateral war?  Waht would you do?' I asked.  He paused for a long time and then said, 'We would panic!'"

It's a great book for anyone concerned about how the definition of values has been warped by the Republicans

From Wallis' biography:

"Jim Wallis, an evangelical, is the leading figure at the crossroads of religion and politics in America today. He is a public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, faith-based activist and author of seven books. He is the founder of Sojourners, a nationwide network of progressive Christians working for justice and peace, and continues to serve as the editor of Sojourners magazine, covering faith, politics, and culture. He is also the Convener of Call to Renewal, a national federation of churches and faith-based organizations working together to overcome poverty by changing the direction of public policy..."

It's interesting that Chris Bowers brings up Amy Sullivan and Steve Waldman, because all three of them suffer from the same problem. They both sell personal political preferences as matters of strategy.

Amy Sullivan constantly stresses the need of the Democrats to reach out to the white evangelical vote, be more clinton-esque on abortion, & embrace abstinence education. Why? because she's a religious woman who cares about such things & wants people in the party to care about those things too.

Same with Chris Bowers. His arguments against trying to close the political gap on Nat. Security & religious issues aren't because he thinks addressing them is bad strategy and would be so difficult that we might as well abandon them and try to make improvements on our strengths, it's because he doesen't particularly want the Democrats to take a route of getting more Nat. Security cred and trying to appeal to the religious vote. He doesen't want the Democratic party to go there. Maybe it's because he thinks it will compromise the values of the party, maybe he takes a very chomskyesque view of military & security issues & isn't very favorable to the zealous and would rather the GOP keep that crowd. Either way, he's taking politics, & selling it as strategy.

This is one thing the DLC has been most notorious about, and is one criticism I have of them. They urge Democrats to get right on Trade issues & embrace open markets & liberalized trade if they want to appeal to middle-class voters. Of course, this isn't sound strategy, the number of voters who would swing over something like trade liberalism is incredibly small & if anything, if they were being purely strategic & machiavellian, they could peel off far more independents who are trade reactionaries & skeptics of globalization by demagoguing on trade than they would globalization stalwarts. Yet the DLC urges this, not because it's actually good strategy, but because they, the DLC are pro-trade & want the party to be pro trade too. Which is fine, I'm a pro-trader myself, but it's dishonest to sell policy as politics, or personal politics as strategy.

Back to what Chris says, it goes without saying that I disagree. Chris says it's not worth improving the party's brand in places where we have an image & narrative problem & we should concentrate on improving in areas where we possess no such roadblocks. He may be correct on appealing to evangelicals, which the party would have to compromise too much on to get minimal returns. If we are ever going to crack that group, it will be by appealing to them for reasons other than religion. Yet just recently, Democrats closed the gap on their weakest political issue: National Security. All through the GOP mishaps of late, the GOP has maintained a constant lead on Nat. Security, yet the Democrats recently achieved near parity on this issue. How? Simply by opposing Bush's scheme to let foreign states control American ports. Wow, that sure was hard.

Another great example is fiscal responsibility. It wasn't too long ago that the Democratic party was weighted with the image of a spend happy party who 's only use for the populace was to extract taxes from. Yet in a period of just a few years (and with serious effort by the party) they not only shed the "tax & spend" image, but they even got the reputation of being fiscal guards & budget hawks. Especially contrasted with the fiscally incompetent GOP. If Chris Bowers' were in the Clinton administration, he would have said "There's no use trying to close the gap on fiscal issues where we have an image problem, the GOP owns it, we might as well just try to strengthen our lead with the black vote."

Contrary to the article, there isn't a consituency that the GOP DOESEN'T spend time trying to convert. Especially outreach to Democratic strongholds like the Black vote (which they are obsessed to bringing home over time) the Jewish vote, and most recently the hispanic vote. the biggest loss though is probably the rapidly decreasing "gender gap" (they haven't been trying to appeal to single women at all).

It's kind of ironic that the same guy celebrating the fact that "Run everywhere" is now considered conventional wisdom when it comes to congressional races, doesen't seem to have much confidence in this strategy when it comes to appealing to voters. Something he gladly doesen't sharw with the party chairman.

Speaking of the "Limbaugh vote" it's interesting Chris brings that up. When Paul Hackett was top of the pops in the news cycle, Rush Lambaugh dedicated a part of his show to bashing him; accusing him of being a trial lawyer and going to Iraq only to pad his resume. Only something happened, Limbaugh was barraged with calls from military vets chewing him out for disparaging Hackett's name. Limbaugh forgot his audience. Sure, there are some true believers, but the tempremental barroom conservative who jokes about hollywood weirdos & feminist wackos, it doesen't follow that they are especially political animals or know the GOP platform by heart. So Limbaugh changed his strategy. When Hackett dropped out of the race he was no logner antagonistic towards Hackett, he LIKED Hackett, but The Democrats kicked him aside for some black guy (who wasn't even black) because they're affirmative actioneers who are hostile to the military.

If Limbaugh has to subtlely propagandize to his own audience with race-baiting and flase memes about a Democratic hostility to the Military, I think that shows that the "Limbaugh vote", while maybe not ideal pickens, is different than what one would characterize it as.

If God's Politics Author, Jim Wallis goes to every evangelist community and talk about his book--I bet you we will get some evangelists  

Christ  told us to love your neighbor as you love yourself and whatever you do to the least of your bretheren you do to me.

And if we talk to evangelist how Democrats will decrease abortion rate aggressively through commonsense policies  and that the reason we should not recriminalize abortion--is like Christ ask those who has no sin cast the first stone.

I was telling a friend this weekend that one of the reasons I'm happy Air America exists - and why I'm not terribly concerned that their facts are right - is the dittoheads.  I think a fair fraction of them aren't particularly bound to Rush by ideology, but rather by a fondness for overblown rhetoric.  And if Air America can reach those people with left-leaning vitriol and outrage, it's all to the good.

I don't think they vote much, or contribute, actually, don't think they do much beyond bumper stickers, so it probably doesn't matter much in the big picture.  I certainly don't think we should be changing our policies, programs, or values to bring them into the fold.  But I'd rather have them ranting and railing on our side.