When dissecting the future of the Democratic Party, and what our vision should be, I am always caught by the idea that the idyllic candidate whose values are pure are often not "a fit for the district." And that broadens out into the National debate. It's hard to look at any candidate without some sort of reference to what voters said candidate would appeal to. Which led me to ask: who do you consider the target audience for a candidate?
Basic assumptions write off about 40% of the population as solidly GOP, and the other 40% as solidly Democratic, leaving the middle 20% the favored swing voters that turn any election. Newer assumptions say that 20% will break reasonably evenly, and any major difference can be countered by turnout in the 40% base. The main difference between these two approaches is that they look for candidates with a different target audience.
So, rather than dissect who one's ideal candidate should be, I think it is a more pertinant question to ask, what audience does a candidate ideally appeal to? Where are the votes coming from that will generate a win, and what do these voters look like?
My generic target voter is best personified by a friend of mine. He lives in Appalachia, went to college, but was one of the few of his friends to do so. He loves the country, and his goal in life is to "make do" and live in the county he grew up in, or at least in the country. Living in the concrete jungle of Northern Virginia is his definition of hell. He likes to take long drives in the countryside for fun. He dislikes bullshit. He comes from a family of staunch, but not unreasonable, Republicans. He thinks Bush is bullshit. He finds wingnuts absurd. He tends a little bit libertarian, because he takes great pride in his independence. He is dependent on nobody. He is pro-choice, but uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. He becomes upset when it is implied that men do not have a say in decisions regarding children. He thinks it's a bad thing. He thinks it is used irresponsibly. But he does think it should be legal, in the end. He doesn't like that in order to stay in his home county, he has to give up on the kind of jobs he went to college to qualify for. He likes "straight shooters". He thinks partisanship is bullshit. He thinks the war is bullshit, although he supported it in 2003, and still is uncomfortable with talk of withdrawal. He likes "characters". He looks for a kind of maverick style to candidates. Slickness smacks of, you guessed it, bullshit. He thinks health care should be cheaper. He hates the difference between gross and net income on his paycheck. He shops at Walmart, and thinks that the "anti-corporate" liberals have the luxury of money to shop at independent stores. But he does not like corporations and slick executives getting major kickbacks. He likes bluegrass, country, rock, and hip hop. His favorite song right now is the bluegrass version of "Gin and Juice" by the Gourds. He lives paycheck to paycheck, but would never consider himself poor, even if he can't afford some very basic things, like the cost of a movie ticket.
Obviously, adjustments are made per district. For example, in the suburbs and on in, ethnicity becomes more of an issue, the voters become more interested in detailed plans, smoother along the edges. Wear suits instead of flannels on the campaign trail. Appeal to different attributes. But when I think of a national candidate, he is the barometer I use. When I think of who I think the party should appeal more to, I think it should appeal to people like him, whose support for the Republican party is paper thin and superficial, and is only there because, well, it's not like Democrats have been making the case, and his family has a history with the Republican party. He is frustrated. He is willing to give Democrats a shot. He is looking for someone to believe in who will deliver resutls. He might've believed in Bush at one point, because Bush looked like he understood his people, and could feel at home on a farm, but he's incompetant and doesn't listen, and his entire party is just a rubber stamp. Not listening is a cardinal sin, as is being a rubber stamp.
This shapes my vision for the party. Where I see us being more competitive, how I see us being victorious after this slump. This shapes the races I give money to, the candidates I promote, and the ideals I spout. This determines the issues I focus on, and the ones I send to the backburner.
I am curious as to what other people see as their target. Do you see yourself? Do you see women? What income bracket?
If you think about it from the bottom up, I don't think the question of where the Democratic party should go is nearly as hard as it seems from the outset. And you can do it district by district. You can say, what is the character of this district and find a candidate to match instead of the other way around. And you can be a big tent. I think in the crazed effort to nationalize the debate and the elections and politics, it is too easy to forget that you can't just appeal to "voters" in the general, nationalized sense. Everyone appeals to type of voter. Each voter represents a person. When politicians say "Americans want...." then my response is describe which American you're talking about. Because otherwise, it's a blanket statement with little actual practical outcome attached.
So, I'm curious, kossacks, when you say "the American people", what do your people look like?