5 ms·
His point is that, with limited resources, spending them on swing voters makes sense more than partisans.
by scarejunba 7y ago
His point is that, with limited resources, spending them on swing voters makes sense more than partisans.
- big_chungus 7y agoPolitical analysts seem to disagree, as both Republican and Democratic candidates are currently focusing mostly on energizing the core base, possibly to the detriment of swing voters.
- scarejunba 7y agoFascinating. I wonder what the reason is. Perhaps they think they can boost turnout in partisans faster than they can convince. Thanks for that.
- bluGill 7y agoRight now you need to energize the base: those are the people who care enough to work for you (knocking on doors, making phone calls) when the election gets closer. You don't want to touch people who only slightly supporters but overall "have a life to live" because you can burn them out and then they won't vote at all which is a loss. In just under a year when the election gets close you use the core base to run your local election. It is well understood that the local ground game in the months up to the election is what really wins.
- stickfigure 7y agoThis is the nature of the primary system. Right now, Democrat candidates must appeal to registered Democrats only. That changes in the general election.
- rootusrootus 7y agoExactly. I somehow managed to make that confusing, judging from the downvotes. A significant number of voters will not change their minds. For whatever reason they are only ever going to vote for their party's candidate, perhaps because they figure the candidate will always toe the party line anyway. They're effectively irrelevant.