Get Out the Vote

I think it was Dick Cheney who described liberals as those who embraced the 1960's and never let go. In terms of political strategy, that certainly describes the Democratic party and its strategy in the 2004 campaign. As in most presidential elections, the strategy was to get out the vote in certain groups assumed to go Democrat and watch the victories roll in. While there was high voter turnout, the Democrats were firmly rejected.

I ride the bus daily to commute to and from work, and we riders were subjected to daily commercials starring Maya Angelou appealing to listeners to vote. (The ads were so desperate, in one she actually finished the script with a plaintive "Please?") The ads, while not explicitly stated, were targeted at black voters. All the images of people voting featured blacks, and there were mentions of people marching to secure the right to vote. The key to the ad campaign was that, if the listeners (which we understand as blacks) went to vote, they could "change the direction of the country," which is obviously a veiled reference to defeating Bush and changing control in the White House.

It is clear the strategists behind this campaign did not consider that black voters might support Bush. In the 60's, civil rights were a major issue which caused blacks to overwhelmingly and reliably vote Democrat. But the world has changed from the 60's. Black America has seen the rise of a vibrant, growing middle class, a group for whom racism is likely less important than it is to poor, urban blacks. Racism, at an institutional level, is far reduced from where it was in the 60's. Finally, many black Americans are also evangelical Christians and who therefore find a natural resonance with the more conservative, right-wing Christian views of the Republicans. To be sure, Kerry still won the black vote nationally, taking 88% of the vote. But at the same time, it must be noted that Bush increased his take of the black vote from 9 to 11%. Bush also saw gains in the Latino vote. In Florida, where so many were supposedly suppressed back in 2000 which supposedly fueled a strong anti-Bush outlook, Bush nearly doubled his take, from 7 to 13%. In Ohio, the key battleground state this year, Bush again nearly doubled his take, from 9 to 16%.

Mark Schmitt writes about a ballot initiative in Florida to raise the minimum wage. The strategy was to pursue this initiative as a means of increasing turnout in low-income voters. The initiative passed easily, and presumably low-income voters turned out in stronger force. But Bush saw significant gains in his take in Florida, easily winning the state that in 2000 he won by a disputed 500 votes.

Elsewhere, Schmitt says

whenever you see an analysis that begins with a phrase similar to, "We need to find a way to convince low-income/rural/evangelical whites to stop voting against their own self-interest," stop reading. If we start from the premise that we know what people's interests are better than they do themselves, that's part of the problem. People have many interests and motivations. If what liberals want them to do is put their economic interest above others, they should be clear about that, and explain why we should prefer people to prioritize their economic interests over others.

and elsewhere he says he is tired of arguments

about how we can encourage low-income whites to vote "their interests" rather than what they consider moral values.

This pretty much sums up the Democratic get out the vote strategy. "Get people whose interests align with ours to the polls and we will win." But interests are a complex consideration. Moral values is as much an "interest" as taxes. Democrats cannot continue to fight elections on the same tired approaches that worked thirty or forty years ago.