It’s the choice for chasing the “undecided voter” who can’t make up their mind between fascism and “not fascism” rather than standing for something that would inspire increased engagement from non-voters.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Gee it’s almost as if that strategy is as terrible as it is flawed. And I think that’s more of an excuse for doing what big money donors want and not voters.
I’ll expand: there’s a structural bias toward looking at the electorate as those LIKELY to vote. That group is divided between devoted Reps, devoted Dems, and those who can’t decide, I.e. “The Middle.” So fascist-lite policies might appeal to those voters who can’t decide between the two (2/?)
But that means that the opinions of those who aren’t regular voters aren’t considered! The calculus is that it’s more financially efficient to convince someone who is committed to voting to vote for you than it is to convince someone to vote AND THEN vote for you. (3/x)
And that’s what Republicans want!
They want as few people to vote as possible, because they know their voters show up. That’s why they knew that groups like ACORN were so important, and why they targeted them. Expanding the pool of likely voters moves the average voter left. (4/x)
Early in each cycle, we absolutely were looking at all registered voters, but that narrows as the election gets closer. Individual campaigns don’t have the resources to run the registration drives necessary to expand the voter pool. That should be the role of the Party. (5/x)
That’s why Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy” was so effective in the run up to the 2006 and 2008 elections (besides the massive unpopularity of the Iraq War and Bush’s response to Katrina). We were challenging EVERYWHERE, and it was working! (6/6)
This reminds me of movie studios’ modern preference for previously established IPs, meaning we get more & more adaptations (e.g. of comics & games) and remakes rather than new original stories. It’s financially risky to try something new, so they avoid it.
Similarly, I think it’s a massive mistake for Democrats to court the right, effectively making themselves “Diet Republicans” or “Polite Republicans.” They should go left.
Of course, that means the studios will also miss out on potential hits and ticket sales, just as Democrats will miss out on potential leftist votes and wins, but they’re scared of the perceived risk. I guess it seems easier to go after the voters to the right.
Comments
They want as few people to vote as possible, because they know their voters show up. That’s why they knew that groups like ACORN were so important, and why they targeted them. Expanding the pool of likely voters moves the average voter left. (4/x)
FIN (I think)