A few months ago we wrote a piece suggesting that 3-4 million Democrats had voted for George Bush in 2004, and that one of the important tasks for the Democratic Party was to bring these voters back into the fold. How difficult could this effort be? Michael Barone suggests some numbers:

Start with the Senate. George W. Bush carried 31 states that elect 62 senators. There are nine Republican senators from Kerry states and 16 Democratic senators from Bush states. Many of these are from states that were close in the presidential election. But there are 11 Democrats and only three Republicans from states where their presidential nominee got less than 47 percent of the vote. There are more Democrats with political incentives to vote with Bush than there are Republicans with incentives to vote against him.

As for the House, we now know which presidential candidate carried each of the 435 congressional districts, thanks to Polidata, which crunched the numbers for National Journal and the Almanac of American Politics (of which I am co-author). These numbers surprised even some political pros. Bush carried 255 districts and John Kerry only 180. In all, 41 Democrats represent Bush districts and 18 Republicans represent Kerry districts. Eliminating the districts where the House member’s presidential candidate won 47 percent or more, we find only five Republicans in strong Kerry districts but 30 Democrats in strong Bush districts.

Our eyes glaze over too. But let’s try to understand Barone’s figures. There are 14 senators from states that were strong for the other side’s presidential candidate. 11 of 14, or 79%, are potentially vulnerable Democratic Senate seats. There are 35 congressmen from districts that were strong for the other side’s presidential candidate. 30 of 35, or 86%, are potentially vulnerable Democratic House seats. These numbers — 79% and 86% — strongly suggest, we would argue, that a moderation of tone would be very helpful to Democrats’ winning chances.

Then there’s this insight from Roger Simon, which we quoted in the 3-4 million Democrat piece:

The Democrats lost in the last election much more seriously than is commonly understood. A swing of three million votes is gigantic in our society where party allegiances are formed in childhood and reinforced by an omnipresent media. We can see the primitiveness of these allegiances in the remaining popularity of Howard Dean, a man who a very few years ago presented himself as a pro-gun centrist, jumping around like a re-upped version of Jerry Rubin to appeal to a segment of the Democratic Party that hasn’t changed one view about anything in thirty-five years. But… and here’s the crux… these people are not that exceptional. Few of us change our views over a lifetime.

Yet, three million did.

Simon is right. Most people do not switch, and they do not do so lightly. We would argue that some number of these switchers live in those areas that supported Bush but have Democratic senators and congressmen — those 79% and 86% numbers again. Assume that there is some validity to this analysis, and then ask yourself: what strategy would best serve, not only to retain these potentially vulnerable seats, but to gain control of the House and Senate?

It seems pretty obvious to us that the correct strategy is Hillary Clinton’s so-called “move to the center” (via Newsday):

The New York Democrat was proposing spending $100 million to curb unwanted pregnancies, especially among teenagers, through improved family planning programs. The proposal was not particularly new, but her rationale for it at a March 17 news conference contained a fresh twist that caused veteran Hillary-watchers to nod in recognition.

“Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those are terminated,” Clinton said. “Making contraception more accessible and affordable is critical to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.” Clinton, who strongly favors abortion rights, went on to call her proposal a place “where people on both sides of the abortion debate can come together to reach common ground.” The notion of reaching across divides and trying to bridge differences has become an important part of Clinton’s political persona as she heads toward a re-election campaign next year and a possible national campaign after that.

Hillary Clinton’s approach seems very sensible to us. “Reaching out” would not be a bad Democratic campaign theme for 2006 or 2008 in our opinion.

So why, then, have the MSM bombarded us with push-polling on Social Security and Terry Schiavo of the most egregious and insulting sort, stating that vast majorities in the US wanted Schiavo to die, and oppose Bush on private accounts and reform of the system? Barone:

When pollster John Zogby asked, “If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?” Seventy-nine percent said they should not be denied, and 9 percent said they should.

When Fox News pollster John Gorman asked, “Do you favor or oppose giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?” Sixty percent said yes, and 28 percent said no.

But that’s not how the MSM reported it. Why? The Old Media are overwhelmingly united in their desire to see Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. Why can’t they get with the program and act strategically to advance that goal? The answer appears to be that the MSM are who they are. They framed questions in the two cases above to present their own opinions on the cases as the majority opinions in the United States. And since they are the majority opinions in the newsrooms where these folks work, they have no inkling — at a gut level — that their views may not in fact represent majority views.

Here’s a radical idea: greater ideological diversity in the newsrooms of the MSM could actually serve the cause of Democratic electoral success by increasing sensitivity to the issues that might bring the 3-4 million defectors back.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 11th, 2005 at 8:14 am and is filed under Democrats, General, MSM, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.