Which should Democrats focus most on?

[Mehmentum]

There's been a lot of talk about how close elections are all about turnout, how true is this? 

This is particularly relevant for Democrats in red states this year, where any statement from Obama that could boost base turnout could also scare away undecided conservative leaning voters. 

[New_Conservative]

Increasing turnout. It worked incredibly well in 2012.

[Brewer]

Increasing turnout. It worked incredibly well in 2012.

[Person Man]

For now, increasing turnout. Let's see how tomorrow shows up. If they win, they need to keep up what they are doing. If they lose and they barely won their core demographics and lost swing voters by a BIG margin, it might be time for a new strategy. Eventually, you do run out of your own votes and swing votes.  The saving grace to that is that  Democrats have shown 10 years ago and what the GOP shows you today is that even if the math is totally against you this second, as long as there is big news, people will eventually give you another chance.

[memphis]

Christmas. Duh.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Turnout.  When there is low turnout they lose, when there is high turnout they win.  It's *largely* as simple as that.  There are far more democrats than republicans overall, but many of them don't appear to vote in off year elections. 

This is not surprising, I was combing through exit polls in a number of swing states and they were all consistent... Republicans winning people over 65, Democrats wining people under 45.  46-64 seemed to be the swing vote.

As a corollary to this, could they look to boost their standing among the groups that most reliably turn out in order to blunt turnout as a driving factor? Or is that basically a lost cause? Seems worth trying, no?

[Mister Mets]

It depends on the nominee.

Obama's better at increasing turnout, but Hillary Clinton seems to better at convincing swing voters.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It depends on the nominee.

Obama's better at increasing turnout, but Hillary Clinton seems to better at convincing swing voters.

She could pick Warren and do both.  Female turnout would go through the roof if the Dems double down on running a woman.

[Colbert]

just turnout

[Rockefeller GOP]

They'd be smarter to try to convince swing voters, but I think the board liberals would much prefer they keep the Obama coalition; it allows them to stroke their misplaced elitism toward Republicans.

[justfollowingtheelections]

They'd be smarter to try to convince swing voters, but I think the board liberals would much prefer they keep the Obama coalition; it allows them to stroke their misplaced elitism toward Republicans.

There is no such thing as swing voters IMO.

[Likely Voter]

Many of the key Dem groups (that vote for Dems 60-70%+) such as Asians, Latinos, Youths, Non-Religious, all vote in smaller numbers disproportionately to their overall population. So registration and turnout get a lot of bang for their buck with the Dems.

By the way, there is a third option beyond convincing swing voters and turning out your base and that is convincing voters who lean towards your opponent to not vote at all. The target of a lot of negative advertising is aimed at doing just that.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I really don't understand how you're supposed to win over swing voters.  Do you pander to certain groups while ignoring everyone else who you know will vote for you?

I think you need to stand for something, and you also need to lead.  Not everyone will agree, some may dismiss you and your ideas, but some will vote for you.  You can't convince anyone unless you actually believe in something yourself.  Low turn-out is not the result of young people or minorities being lazy, it's the result of them feeling that neither party represents them or their values.

[KCDem]

They'd be smarter to try to convince swing voters, but I think the board liberals would much prefer they keep the Obama coalition; it allows them to stroke their misplaced elitism toward Republicans.

There is no such thing as swing voters IMO.

This. But you're arguing with a guy who thinks there are 'moderate' Republicans, so you're wasting your time.

[jamesyons]

What would you call Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk, Charlie Dent, Chris Gibson, Chris Smith, Peter King, Richard Hanna, Judy Biggert, Fred Upton, Jon Huntsman, Charlie Baker, Scott Brown, etc.  I could go on and on, loads of state legislators and mayors.  If you want to know about Republican voters not politicians, Delaware County, PA has a sizable Republican voter registration edge, for a county that gave 60% of its vote to Obama twice.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Peter King?  Peter King?!?  You cannot be serious

[Adam Griffin]

Outside of a couple of battleground states in particular, turnout was a much bigger focus in 2012 than 2014. The Democrats banked on being able to get 2012 turnout to or near 2008 turnout. They succeeded, and it paid dividends in both the presidential and senatorial contests.

We focused on persuading swing voters in 2014 - maybe more so than in any other midterm in modern history. Sure, there was that "Bannock Street Project", but it was built around a national model in which all of our candidates pandered, scurried and otherwise tried to act like people they weren't. What did that get us? The lowest post-WWII turnout ever. When you spend time pandering to a group that doesn't identify with your core values, you risk losing your fickle supporters (who are often more radical than people think). If successful with a persuasion effort, the former almost always outweighs the latter. In this past election, though, we completely failed to persuade swing voters AND depressed turnout at the same time.

Until Democrats learn how to reconnect to Middle America in a substantial way (which I would argue involves a leftward, populist turn on economics), we need to stick to what we do best: turnout. Persuading swing voters is something you do when you're the minority. We are not the minority in this country.

[Brodie Hellenes]

Increasing turnout. It's the only surefire way to guarantee a Democratic victory. Convincing swing voters would take to much effort and money, and would probably not work anyway.

[Rockefeller GOP]

They'd be smarter to try to convince swing voters, but I think the board liberals would much prefer they keep the Obama coalition; it allows them to stroke their misplaced elitism toward Republicans.

There is no such thing as swing voters IMO.

This. But you're arguing with a guy who thinks there are 'moderate' Republicans, so you're wasting your time.

This forum becomes a bigger joke by the day.  You were an invaluable addition in that quest.

[Person Man]

This election confirms we need to focus on turnout. Swing voters are just too fickle...and if Democrats are turning out, the middle will follow.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

We focused on persuading swing voters in 2014 - maybe more so than in any other midterm in modern history.

Really? I got the impression that in 2014 the Democrats focused solely on turning out their base with targeted issues such as minimum wage, healthcare, abortion, etc. while not focusing on a national campaign theme. Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because he not only had a national agenda, but also used micro-targeting (or whatever it's called) to drive up turnout amongst his base.

The Democrats' agenda this year was pretty much entirely focused on minimum wage earners, the uninsured, and single women. That, and abandoning Obama. And 6 years after the recession and economic stagnation, why should the base turn out and swing voters vote for the party that has let them down economically?

If anything, the Republicans had more of a national campaign, with some goodies for their base. Seemed like most of them focused on repealing Obamacare, tax reform, more energy production, and many Senators talked about foreign policy as well.

I agree with your final point that the Democrats needs to get back in touch with middle America with an economically populist agenda, but that populism needs to expand to people who are paid hourly wages far above minimum wage and salaried workers. For example, there should be a huge emphasis on college tuition and loan problems and greater support for job retraining programs, which is a fantastic national issue that I think Dems didn't emphasize enough this year. Democrats could also focus on their own version of tax reform (make EITC and a bunch of other tax credits permanent) and go Elizabeth Warren + FDR on Wall Street with a new Glas-Steagall and strengthening Dodd-Frank.

But regarding your first point, I always got the impression this year that pretty much all the Democrats focused on this year was identity politics, uncoupled with a national campaign, and that's why they lost.

[DS0816]

Which should Democrats focus most on?

Democrats should focus on becoming an actual progressive party.

@ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPDhQAeMYmI

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

They'd be smarter to try to convince swing voters, but I think the board liberals would much prefer they keep the Obama coalition; it allows them to stroke their misplaced elitism toward Republicans.

There is no such thing as swing voters IMO.

Yes there are, my mom is one of them.

[ElectionsGuy]

Turning out young people. They were a devastating 13% of the electorate in this midterm, compared to 19% in 2012. Also I believe White people were 75% of the electorate, where they should be below 70% by now.

[Del Tachi]

Constitutional reform of the United States government in order to transform it into a Westminster parliamentary republic.

Seriously, Democrats' turnout problems would disappear if the American electorate only got a chance to vote once every five years.  America votes too often, that's why we're so opposed to doing it consistently.