Nov 06 2009
They’re independent voters because they don’t share anybody else’s philosophy
This past week’s elections were widely chewed over, nearly as much as 2008, when a president, most of Congress and thousands of state legislators and governors were up for election. This was mainly at the behest of the right-wing media, which is desperate to shake the loser image their side has over the past two federal elections, and they’ll take the election of two Republican governors on mostly likeability and local issues grounds to do their “U-S-A!!!!” dance. (Of course, they will argue the two special congressional elections that went for Democrats are meaningless, when they deign to mention them at all.)
The big buzz out of all the coverage, particularly the mainstream media, has been the significance of the independent voter. It’s a reasonable conclusion; in the gubernatorial elections, independents broke hard for the Republican candidates. Unfortunately, the resulting analysis of this situation has been half-baked at best, with pundits describing independent voters as some sort of cohesive political force whose turn to the GOP is some sort of harbinger for the real elections next year. This isn’t quite insane, but it is silly.
There is no such thing as a typical independent voter in the United States. Many of our cable news shouters, as well as our editorial page bloviators, are quick to conflate independent voters with centrists. There is no evidence to suggest this has any validity. Consider our two “independent” U.S. senators, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Sanders is an actual self-described socialist, while Lieberman caucuses with Democrats and votes with Republicans. See any continuity of belief systems there? (I’ll let others characterize the two men further.)
I’ve followed elections for longer than I care to admit, and here are a few things I’ve noticed about independent voters. It’s true that, in general, they have no great love for either the Democratic or Republican parties. Indeed, I tend to agree with that assessment. But for every independent voter, there’s a different reason why this is so — and few of those reasons have to do with political science.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people who describe themselves as independent voters actually aren’t anything of the kind. They have easy-to-characterize political beliefs, from wild-eyed liberalism to batshit Glenn Beck followers. The realities of following a particular party’s banner, however, don’t suit them for one reason or another, usually because maintaining a broad-based party requires compromises that either don’t interest them or actively repel them. (NY-23, anybody?) My own wife switched from Democrat to Independent after years of seeing her preferred candidates for federal office lose in the primary. She asked what was the point of having a primary vote if it didn’t mean anything. I don’t completely agree, but I do understand.
Of course, at this point I’m talking about independent voters who actually do have coherent political beliefs. I’d say the majority of independents are either frustrated Democrats or Republicans. There may even be a few independents who are actively centrist — people who still think both parties have important things to say. This notion, however, seems to have overwhelmed the punditry, despite the fact that it isn’t a true reflection of who independents are.
But a significant number of registered independents are simply independent of Beltway definitions of what constitutes a political world view. There are folks who would be solid Democrats in most of their beliefs, except they don’t like social minorities. There are liberals who prefer the Republican view of small government and military adventurism. There are folks who are fixated on a single issue, like abortion, war, immigration or gun control, who don’t want to compromise their vision and therefore have little use for politicians who will give ground on those pet beliefs. There are folks who register independent just to get out of voting in primaries in general. And there are independents who don’t even register to vote.
What pundits are clumsily recognizing this week is that independents are far more likely to be swing voters than are registered Democrats or Republicans. The deepening polarization of the electorate and the purification of party rosters has seen to that. So if independents are choosing Republicans in half of a very small number of closely watched off-year elections, where last year independents chose Democrats in hundreds of federal elections, it may be a trend, or at least a harbinger. But considering Virginia has chosen its governors from the opposite party of the president for at least 20 years, and that normally Democratic New Jersey simply hated Jon Corzine’s guts, I wouldn’t want to make any predictions based on such a small data set.
Indeed, NY-23 would be a far more significant result, assuming you ascribe much weight to Tuesday’s results, which I don’t. After all, a Democrat won that seat for the first time since before the Civil War. And this despite the attention of national Republicans who did everything possible to prosecute the election on national issues. You had Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck calling out the teabagger horde to smack down both a Democrat and a popular Republican candidate who was perceived to be too liberal. They did make a third party candidate look pretty good — but New York state has a Liberal and a Conservative party in addition to Dems and Republicans, and in most cases the Libs endorse the Dem and the Conservatives rubber-stamp the GOP. In this case they didn’t — and in doing so, the so-called “braintrust” of the teabaggers helped elect the Democrat. In the wake of the election, the teabag contingent professes its efforts a “success” and plan to widen their effforts. If I were a Democratic candidate, I’d be working to make sure teabaggers were doing exactly what they did in NY-23 to my opponent.
Facts are stubborn things. During the 2008 elections, Democrats showed off the fact that Independents, in huge numbers, went their way. Now that over 60 percent of them voted for the Republican in New Jersey and Virginia, according to you, its no big deal. Typical spin. You probably believe that losing two states that voted for Obama was a win like Pelosi.
Well Scotty, two things. One, I pointed out that 2008, with 435 House elections, 33 Senate elections, and a presidential election is not roughly comparable to two governor’s elections and two special congressional elections. Both congressional elections, by the way were won by Democrats, one in a Democratic district and the other in a Republican district.
I notice you didn’t mention the congressional elections, and what you said about losing two states that voted for Obama being a win not only isn’t true of me, it IS true of your teabagging brethren who called losing NY-23 to a Democrat a “win.” I pointed out that the governors’ races swung on local issues — Obama, after all, continues to have positive approval ratings in both of those states, in the high 50s.
Second, I did point out that independents do matter. Remember this part of the post: “What pundits are clumsily recognizing this week is that independents are far more likely to be swing voters than are registered Democrats or Republicans. The deepening polarization of the electorate and the purification of party rosters has seen to that.”
I guess its better to be called that than being an Obama “fluffer” like yourself! Obama traveled 5 times to New Jersey and 3 times to Virginia because…?
The Democratic spin was that these were not important. Only important enough to waste taxpayer money to make 8 unimportant trips. That’s what the “teabaggers” are sick of. Our government spending the money they steal from us.
As far as the “local issues” claim. Polling showed that the economy was the number one factor. I guess you believe it has nothing to do with Obama’s economy which is a national issue?
And yet Obama’s approval ratings are above 55 percent in both New Jersey and Virginia. You’re just going around in circles.
You clearly missed the “Daily Show” where Jon Stewart played video of Ari Fleischer on Fox saying that this week’s gubernatorial elections were the most significant thing that ever happened and it’s a great defeat for Democrats and Obama. Then he played video of Fleischer in November 2001 saying that when Democrats won those same two gubernatorial elections, it all had to do with local issues.
Finally, you also missed the Fox News poll in which people attributed the crap economy to Bush far more than to Obama.
Wow, mentioning the Daily Show (not a real news show) and Fox News (which you and the White House have claimed not to be real news show) to make a point? I laughed when I read that talking point Sal.
Guess you missed the video on YouTube of Rahm Emanuel claiming victory in New Jersey and Virginia as huge wins for Obama and the democratic governors?
Also, did you know that the Fox News polls are…hold it..wait for it…not scientific??
I got one for you. Notice how the economy and unemployment became big issues after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate. Under Bush, unemployment was 7.6 % (2008) and the estimated total was 5.6 % for all 8 years of his presidency. Under Obama, and after the stimulus scam, we are at 10.2% (10 months). But I guess Bush is responsible for Obama’s failed stimulus plan huh?
The difference between “The Daily Show” and Fox News is that, for items to work on “The Daily Show,” they have to have a kernel of truth in them to be funny. No such constraint troubles Fox News. Oh, wait, it looks like you agree with me when you say “did you know that the Fox News polls are…hold it..wait for it…not scientific??” Or is it that they’re not scientific when they prove YOU wrong? As for the economy being a problem when Democrats took over Congress, I refer you back to the “unscientific” poll.
I have no idea what you’re talking about that there’s a YouTube of Rahm saying anything about the 2009 governor races. If there was such a thing, wouldn’t it show up in this link?
If you look at my articles, you will see that I don’t use Fox News for any of my information. Fox News is up front when the inform the viewers that their polls are not scientific. Thats a major difference from MSNBC and CNN, which tend to call more voters who a registered Democrats.
You can refer back to the poll but it means nothing. You have ranted about Fox News and now you want me to look at their unscientific poll to prove what?
Obama and his administration have proven that their followers are idiots who can’t tell the difference between opinion shows and real news.
Unemployment started to increase after the Dems took control. They had the power to vote Yes or No on any of the Bush policies. Nobody needs a poll to show the truth. Just have to use facts and common sense.
Obama is at 52 % in popularity polls but the majority of the public disagrees with his policies….according to CNN/CBS/WSJ/MSNBC/Fox/Rassmussen polls. What until this health care passes (if at all). The numbers will really begin the free-fall.
Oh, you’re going to lord it over me that YOU don’t use Fox News? What a ludicrous proposition, considering the majority of your talking points originate there. The fact that I cited a Fox News poll in Obama’s favor just goes to show that even Fox News was unable to spin the fact that Americans think America’s economic problems are the fault of George W. Bush — not the Democratic Congress as you so disingenuously claimed earlier in this thread. The whole point of Fox peddling “unscientific” polls is so they can push GOP propaganda out their puke funnel — and yet they couldn’t spin this particular question, the answer to which has been the crux of your whole series of comments on this post. The Democratic Congress didn’t do much of anything in its first two years because Bush suddenly found his veto pen, so give it up already. Bush owns the economic collapse, both on a factual level and in the arena of public opinion.
Just to move this discussion in a different direction….
“I’d say the majority of independents are either frustrated Democrats or Republicans. There may even be a few independents who are actively centrist — people who still think both parties have important things to say.”
Polling shows that most independent voters identify with a fiscally conservative but socially liberal ideology. I wouldn’t necessarily say that most independents are frustrated former Dems and Pubs, but more that the majority are frustrated with the workings of both of the Dems and Pubs.
Which seems fair enough to me. The G.O.P. has become so out of touch and obsessed with power it’s ridiculous, and thousand-plus page bills are required for the Democratic caucus to ever reach a consensus. All too often people are forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”
http://www.newsday.today.com/
Independent’s don’t discriminate. They hate and or fight against EVERYTHING and everyone with a good exucse to blame it on everything and everyone else but themselves. They are chicken chicks, so to speak, who just like to fight and need to be right all the time, so that whom ever fails and which ever side is proven wrong, the Independent can say, “I told you so,” some day. It’s an ego need to believe, “it’s all about me,” I guess.
As someone who considers themselves independent-minded I would love to be able to stop saying “I told you so.”
I don’t think most independents even WANT to be right about what they’re saying… Case in point, the budget defecit, which by the CBO’s own estimates will reach 148% of our GDP in 10 years. Our debt will be worth 1.5 times as much as our entire country’s economic output….
Dear lord I hope I’m not saying I told you so about this one….
A lot of solid party-goers on the left and the right can’t stand independents. They try to lump them all into one category, like Sal pointed out so does the media… but there is no independent consensus. Even in libertarian circles (my personal philosophy) my political views vary greatly from another libertarian-minded candidate, Ron Paul (i’m probably closer to Dennis Kucinich than anything, DK is amazing). Independents are struggling to find a candidate on the right or left that will agree with maybe 30% of what they agree with.
The reality is that if you don’t carry the independents in America, you aren’t going to win. They may be a funny fickle group at times, but it would do both parties well to pay attention to their interests.