Are “attracted” voters really worth more than “chased” voters?
The thesis at the heart of all my recent posts has been that "attracted" voters are inherently more valuable to a campaign than "chased" voters. I look at recent history and see the lackluster performance of Democrats during midterm elections, and mentally discount a chased voter to some fraction of a voter while I mentally add a premium to attracted voters.
So, let's say each voter that the DNC manages to frighten into thinking about voting is worth .95 eventual votes and every teabag that is inspired by the teabag nonsense is worth 1.05 future votes. On election day a vote is a vote, but over the course of a campaign the marginal difference between the chased and the attracted must add up. Right? ...




![Wednesday Open Thread [3.26.14] – The DL Common Core Edition](https://delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Common-Core.png)

