the Greater Nomadic Council

Running to the Right? Is that a joke? The only conservative primetime speaker at the convention is Zell Miller (a democrat). The rest, Giuliani, Pataki, Arnold, and McCain, are not conservative and are meant to appeal to the moderates. The track record he is running on is all but conservative (massive government spending, open borders, tarriffs, etc.) How is he going to the right?

It's true that the face they're putting on the convention is a more moderate one, but take this passage from the WaPo article Scheiber links to:

Although age-old campaign rules dictate that the general-election candidate must emphasize moderate "swing" voters and political independents, Bush strategists are predicting that this election, more than previous ones, will be determined by the turnout of each side's partisans. Although not discounting swing voters, Bush is placing unusual emphasis so far on rallying the faithful.

"In close elections in today's environment, the old political strategy of focusing just on independents won't work," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist. "Campaigns have to motivate supporters at the same time of appealing to swing voters."

Bush's chief campaign strategist wants to focus on the base much more than has been done in the past. The FMA is a perfect example of this strategy. I agree that his track record isn't very conservative, but he's not really running on it so far. He's been spending his time trying to paint Kerry and Edwards as too liberal and playing up the War on Terror(ism). As for the tariffs, he backed down on those as soon as conservatives got upset, if you'll recall, so I don't think that really counts. Same with immigration. And the government spending, that's part of what has conservatives upset with him, not something he's really trumpeting. I haven't heard him proudly pointing out his record there. Anyways, it's quite possible the article and other commentary based on Dowd's statements and Bush's actions on the trail so far are misguided or just misinformed. Do you have evidence that Bush is focusing more on swing voters and independents than the base so far? I'd be interested to see it.

First of all, yes I do have evidence that they are appealing to moderate, swing voters...the convention lineup that I already mentioned (and you so quickly dismissed). To put 4 pro-choice Catholics, two of whom disagree with the President on "gay marriage" and other socially conservative issues, and McCain who the media sees as an independent, moderate icon, is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the moderate, swing voter (to the great displeasure of the base - look at the response from conservative columnists at NR, etc.)
Secondly, it's not an issue of focusing on one more than the other. Every election is about your base. This teary-eyed fetishization of the "undecided, swing voter" is ridiculous. None of them are paying any attention yet (polls always show that the "undecideds" never know what the heck is going on in the campaigns until after the conventions). All elections are about firing up your base and getting high turnout. It's what the R's did in 94, the Dems in 96, what neither side did in '00, what the R's did to historically unprecedented success in 02, and what they will hopefully do this time.

Thirdly, the idea that Bush is "trying to paint" Kerry and Edwards as liberal is so ridiculous I'm almost speechless. The National Journal rated Kerry as the most liberal senator, ahead of Kennedy. His voting record, along with Edwards, demonstrates that he voted along with liberal interests between 85-90 percent of the time. "Painting..."

First of all, yes I do have evidence that they are appealing to moderate, swing voters...the convention lineup that I already mentioned

Well, I didn't ask if you had evidence that Bush was trying to appeal to swing voters. That much is obvious. I wanted to know if you had any that would show he's *more* focused on them than on the base. So far, everything I've read suggests that their strategy is just the opposite, which you seem to agree with:

Every election is about your base. This teary-eyed fetishization of the "undecided, swing voter" is ridiculous. None of them are paying any attention yet (polls always show that the "undecideds" never know what the heck is going on in the campaigns until after the conventions). All elections are about firing up your base and getting high turnout.

The idea that "every election is about your base" is a bit surprising. Yes, they must be mobilized if you're going to have a chance of winning, but they're also votes you can more or less take for granted. The election, for good or ill, hinges on the ignorant undecided voters. That's what Clinton's triangulation was all about, as was Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Furthermore, the polls so far suggest that the winning candidate this year will be the one that appeals most to those swing votes.

Thirdly, the idea that Bush is "trying to paint" Kerry and Edwards as liberal is so ridiculous I'm almost speechless. The National Journal rated Kerry as the most liberal senator, ahead of Kennedy. His voting record, along with Edwards, demonstrates that he voted along with liberal interests between 85-90 percent of the time. "Painting..."

Allow me to reproduce a reader letter posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

I'm growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal's ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I'll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform).

Yes, they are both liberals, but not the wild-eyed fanatics that the Bush campaign would have us believe. Either way, I was a bit inexact in my comment. By stating that they were trying to paint them as liberals I meant more that they were trying to use liberal as an epithet and suggest that they're extreme, dangerous liberals. I think liberal and conservative should both be terms free of such associations, but the GOP has successfully imbued "liberal" with a lot of negative connotations. It's those connotations that the Bush campaign is trying to paint onto Kerry and Edwards. Sorry that I wasn't very precise on that point.

Btw, I realize that the numbers I posted pretty much coincide with your statement that Kerry votes for liberal interests 85-90% of the time, but the results from the National Journal study have been repeated so often in service of distorting Kerry's and Edwards's records that I thought it might be of some interest.

That was quite precise, and point by point...but what is your answer to the point about turnout. When I say "about your base," I mean getting a high base turnout (which decided those previous elections I mentioned). In addition, the fact that the undecided swing voters aren't paying attention yet seriously challenges the contention that he is ignoring them, since they are ignoring him. In the original post that you responded to, you asked if there was evidence that he was paying more attention to the swing contingent that to his base. Why would he ever do that? With the polarization in the electorate, his base represents the cast majority of the votes he will get. In addition (and I think sadly) the agenda of his first term leaves a lot of conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths, which means it's more crucial for Bush in particular to wake up and excite the choir.

cast=vast

Well, there's some evidence that he's maxed out his support among the base. See my later post on the topic. Even so, I think we may both be right. The campaign will certainly want to focus on swing voters more and more as the election nears, but for now seems to be trying to drive up support among the base. Whether that turns into actual votes will depend on how effective they are at motivating those voters to go to the polls. Even so, they're not enough to win. A successful long-term strategy is going to require them to shift focus. However, the fact that they are concentrating on that base support is a bit unorthodox. Compare the Bush campaign so far to Kerry's. He's clearly spent almost all of his time since locking up the nomination on trying to seduce independents, swing voters, and dissatisified moderate conservatives. He realizes that, even with enormous turnout from his base, it's not enough to win. It's a crucial component, but not necessarily the one most important in winning. The polarization between the two parties seems that it should mean it's more likely a candidate can benignly neglect his base to focus on the undecideds than the other way around. The true believers are likely to turn out either way. The fact that Bush is so focused on shoring up the base seems to suggest that they feel their support is weaker than it should be in that area. Conversely, Kerry's relative neglect of his base means he feels they will turn out more or less no matter what he says.

Btw, I read that NRO article on undecideds and largely agree. It's one thing to be open-minded when choosing candidates, but anyone who's been paying attention already knows where both Bush and Kerry stand, certainly to the extent that they should have been able to make up their mind by now.