reminds me of my military service…

We were told that on guard duty, we were required to warn the intruder that we would fire.

Then the officer says “but if you are in a hurry, warn *after* you shoot the guy, just be sure to report it to me in the correct order…”

OK, now I see where the misunderstanding was, I shouldn’t have used “electorate”, I should have just said “people”.

The professor in this case was speaking very generally, basically saying that all people in a country will have political views that are spread out from one extreme to the other. It will look like a bell curve. I believe he said far right to far left to simplify, but I think it would be valid for any question, most people will take some middleground on most issues.

He described this by making an horisontal oval shape, showing less people in each end, and more people the closer you get to the middle.

Then he circled the left 3/4 and said that that’s the potential voters for one party, circled the right 3/4 and said it was the potential voters of the other.

This would illustrate that the 50% in the middle could turn either way, they agree with both parties, more or less.

This was done as a comparison to a european system, with multiple parties, where a far left party couldn’t claim more than maybe 10-20% of the voters. If they try to expand their “potential voters” by moving to the middle, a new far left party will pop up and grab the far left voters.

This usually leads to one “far left” party, one “far right” party, and 3-4 parties that fight for the middle, where the most people, and voters, are.

A “winner takes all” system as the US tends to favor 2 parties, that has a wider “voter potential”, than a scandinavian type system, that tends to generate 4-7 parties in the parliament, each of them with a smaller “voter potential”.

(5% of all votes gets seats in parliament, and if they make the party program too wide, people will choose a party that targets their own opinions more precisely.)

It wasn’t said as a political statement, it was more as an illustration of how politics work, and what the difference between european multiparty systems and the US system is. It made sense to me then, and it still makes sense.

Of course, it’s a generalized illustration, and not an absolute fact.

The class was “Western European politics”, but I learned lots about the US system in it, since the US was used as comparison. And I sat next to a guy that was interested in history and politics… Extremely interesting, and fascinating.

That would mean that in the case of USA, the “base” that is talked about is basically the area outside the other partys “voter potential”, for lack of a better word. That’s the voters that are very unlikely to vote for the other party, no matter what.

The rest of the voters will be inside both parties “voter potential”, they would agree more or less with both agendas, and could turn either way.

In the primaries, most of the voters will be the ones that are in the base, since they are the registered voters. That’s why candidates try to move to the ends, so they can get as much of the base as possible. Once they get the nomination, they cant stay there, because that puts them outside the “shared middle”, so they need to move to the center, but without alienating their own base. The further to the end they have to move, the longer it will be back to the center…

This spring, there was lots of discussions on that topic, Bush dont need to fight for the nomination, so he didn’t have to do that, while the Democrats saw themselfes have to go further and further to the left to find their base…

The reason I brought this up was that I dont think that it’s a solid 45% on each side, it sounds more sensible with maybe 20-30% on each side. (roughly 1/4 “voter potential” each).

If it was any more than that, it would basically mean that there isn’t any middle among americans in general anymore, and the curve over all peoples opinions would basically look like a twin peak rather than a bell curve. (The “solid” voters can not be close to center.)

Someone here talked about knowledge of polls and voting patterns, so I thought I should bring this up. It would actually be interesting to know what the “voter potential” looks like, if it really is so polarised that only 10% is “in play”, and the other 90% are allready committed to a candidate.

Polls usually just ask either-or questions, and they dont really tell just how solid the commitment to that vote is, which is what I was wondering about.

Thanks again for the Pew institute link, it’ll be a great resource.

“So we use the .5o caliber machine gun to engage equipment,” the instructing sergeant said. A pause. “Helmets are equipment. Belt buckles are equipment…”

I must apologize for giving the impression that I thought you were off base. Your grasp of American politics would put you in the top quintile of Americans. If I were questioned on Swedish politics my answers would be labeled “non-responsive”. My suggestion that you dig into the Pew Research Institute was premised upon my understanding of your current level of knowledge. From the point where I presume you to be the next step is to look at the aggregated data available and begin to draw your own conclusions.

Why depend on a professors presumption or conclusion when you can create and defend your own? I mentioned electorate because it has several different meanings. It can mean “those eligible to vote” or “those registered to vote” or “those likely to vote”. Each of those groups will break down statistically in different manners. So your observations concerning party affiliation may or may not be correct dependent upon which group of the “electorate” you are referring to. Also note that there are many people eligible to vote that consider themselves to be affiliated with one or the other party but have never voted.

I appreciate your comments here and I’m willing to discuss any aspect of American politics that you find puzzling – as long as I have some competence in the area.

OK, I take it I was way wrong.

I actually read as much as I can about these things, and have been since I took that class, but apparently it’s not enough. Thanks for the links, I will read up more.

You’ll achieve a much better level of understanding if you do some basic research yourself. The use of the term “electorate” is a good place to start. The Pew Research Center is a good place to start.

when I studied in the US, my Political studies professor made a political map of the US. As he explained it, the Republicans and Democrats are “catch-all parties”, and each have roughly about 1/4 of the electorate “locked in” to their agenda, and those are unlikely to vote for the other side. The struggle is for the 50% in the middle, that share values and agenda with both parties. They can turn either way, and the winning politician is the one that catch the most of that middleground. (bell-curve?)

I know this is simplistic (it was told in passing as a comparison for Western European politics) but I have noticed it’s not a bad example.

I think it is also valid in Europe, leftwing and/or rightwing parties are unlikely to get more than 5-15% of the vote, there simply aren’t any more voters available for them, even if they try to move towards the middle. And the middleground in a multiparty system is occupied by other parties, so they cant be “catch-all” parties without loosing their base to a another party.

The reason I bring this up is that I’m not sure that there is a solid 40-45% for each party, I think that sounds way too much, 20-30% sounds more likely to me, the rest is probably in play based on where they stand on different issues, but each side has (so far) locked in about 20% of those.

I might be way off here, and I would really like it if someone could give me feedback on this, and tell me where I got this wrong.

thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.

I have checked your website, and the wintersoldier site, but it was a while ago now.

I must remember it wrong, I was fairly certain Kerry claimed things like “cutting off limbs, raped” etc, in his testimony to congress, and also claimed he too took part in similar acts on a regularly basis.

Also, lying under oath and lying to congress might not be legally the same, but I still think it is the same thing morally…

I doubt that any of the leftist around here know the testamony well enough to catch that, but facts should be correct, or it will come back to bite you later. Thanks again.

PeterUK,

actually, I deliberately keep the Third Reich out of it. It’s too obvious, and tend to be treated as a borderline “Goodwins law”, too simplistic. Picking a few other examples seems to throw them off balance more, especially if none of the parties are the US. Pol Pot was stopped by Vietnam, Idi Amin by Tanzania(?), and EU-countries fully supported using force in Yugoslavia, they just didn’t have the manpower.

And there’s always the 1940′s to add to the list if need be…

And nobody is going to convert the believers. As far as I can tell the general population is somewhere around 40-45% on each “side”. That leaves somewhere between 10 and 20% “undecided” or “subject to being turned”. That is the group that really matters.

In my more optimistic moments I suspect that the MSM has turned up the volume and shrillness too early and loud and cannot hold the crescendo long enough without wearing out the audience and making them wish the unpleasant noise would stop already and, therefore, their actions will backfire on them. Sort of like every time you’re just about ready to give Today’s Youths a pass on that hip-hop racket they listen to, some kid parks across the street and sits there thumping so loud that cracks start appearing in your walls.

“The MSM and “conventional wisdom” pushers constantly have those of us inclined to dispute them pushed back on our heels. They have memes #1 through #144 all layed out and ready to go and if you can spend the effort to get through the entire list, they just return to #1 and start all over.”

This, as I understand it, is the structural state of affairs for ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ arguments for the whole of time. Liberals attack, conservatives defend.

Anyway, this would be my elevator spiel:

Forget Saddam, forget the Patriot Act, forget Bush. The terrorists believe having pets is a sin and would kill all our cats and dogs.