Independents and the 08 Elections
Dan Balz writes at the Washington Post:
Five months after midterm elections that demonstrated the rising power of independent voters, conservative and liberal activists continue to drive the presidential campaign dialogue, deepening the red-blue divisions that have defined national politics for more than a decade.
The huge gulf between the two parties’ candidates is most evident on Iraq — a division reinforced last week by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who excoriated his Democratic rivals on the war. The top Republican contenders uniformly support President Bush’s troop buildup strategy; Democrats just as forcefully argue for starting to withdraw U.S. troops and a timetable for eventual removal of virtually all combat forces.
But the war is not the only area in which the candidates are at opposing poles of the debate. On issues such as taxes and spending, health care, and education, candidates are mostly taking their cue from — or trying to cozy up to — their respective ideological bases. In doing so, they risk embracing positions that could complicate later efforts to win the support of independent voters, whose votes will be crucial in November 2008.
Right now, that problem appears more acute for Republicans. At this point, polling indicates that independents do not fall at some midpoint between the parties; rather, they are far closer in their views to Democrats than Republicans, particularly on the dominant issue, the Iraq war. Their shift away from Bush was critical in the Democrats’ victories in November, and independents give no sign of moving back to the GOP.
Now, that looks good for the Democrats, but the Democrats have to be careful as well.
Key party strategists warn that the candidates are flirting with problems in the general election if they are not careful, particularly on the war. The intensifying standoff between congressional Democrats and the White House over funding for the war threatens to make that worse.
William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, a Clinton administration domestic policy adviser and an early opponent of the Iraq war, said his party should note that voters appear just as worried that Democrats would withdraw from Iraq too quickly as they are concerned that Republicans would stay there too long.
McCain pollster Bill McInturff explained why both parties try to appeal to the base, at this stage, and not to independents: “I’ve been in primaries where they have looked ahead to the general election; they tended not to be very successful.”
The two issues that could bring the democrats into trouble: as already mentioned Iraq and… health care.
As Balz (and his sources) points out, one should also remember that most candidates haven’t really formulated a domestic policy yet.
It will be interesting to see how and whether the Democratic candidates will be able to keep the base in check while they move a bit to the center. Furthermore, it will also be interesting to see how the Republican candidates try to distance themselves from Bush, without launching “a personal assault on the president” which the White House won’t tolerate.
38 Responses to “Independents and the 08 Elections”
There is little that can really get Democratic candidates into trouble. The Republican have managed to fail in such a spectacular fashion that it is becoming obvious that any Republican candidates will come out of the 2008 Republican convention as heavily damaged goods.
I also believe that the article massively overstates the importance of the independents. The Democrats know that going into the 20087 election, they will get 45% of the popular vote no matter who they nominate (short of Kucinich). The Democratic Party candidates only needs to pick up about 1/3 of the independent voters to win. If the Democrats and the Republicans splits the vote evenly, the Democratic candidate will when in a rout.
I think it is totally absurd that anything the Democrats can do that hastens our getting out of Iraq could hurt them. Its this type of thinking that infuriates me. The American public have given up on Iraq. Period. There is no “victory” that can be achieved. NONE. And even if the mainstream media typed don’t get it – the American public does.
Rob Emanuel says it brilliantly in his memo. I suggest that you read it in its entirety but here is a little snippet:
It is silly to buy into the Republican talking points that the Dems are in danger because of their Iraq positions. Absolutely furthest thing from the truth.
Proud Liberal,
Even though it has little to do with the 2008 elections, the problem with the Rep. Emanuel’s position is that it does not reflect what the proposals are in the 2007 DoD supplemental and basically argues that the U.S. should throw everyone in Iraq under the bus for political reasons.
A better argument would be that Iraq is hopeless broken, unfixable, and thus, the U.S. should pull out immediately without consideration of future events in Iraq. The basic arugment is that nothing that will happen in the future in Iraq will have any affect on the long term national interest of the U.S. and thus we should leave. Hiding behind poll numbers and councing policy proposals in terms of job approval numbers is the sign of a non-leader.
Sorry Joe, but anything said by the DLC triangulation crowd has any credibility anymore.
Events will illuminate this more as time goes by.
Plus if I had a nickel for every line posted on the TMV “Democrats must be careful”, Id be retired by now.
Wasn’t true the first time it got posted, not true now.
The only thing Democrats need to be careful of is getting left behind through timidity.
Its not just the base that is getting sick of their fecklessness.
And the idiot blue-dogs are just asking for some nice primary challenges.
Ask traitor Joe how poo-pooing the activists worked out for him.
should have added a does not have any credibility anymore.
My bad
For a complete contrast to Joes cautious opinion read Krugman
link
Snarky,
Actually things worked out better in the end for Lieberman than for Lamont, didn’t they? And that’s the point; the more extremist left positions play well to certain segments but not to the general population and you don’t get elected simply by playing to the base (or if you do, as in the case recently with the GOP, your time is short lived and your base politics will come back to bite you.)
Nope, this drama isn’t played out yet.
Lieberman is tied to the war forever, and as the war winds down he will before ever known as wrong.
And the idiots in CT will probably enjoy watching their champion bankbenched in 08.
I can’t recall were any other suppossed democrat won their seat through majority Republican support.
Oh, and how did that election work out for the Republican canidate?
All I ever wanted was that (D) removed from droopy so he couldnt go on pumpkinheads show anymore and stab all the other Dems in the back in his smarmy little way.
That worked out fine. Its the idiots in CT that can reap the benefits of reduced representation and the shame have having personally extended the war, there bye killing a whole lot more young Americans than would have been the case.
Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than pandering to the mushy middle.
Which incidentally seems to be shrinking as more and more people realize there is something bigger here than Dems vs Repubs.
So no regrets
Well, Snark, that depends on your definition of doing the right thing. And I don’t understand this comment at all:
If people do in fact realize there is something bigger than Dems vs. Republicans, then that is even more reason for politicians to stop catering to those who see it in those polarizing terms and to start seeking more centrist, pragmatic solutions to problems.
Here is a juicy tidbit from Krugman
C Stanley-
My definition of the right thing is to deal with the world the way it is, not how we wish or imagine it to be.
The world is divided into two kinds of people.
Those who do, and those who sit around and watch those who do and talk smack about it.
Now on one side we have a crowd that actually is quite accomplished at doing something, I’ll give the Bushies that.
Unfortunatly what they are doing only benefits them and their syncophants.
Probably not even the sycophants really, but that is neither here nor there
Now on the other side you have people that doing things, mainly trying to correct the narrative and undue the damage. A heavy load, and one they have been carrying pretty much by themselves.
Even worse, the have endured the do-nothings taunts and reflection that the passion they have for doing this good work is some how ‘bad’.
So not only do the doers who are trying like hell to put us on the right road have the original load to carry, the also have the do-nothing crap talkers to drag along also.
The same do-nothings that have given the evil-doers(he he) a pass for going on about 5 years now.
But a lot of what used to be independents are starting to realize the old maxim of ” all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”.
Also, a lot of independents have ralized how disastrous their vote in 04 turned out to be, and are starting to realize just how much they were gamed.
And they are getting pissed too.
The center is really far to the left of were we are now, and untill we get back to the true center, the DLC crowd is not only irrelevant, they are harmful.
Liberals and true conservatives can and are banding together to undue the damage.
Nobody who is claiming to be a Republican can lay claim to being a conservative, although some people still try to thread that needle.
But for right now, the only party that stands in opposition to the doers of evil are the Democrats. The only entity that is willing to do oversight is the Democrats. This is not my wild eyed partisan opinion, this is the truth of the matter.
The problem you have in seeing this is that the reality you hold in your conscience is not correct.
Untill you revamp your reality to more closely match actual reality, you will never see it.
I am not trying to be critical, I am honestly trying to enlighten you.
Take it for what its worth.
I don’t see this as “political maneuvering” but rather the Democrats determined to stop a war and our out of control president, while the elected republican population meanders stunned and confused.
Snarky,
You can’t enlighten me unless you are willing to shine the light on your guys as well. What a crock Krugman is putting out in that paragraph you quote. On both of the issues he points to, the Democrats garner a majority of opinion in opposition to the status quo but they can’t get the ball down the field because public opinion is split on what to actually do to change the status quo. There’s a broad consensus on wanting the Iraq war to be over but very little support for the far left view of an abrupt withdrawal. There’s also a broad consensus for reforming our healthcare system but the votes for this are split between reforming a private healthcare system and making it into a govt run program.
Ironically these same dilemmas have plagued the GOP: support for reform of social security without enough support for any one particular way of reforming it, and support for fixing immigration policy without agreement on how to fix it.
On one level it’s actually entertaining for me as a conservative to give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves; go ahead, assume you have a mandate when all you really have is a lot of people angry with the status quo, and let’s see how that works out for ya. On the other hand though, I really am not that much of a partisan because I’d prefer that the moderate Dems will actually trump those to the left in order to implement some positive changes.
White agent: what exactly are the Democrats doing to stop the war?
I never said Americans as a whole aren’t psychotic. Hell, the whole Republican pitch is you can have all your services and not pay any taxes.
And they have been selling that crock for quite a while.
Everything Krugman says true whether you want to believe it or not.
Americans may want what they want, but it doesn’t mean thats whats going to happen.
Today Al Sadr withdrew from the Shady Malaki goverment, which is now the beggining of the end game.
I personally think Americans wont get any choice in the matter. What will be will be.
We made a really bad choice in 04, and we will reap what we sowed with that decision.
You are still believing we can do what ever we want, make anything become true by just believing in it hard enough.
You are wrong.
Well, they are trying to tie the end of the war to funding, and being resisted at every turn by Republican toadies and cooperate loving blue dog democrats.
What exactly are the Republicans doing to stop the war?
Oh thats right, their plan is to stay the indefinitely.
Your self-rightousness is starting to wear C Stanley.
Snarky,
No, what Krugman says is not true and you came close to admitting it but then you backpedalled. Americans know what they don’t want and the Dems right now are doing a good job at capitalizing on that sentiment; but what they don’t know is what they want as an alternative and the Dems can’t provide a unified idea on that either.
And in saying that I am wrong, you are making a caricature out of my beliefs. What specifically am I wrong about?
Incorrect. Krugman is not wrong and I did not back pedal. I merely stated that a large segment of the population is phsycotic..
The don’t know what they want as an alternative? How about not being in Iraq.
What Americans really want is to have not stepped in the sh*tpile to begin with. They are holding out for a time machine to make it so.
The problem is Dems can’t come come up with a plan to take us back and undo this mess.
Whenever Americans wake up and smell the coffee, then we can have a plan. As long as so many Americans are delusional, aint nothing going to happen.
First rule, when you find yourself in a whole, quit digging. Stupidty might be defined as continuing to dig while discussing at what point we should stop digging. The whole point will become mute when the hole caves in and buries us all.
Your belief that we can just go back to the consensus government we used to have and everything will be just dandy is whats wrong. You fail to understand we are bitterly divided by intent, that things have been said and done that cant be undone.
Much of this damage will have to be undone before that is a remote possibility. And flopping around wondering whether we should leave now, or later is a luxury we cant afford.
All this is coming, and those with their fingers in their ears are going to need a lot of Prozac
Ah, well, Snarky, fine, instead of actually discussing you choose to call me self righteous. I guess I’ll sit back and attempt to learn humility from you; I’ll start by reviewing this bit above:
I’m glad that you have reached this pinnacle which is above my self righteous blathering about the actual, you know, issue at hand. I think I’m getting the idea now; declare yourself to be right, declare that the world is divided into those who are right (by definition, yourself) and those who “talk smack”, and then declare anyone whose views differ from yours as self righteous. By dividing ourselves this way, of course, we save time from actually having to prove the merits of our position. Gee, how useful.
The point is that GOP voters don’t want to end the war until we can salvage some stability. And the post was about the political ramifications of playing to the base; that means that this question of what to do to end the war applies to the Democratic party. They got into office on a platform of ending the war, so the ball’s in their court. As you rightly point out, they are divided though between the anti-war and the blue dogs. What you seem to miss is that the electorate is also divided and calling Lieberman and the Blue Dogs toadies doesn’t change the fact that the US isn’t as a whole united around the idea of getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences.
The fact is that the “radical” base of the Democratic party is exactly where most Americans stand on most issues today, especially on Iraq and health care. Note that positions staked out by Dems in D.C. today are much bolder than they were a few years ago and that’s because they are being driven by the base. In return, they see their approval numbers constantly trouncing those of the Republicans and their postions precisely because what the Democratic base wants is what most Americans want.
This nonsense of “Democrats have to be careful” and the “Democrats have to keep their base in check” is chicken shit talk. It’s all euphemisms for “Sit still and do nothing” and that kind of hand wringing is exactly what our country DOES NOT need.
Well C Stanley, I can see you are bound and determined not to see anything you don’t want to see.
Continue on then, and be surprised as the conversation and events go on with out you.
You did manage to inject the same kind of tone that my stepmother manages to work up every time somebody disagrees with her.
I was willing to explain everything I said in explicit detail, but I see you’d rather play the victim as seems to be the armor for most Republicans when ever they get over their head rhetorically.
Really, if you don’t want to hear the answer, don’t ask the question.
BTW, as to my creds about those who do vs. those who talk smack about them, I learned all that in the hot sun in Crawford Texas at camp Casey being spit on by drunken members of your tribe.
I am one of those that do, and I am damn sure tired of dragging all the rest of the so called citizens along with me.
I am really close to the point where I don’t think America deserves what our fathers died to give us.
You never will.
So what plan B?
C. Stanley
Stability in Iraq will not be established with an American military presence. That has become painfully obvious to all but the most deluded or Kool aid drunk. Taking our troops out of Iraq is not the same thing as abandoning Iraq. We need a whole new strategy for dealing with that country, one that involves economic and diplomatic approaches and not just more troops, mercenaries and mega billion dollar boondoggles for the oil industry.
Do you think that when substantial majorities of Iraquis say that they want our troops out and, even worse, that it’s OK to kill American soldiers, that we are anywhere near to establishing any sort of stabilty in the country with our military presence? It simply defies logic.
And what about our troops? What do all these extended tours of duty do to the lives and marriages of those that manage to survive and someday (God knows when) come home? And, finally, if it’s that important to you – sign up and suit up. There are plenty of guys over there, I’m sure, who would love to trade places with one of the many cheerleaders here at home.
Snarky,
I can see that your hiatus hasn’t led to a change in tactics: you throw out a personal insult and then when I call you on it you say that I’m playing the victim. I’m not harmed by your comment in the least but I pointed it out to show how the actual discussion is harmed because slinging insults at each other really doesn’t shine any light. I guess it serves some purpose for you, but I’ll pass.
Rob,
The radical left positions align with a lot of voters in terms of what the problems are, but not necessarily with what their proposed solutions are. If you believe otherwise, obviously I won’t convince you but we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out to see which of us is correct. It seems pretty apparent to me that the freshman class of Democrats got elected in moderate districts, but if you want to push for them to be more radical then it will be interesting to see what would follow in ’08.
Rob and Snarky,
I have no idea where you are formulating your opinions about what my opinions are. You both seem to have a preconcieved idea of what I believe our Iraq policy should be. I certainly haven’t stated my beliefs about it here other than to imply that I don’t favor the far left proposal of abrupt withdrawal. But many of the things you are arguing against and attributing to me are not my positions, so please stop putting words into my mouth.
Thats not the argument I made, and you know it. Read it again, your missing the point.
I’m not saying your a bad person, or that I’m always right.
I long for the good old days when we had a consensus government that worked for the American people, and it would be great to get back to that.
Tell me how we get to there?
I don’t think its possible right now, and I think you have been deceived by the leaders of party and your tribe.
My dad is a full blown ditto-head, and I can’t understand it because he is really a good person.
But he will never ever see anything he doesn’t want to see. The quality of his life is suffering as a result, and its frustrating to watch.
If I got a little bit personal, I apologize. I guess I am talking to him through you by proxy.
I said before, you play a valuable role by being the other side of the coin.
I guess I would just hope you didn’t believe everything your side tells you.
Believe me, no one is harder on the Dems than people like myself. It keeps em honest and makes em better.
Its what your party needs more of, and a lot less blind obedience.
If you want to know why I feel you were pretty self-rightous, its is the “what are the Dems doing to end the war” comment.
People like me are busting our guts to do this and being screwed at every turn.
What you said just feels like a pile on.
Well, Snarky, now I feel like you are putting it in a way that we can actually get somewhere. I’m sorry if the comment that you mention felt like a pile on (you might note that I directed that comment to White Agent, and if you look at his comment above that perhaps you can see why I said it).
I can sympathize with your point of view. You are obviously frustrated that the majority doesn’t agree with your view, and you want the Democrats that agree with you to have enough power or enough cajones to implement the policy that you believe is the right one. The reason I took such issue with your statement about me being self righteous though is that the way you state your opinion about what needs to be done is as though it is the only possible one for any intelligent person to have. If that isn’t the definition of self righteous, then I don’t know what is. In other words, I understand that you are stating your opinion this way out of passion and conviction that you are right, but if you really do want to convince people then you can’t do that by insulting them or saying that our government needs to act in the way that you believe is right even if there isn’t a consensus to support your view. Since you are so sure that withdrawal is the correct policy, state your case and tell me why. Tell me what you think would happen afterward if we do that, and try to convince me that no other course of action would be better.
And about your dad: I guess to me it feels like you are projecting your feelings toward him onto me. Did I say anything here that channelled Rush Limbaugh? I’m critical of the Democrats but I think (and hope) that that’s where the comparison ends. If you are going to argue with all conservatives that way, well, you aren’t going to bring many of us around to your way of thinking.
So if what I said (to White Agent) felt to you like a pile on, well, likewise, what you, White Agent and Rob have said to me felt that way to me as well. But hey, let’s not play victims, OK?
And Snarky, all that I’m really trying to say about the Democrats is that their current situation is because of the division among the electorate. The way I saw it, you and others here were arguing that this isn’t true (as in the Krugman quote), that the voters were united behind a withdrawal plan. My argument is that no, there is no such unity. You nailed it, actually, when you said that what voters really want is to turn back the clock. But as far as any plan based on reality, it doesn’t exist.
So I’m not calling the Democrats names or dissing them, I’m just saying that they really can’t do much because of the political reality, and if we believe in the workings of democracy we sort of have to accept that even if it’s terribly frustrating when we don’t think the majority ‘gets it’.
Nice strawman. Read the Iraq funding bills much?
I don’t want you to think the way I think C, I love diversity of thought.
I want you to get busy reforming that cesspool your party has become. I like a two party system, and you should too.
The Republicans keep letting Bush drive them over a cliff, there wont be a two party system anymore.
I got the Democrats handled from this end.
It was noted:
> What a crock Krugman is putting out
> in that paragraph you quote.
That’s typical for Krugman, to the point where anyone who quotes or relies on him is being self-disqualifying.
> The radical left positions align with a
> lot of voters in terms of what the
> problems are, but not necessarily with
> what their proposed solutions are.
True. And it’s merely coincidental that ending the occupation in Iraq and having government intervene in health care happen to be shared currently by the mainstream as well as by radicals, at this particular moment.
DLS-
Wrong, but even if you right, it doesn’t matter. We will have enough time to break up the News monopolies, show the American public what good Governance looks like, and run every last Bushie out of the goverment.
I’m starting to love me some Straussian world view, and you guys deserve it back in your face tenfold.
Time to reap what was sown, and expect no mercy.
I predict all you professional victims will start crying like little girls in seconds flat.
And the very second the first Tim McVeigh wannabes sets off the first bomb (and they will) in 09, the Dems should use every tool given to them by you guys by the patriot act to go after right wing terrorist groups.
You know, like the Heritage Foundation and Fox news.
It was said:
> Wrong,
I am right; you are wrong. This isn’t the first time…
> but even if you right, it doesn’t
> matter. We will have enough time
> to break up the News monopolies,
They’re almost all liberal. They’d be on your side.
> show the American public what
> good Governance looks like,
To date the Dims are toxic waste. They also are currently incoherent in their opposition to the Bush administration and the Congressional GOP. But you do have over a year and a half to go before the big election.
> and run every last Bushie out of the goverment.
Except those who are sufficiently deferential and say they were not really supporters of Bush. (Nobody questions the fate of the Bush people in the executive branch.)
> I’m starting to love me some
> Straussian world view, and you
> guys deserve it back in your
> face tenfold.
Not another “neocon” conspiracist-cult rant… *sigh*
> Time to reap what was sown,
> and expect no mercy.
You’re also being delusional, as well as showing the viciousness of the Left. OK. Not really surprising.
> I predict all you professional victims
That’s your role.
> will start crying like little girls in seconds flat.
Projection?
> And the very second the first
> Tim McVeigh wannabes sets off
> the first bomb (and they will)
OK, if you say so.
> in 09, the Dems should use
> every tool given to them by
> you guys by the patriot act
> to go after right wing terrorist
> groups.
Like the KKK? Oh, nooooooo,
> You know, like the Heritage
> Foundation and Fox news.
Fox, eh? Well, liberals in and out of the media look at Fox as being a traitor and a heretic for not being liberal like the rest. (Would you stone to death anyone you “convict”?) And after all, you’re on the fringe where the antagonistic, obstructionist Dims are excoriated by you as being not vile enough toward the demon Bush. (And the Media? Subject to “Counter-Spin” [sic; additional-liberal-spin] by radical FAIR, whose name is a lie? Oh, yes, Fox News is a demon.)
Heritage? Well, the term for that and other organizations does have “think” in it, which you find antithetical.
What’s next, requiring the recital of Krugman’s BS as a new citizenship test or suffrage poll test along with a suitably leftist loyalty oath? Or “better,” Chomsky’s BS?
Heh.
Gosh, now we are vicious? I thought we were spineless wimps?
Not only are you guys clowns, your piss poor ones at that.
At least the circus variety can stay on script.
Except for a bunch of I’m right because Rush told me I was, I am having a hard time making heads or tales of you aimless rant.
Id like to respond to your points, but you don’t have any.
Pay attention kids, this is what happens to your brain on Oxcycontin, even by proxy.
BTW, here is something for you to choke on
Public trusts Dems over Bush to handle Iraq, 58% to 33%
So much for that disastrous trip to Syria, huh?
You guys are just a laugh a minute.
> Id like to respond to your points, but you don’t have any.
As factual as correctly punctuated — no surprise.
I know who you are now.
We have tangled before.
You’re the guy who uses grammar mistakes to try to negate peoples points.
A cheap tactic for someone trying to push a Loser agenda.
Whatever floats your boat.
We’re done.
Speaking as someone who has been an unaffiliated voter my entire life, it never once entered my mind that the Democrats might bring the troops home too quickly. On the contrary, I am skeptical that they will bring them home at all. I predict the campaign slogan for the Democrats will be “The only way to get the troops home is to elect a Democratic President.” I won’t be buying that slogan. I don’t believe in one-party rule, regardless of which party it might be. If the Democrats can’t wrap this up before 2008, they have no hope of getting my vote.
As for the whole idea of ending the war “too quickly,” here’s what this unaffiliated voter would be perfectly happy with. An order is issued to the soldiers in Iraq that says, “This war is over. You are free to pick up whatever you can carry, leave what you can’t, and proceed in an orderly manner to the Kuwait border for transport home. You have up to six months to evacuate. During this period, you may choose to continue to carry out your assigned duties, and we will continue to supply and support you as we have thus far. After that, you are on your own.”
Too quickly. Democrats. Yeah, right.