Shakes here...
Ezra's post, The Politics of Mobilization, and Nicholas’ post, The Mostly Unfuzzy Math of William Galston & Elaine Kamarck, each refer to studies that make recommendations to the Democrats based on voter data. What strikes me in both cases is that the pictures drawn are incomplete. The current electorate is not the same as the potential electorate, and ignoring the possibilities to extend the Democratic base within the latter seems to be a rather glaring omission. Cernig from Newshog recently noted:
By American standards the turnout for the 2004 Presidential election was high—yet by the standards of other Western democracies it was woefully low. Chris Bowers at MyDD recently researched who didn't turn out to vote and came up with some interesting findings. In 2004, for example, the national median income was $35,100 p.a. yet the median income of the electorate was $55,300—a difference of 57.5%.
In other words, it is mostly the poorest segment of society who don't vote. Consider that although Bush gained 52% of the electorate, he only got 34% of all the possible votes. That means there is a huge potential constituency out there, between 25% and 30% of the potential electorate, who simply don't vote—and they don't vote simply because neither Republicans nor Republican-Lites have policies that address their concerns!
In moving rightward, the Democrats have abandoned a part of their traditional base—the working class and the poor, many of whom also face voter disenfranchisement on election day in addition to the political marginalization they experience on a regular basis. Difficulty voting, compounded by a lack of opportunity to vote for a party who passionately champions their issues has left an entire swath of potential voters feeling disencouraged from voting. One doesn't have to be particularly politically savvy to understand the difference between actively pursuing policy from which they will benefit and disingenuous lip service during an election cycle.
