NCAAbbs

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood...03296.html

Good article. Click the link for the version with the links.

America's new "silent majority"

And so tonight-to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans-I ask for your support.
-- Richard Nixon, Nov. 3, 1969.

We were reading the New York Times on Sunday, which had an interesting article about the political situation in Ohio, where the Democrats have a good chance of wresting control of the statehouse and a Senate and several House seats. But this passage leaped off the page at us:

Mr. Brown is considered one of the more liberal members of the state's Congressional delegation; he supports abortion rights, opposed the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and voted against the war in Iraq.

"Sherrod Brown is out of the mainstream," Mrs. Dole said. "I don't think his kind of liberalism will sell across the state. Drawing the contrast is the key here: it's the choice between the two candidates, despite the environment."

Incredibly, that exchange just stood there, unchallenged. So just how far out of the mainstream is Sherrod Brown?

-- A new poll just out shows that a majority of Americans -- some 57 percent -- now believe that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, in essence agreeing that Brown's opposition to the war was correct.

-- On an amendment to ban gay marriage, a poll released just this week found that voters rank this at the very bottom of issues that they want Congress to take up, and some 63 percent of Americans are either strongly or somewhat concerned about changing the Constitution over this issue.

-- On abortion rights, the nation is fairly evenly divided. A poll taken in April shows 51 percent opposed to most abortion rights and 46 percent generally in favor -- but a majority opposed a law in South Dakota seeking to ban them.

Based on that, Sherrod Brown may be the most mainstream candidate in America. However, you could almost forgive someone for thinking the opposite, given the media's failings to provide any context. The Democrat's positions are very much in the majority -- a new kind of "silent majority" that leans to center-left as opposed to Nixon's center-right grouping.

They are not the people posting multiple diaries on blogs like Daily Kos, or obsessing over the latest doings inside the Beltway -- as you probably do if you're reading this. They're too busy making a modest living.

They are, instead, the people that we see so often when TV or radio tries some rare "man on the street" reporting -- bashing the war in Iraq or asking the government to stay out of their bedroom, and occasionally getting funny looks from reporters who fail to realize just how "mainstream" these points of view actually are.

They are cab drivers and nurses, waitresses and insurance agents. They don't read blogs but most of them vote -- and so it's why the Democrats got the most ballots for president in 1992, 1996, and 2000, and came within an eyelash of ousting "a war president" in 2004.

The things that this "silent majority" believes may not boil down easily to a single word or a short soundbite, but they are common sense ideals, and truly American. And so they believe in family values and probably in a God as well, but not in the government intruding on their private lives, let along reading their emails. They believe in a strong defense, but not in wars that America starts first. They believe in free-market capitalism, as long as rich people pay their fair share and the environment is protected.

True, in many ways they are a different "silent majority" from the one that elected Richard Nixon in 1968. Times have changed. America is both more diverse and -- Lou Dobbs and his noisy minority of fanatics notwithstanding -- tolerates more diversity.

And so they are all around you, and yet this "silent majority" is able to hide in plain sight, not just from the news media but even from the leaders of the Democratic Party, the partisans who would seem best positioned to represent them in D.C.

And so we watch a Democratic Party that is splitting itself in two, arguing what's the real message and what's the best way to woo over a mass of people who might very well tell you -- if you would just listen -- that "you had me at 'hello.'" And we guess there will always be debates over strategy and tactics -- that's why consultants and even a few bloggers get paid the big bucks.

But at the end of the day, should it really be hard for a Democrat like Sherrod Brown to win in 2006?

Everyone should just stop yelling for a moment...and listen to your silent majority.

A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

UAB Kirksville Wrote:A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

Bingo.

One of the fallouts of this is that the most sane, "mainstream" candidate can't be elected because they would never get their party's nomination. Invariably, the candidate that is the most palatable to the most people get creamed in the primaries, because the fanatics on both sides drift to the extremes, and the candidate that wins is the one that panders to them.

Joe Leiberman or John McCain, anyone?

UAB Kirksville Wrote:A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

to further expound on this, you also have to look at the candidates for president and how they get their nominations. the people who vote in the primaries are the ones in the vocal extremes. thus, the candidates are more in tune w/ those than the majority of people. if democrats had run a moderate like lieberman in 04, they could have won. however, they ran one of the most liberal senators. its not the DNC's fault, its just that the people who actually vote in primaries are the ones who are on the fringes of the party. the same can be said with the republicans.

dfarr Wrote:to further expound on this, you also have to look at the candidates for president and how they get their nominations. the people who vote in the primaries are the ones in the vocal extremes. thus, the candidates are more in tune w/ those than the majority of people. if democrats had run a moderate like lieberman in 04, they could have won. however, they ran one of the most liberal senators. its not the DNC's fault, its just that the people who actually vote in primaries are the ones who are on the fringes of the party. the same can be said with the republicans.

Absolutely. That's what's wrong with the primary system. When the primary system replaced the conventions as the selection method of presidential candidates, the quality of candidates began a steady decline that continues to this day. Now, any idiot can get elected (see Bush, George). And any idiot can run (see Dean, Howard).

It doesn't help that today's media pander to the lowest common denominator. What was the lead story in the media the day after the Iowa caucuses in 2004? Anyone remember? Was it who won? No. It was Howard Dean going nutso in his post-caucus speech. No one cared about substance. The media don't care, and the general public doesn't seem to care. It's a sad state in which we live.

Smaug Wrote:

UAB Kirksville Wrote:A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

Bingo.

One of the fallouts of this is that the most sane, "mainstream" candidate can't be elected because they would never get their party's nomination. Invariably, the candidate that is the most palatable to the most people get creamed in the primaries, because the fanatics on both sides drift to the extremes, and the candidate that wins is the one that panders to them.

Joe Leiberman or John McCain, anyone?

Lieberman/McCain......hmmm. I could almost go with that. Give me Lieberman/ Rice or Lieberman/Romney any day, though. Of course, the Middle East would go ape if Lieberman actually won a national office.

UAB Kirksville Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:to further expound on this, you also have to look at the candidates for president and how they get their nominations. the people who vote in the primaries are the ones in the vocal extremes. thus, the candidates are more in tune w/ those than the majority of people. if democrats had run a moderate like lieberman in 04, they could have won. however, they ran one of the most liberal senators. its not the DNC's fault, its just that the people who actually vote in primaries are the ones who are on the fringes of the party. the same can be said with the republicans.

Absolutely. That's what's wrong with the primary system. When the primary system replaced the conventions as the selection method of presidential candidates, the quality of candidates began a steady decline that continues to this day. Now, any idiot can get elected (see Bush, George). And any idiot can run (see Dean, Howard).

It doesn't help that today's media pander to the lowest common denominator. What was the lead story in the media the day after the Iowa caucuses in 2004? Anyone remember? Was it who won? No. It was Howard Dean going nutso in his post-caucus speech. No one cared about substance. The media don't care, and the general public doesn't seem to care. It's a sad state in which we live.

Agreed. Time for a third party. One that promotes democracy and human rights internationally while maintaining tight financial control of the national budget, while offering a reasonable social safetynet for those that are economically disenfranchised (such as a New Deal-esque job....you work for your welfare).

SMUTiger Wrote:

Smaug Wrote:

UAB Kirksville Wrote:A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

Bingo.

One of the fallouts of this is that the most sane, "mainstream" candidate can't be elected because they would never get their party's nomination. Invariably, the candidate that is the most palatable to the most people get creamed in the primaries, because the fanatics on both sides drift to the extremes, and the candidate that wins is the one that panders to them.

Joe Leiberman or John McCain, anyone?

Lieberman/McCain......hmmm. I could almost go with that. Give me Lieberman/ Rice or Lieberman/Romney any day, though. Of course, the Middle East would go ape if Lieberman actually won a national office.

to hell with mccain. after looking at his amnesty bill i cant stand the guy.

I lost faith in McCain when he stood up and supported Bush, after Bush and his cronies flat-out lied about him in the 2000 primaries. McCain is a flip-flopper. He'll face those same taunts by the dems if he runs, because his record's even worse than Kerry's.

UAB Kirksville Wrote:I lost faith in McCain when he stood up and supported Bush, after Bush and his cronies flat-out lied about him in the 2000 primaries. McCain is a flip-flopper. He'll face those same taunts by the dems if he runs, because his record's even worse than Kerry's.

i think we had our first political agreement.

Smaug Wrote:

UAB Kirksville Wrote:A good post, Band Dad. The problem is really what I would call the Vocal Extremes: Those on the far right and far left who never shut up shouting about how anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot and wrong.

It's all about motivating the base. While record numbers of people voted in the 2004 presidential election, if you go back and examine the exit polling and post-election survey data, you find that it's only those people who are on the extremes who bothered to vote. Of people polled, 91 percent those who voted identified themselves as either strongly liberal or strongly conservative. Of those who didn't vote, 77 percent identified themselves as independent or "middle of the road" and uncertain over for whom they would vote for president. It should be noted that every poll of registered voters shows that the vast majority (more than 60 percent) don't align themselves with any given party when they enter the voting booth. Why do we have such low voter turnouts? I think part of it can be answered by looking at the political rhetoric. The mainstream voters are so disenfranchised by the Vocal Extremists they just don't see any reason to vote at all. And that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with American politics.

Bingo.

One of the fallouts of this is that the most sane, "mainstream" candidate can't be elected because they would never get their party's nomination. Invariably, the candidate that is the most palatable to the most people get creamed in the primaries, because the fanatics on both sides drift to the extremes, and the candidate that wins is the one that panders to them.

Joe Leiberman or John McCain, anyone?

The sad thing is that both Leiberman and McCain are guys I like and have supported in the past ~ but am now disillusioned with. Leiberman has turned into a Repub in all but name and shown little spine. McCain has gone from straight talk to pandering to the base.