Study: Diverse Independent Voters Could Swing 2008 Race
A new, comprehensive study of independent voters by the Washington Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University has bad news for both parties, but better news for the Democrats:
(1) The Republicans continue to lose independent voter support.
(2) Independent voter unhappiness with Washington and both parties could bolster a strong independent, third party candidate.
The details:
The study is a comprehensive examination of a broad segment of the electorate — about three in 10 voters call themselves independents — that is poised to play the role of political power broker in 2008. Independents split their votes between President Bush and Kerry in 2004 but shifted decisively to the Democrats in 2006, providing critical support in the Democratic takeover of the House and the Senate.
The new survey underscores the Republican Party’s problems heading into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a clear victory in Iraq.
So can the Democrats breathe a sigh of relief? Not really:
The power of independents could also be felt in other ways next year. The survey found frustration with political combat in Washington and widespread skepticism toward the major parties — perhaps enough to provide the spark for an independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
Seventy-seven percent of independents said they would seriously consider an independent presidential candidate, and a majority said they would consider supporting Bloomberg, whose recent shift in party registration from Republican to unaffiliated stoked speculation about a possible run in 2008.Strategists and the media variously describe independents as “swing voters,” “moderates” or “centrists” who populate a sometimes-undefined middle of the political spectrum. That is true for some independents, but the survey revealed a significant range in the attitudes and the behavior of Americans who adopt the label.
Please note that we’ve repeatedly said this about reaction to this site: being a “moderate” or “independent” does NOT mean coming down lockstep on an issue with other moderates. Some may be center, center-left and center right and vary, depending on the issue. And there is not an opinion poll that shows that independent voters and/or moderates think totally alike on any given issue.
The study underscores this diversity of independent and moderate thought as well:
The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.
What they share is an aversion to party labels. As Adele Starrs, an editor from Columbia, N.J., put it, “I can’t go down either side.”
My personal experience:
I have been in both parties and at different times in my life on the left and on the right. I was recently asked by someone to affiliate with an independent movement. My reply was that at this point, having been in both parties, I’m going to remain independent and won’t even sign up for that. I’ll even remain independent of belonging to an organized independent group.
BUT this doesn’t mean that I look down my snoot at people who ARE Democrats, Republicans, proud liberals and proud conservative.
And there is a TRAP that independents (and moderates fall into).
Jonathan Chait, writing the TRB column called “Bloomsday” in The New Republic, calls this the “partisanship scolds.” They’re people who feel there is an intrinsic value in not affiliating with parties and that it makes them superior to those who belong to parties.
And that is indeed a WRONG and short-sighted attitude: to each his own. Because Democrats, Republicans and independents all see things through their own filter — and each side thinks it’s right. Elections are to sway enough to one side so that one side can prevail.
Chait writes, in part:
Bloomberg has thus become the most prominent example of what you could call partisanship scolds. These are people who believe that disagreement is the central problem in U.S. politics, that both parties are to blame in equal measure, and that rejecting party ties or ideology is synonymous with the demonstration of virtue. While partisanship scolds believe that they stand in bold contrast to Washington, they are probably more heavily represented among the Beltway elite than any other demographic.
Chait is particularly critical of Unity 08. But his more general observations about the “partisanship scolds” includes these:
Unfortunately, when the partisanship scolds get a little more specific, things tend to break down. The first problem is that they can’t agree on whether partisanship is making Washington pay too much attention to public opinion or too little….
He gives some examples and then mentions:
The second problem is that the partisanship scolds are extremely vague about which chunk of Americans is being left out by the growing extremism in Washington. It is true that some broadly popular views are underrepresented in national politics. A detailed political typology released by the Pew Center in 2005 showed that Democratic voters are not as socially liberal as their leaders and Republican voters are not nearly as economically conservative. So there is a sizeable base of socially traditionalist, economically populist voters to be had. Unfortunately, the partisanship scolds invariably cater to exactly the opposite demographic: elites who favor free trade, open immigration, cutting entitlements, and social tolerance.
And then he adds a comment that will make many conservatives who distrust moderates and independents smile a big smile:
Third, in the age of George W. Bush, the substance of the partisanship scold ideology is no longer, by any reasonable definition, centrist. They are moderate Democrats who don’t want to admit it.
He says Bloomberg’s politics are to the left and that he’s “an out-and-out social liberal.” He adds: “But for Bloomberg and his admirers to admit that their views do have a home in a major party would destroy the basis of their self-image. Thus they must maintain at all costs the pretense of transcending ideology.”
He points to the Time Magazine cover hyping Bloomberg and our own California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is angering California Republicans now to the point that they are angrily opposing him on many issues).
Partisanship scolds oppose the GOP agenda, but rather than acknowledge and confront those ideological differences, they assume them away.
Indeed, the premise that ideological extremism has left no room in either party for moderates like Bloomberg is belied by Bloomberg himself. There are many things keeping Bloomberg from running on a conventional party ticket, but the alleged extremism of the two parties is not one of them. A longtime Democrat, he switched his affiliation for his initial mayoral run in 2001, but only because running as a Republican offered him a clearer path to the nomination. Bloomberg’s ideology today places him firmly within the Democratic camp.
If Bloomberg took the honest route and switched back to the Democrats to run for president, he’d be condemned as a transparent opportunist. Instead, he disingenuously renounces party altogether and is praised as a visionary.
Fair enough.
But Chait makes an error in his piece, too.
Not all independents and moderates who may criticize parties from time to time are “partisanship scolds.”
Some are people who’ve BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and had once been faithful and trusting Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. They were bitterly disappointed by their leaders, ashamed by the behaviors of some in their own camp, or concluded that political parties really don’t believe what they say they say they do as much as wanting to claw their way to power.
Some are people who feel BURNED.
So their attitude now is:
Convince me. Prove it to me. Don’t just say “trust me.” Because I don’t anymore.
And do it on the substance of the issues and your arguments, not on how you don’t stink to high heavens as much as the other guy.
But no matter what the study and Chait’s piece point out a fact:
The election won’t be just determined by both parties in 2008. There are others out there.
And they can’t be merely written off.
ALSO READ TMV Assistant Editor Michael van der Galien’s post on this study.
15 Responses to “Study: Diverse Independent Voters Could Swing 2008 Race”
[...] Study: Diverse Independents Could Swing 2008 Race [...]
[...] ALSO READ TMV’s Joe Gandelman’s analysis of this study and another provocative article on independent voters HERE. [...]
‘These are people who believe that disagreement is the central problem in U.S. politics, that both parties are to blame in equal measure, and that rejecting party ties or ideology is synonymous with the demonstration of virtue.’
Chait is wrong. The central problem is not disagreement, but a lack of balls to change ideas or habits.
If you look over the last few weeks there have been a handful of times I’ve argued w the same 5 or 6 posters or commenters who literally seem to revel in just whining, yet do nothing but play partisan games- left or right, rather than becoming a real independent.
It’s not that independents think they are superior, in a 2nd grade sense, but that their actions demonstrate it.
Yes, one can make an error- I’ve heard tons of people wonder what ever made them waste a vote on the Evil Dwarf in ’92, but that’s just human error. It’s something else ENTIRELY when you vote D or R for a lifetime, nothing changes, so you keep on voting D or R.
Someone once said such actions define insanity. And that is inferior to sane independence.
The real key in this is that the Republican have a bigger base then do the democrats….The RR vs. the Antiwar/far left.
Roughly 18 percent vs. 28 percent. Therefore if these facts hold true and you get Bloomberg, Paul and Nader back in the race.
I predict another 4 years for the Republicans.
“It’s not that independents think they are superior, in a 2nd grade sense, but that their actions demonstrate it.”
Cosmo- I would say most of your posts on this subject indeed smack of a sense of condescending superiority, which may be why the commenters kept arguing with you. If you want to win others over, and not just demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority, try bringing it down a notch! (just a friendly word to the wise)
BTW, the point we were trying to get across to you still remains: Someone who can only demonstrate minimal standing in the polls is probably someone who is not going to have a chance of getting elected or forcing the two parties to change. Even Nader himself should be aware of that by now.
Kim: the quote continued: ‘It’s something else ENTIRELY when you vote D or R for a lifetime, nothing changes, so you keep on voting D or R.’
And Nader, or Bloomberg, or X or Y, or even a Perot, wd not have had mere ‘minimal standing; unless people like YOU started to not waste votes on the same duopoly that NEVER changes!
Politics is not bad cuz of the Bushes or Kennedys, but because people like you do not send them packing!
Politics aint a tea party. Whenever vulnerable people who desire power mix with movers and changers in business and financial circles, you can expect what we have now with the two-party system.
If it was another year, I would consider an independent. But I can’t risk the prospect of another conservative Republican doing another number on the Supreme Court, or involving us needlessly in another preemptive war of choice. Bloomberg and Nader may be charter members of Mensa, but they have zero foreign policy experience, and that has to weigh heavily on my choice of whom to vote for.
BTW, I couldn’t stand Perot, and had no desire to see him in the WH, just because he was not from either major party. I do like Bloomberg, but what I like most about him is his desire not to run as a spoiler that would put the election in the hands of someone who is farthest from his political beliefs. I gotta think he means the GOP candidate, because he is a total RINO.
[...] ALSO READ TMV’s Joe Gandelman’s analysis of this study and another provocative article on independent voters HERE. [...]
Kim: ‘If it was another year, I would consider an independent. But I can’t risk the prospect of another conservative Republican doing another number on the Supreme Court, or involving us needlessly in another preemptive war of choice.’
Look at your word choices. This is classic rationalization. Yes, 2008 is the most important election of our lifetime, for those with the lifespan of mayflies!
What you are saying is the same sort of rationale that battered women use. ‘I’d leave him, but what would I do? No one else wants me, and he’s ok now and then. There are only those few bad times when he lies and cheats and abuses me.’
And what’s worst of all is that you are, unlike a number of other commenters, not some far left or far right wacko, with thinly veiled bigotries. You actually can post intelligently, save for when the stakes are at their highest.
Things will never change unless you, as an individual are willing to change. And if not, don’t blame the shepherds you allow to lead you lemming-like over the cliff.
If another presidential election gets “thrown” by a third candidate, what good will it do to tell yourself- I made an intelligent choice- at least I’m not a lemming? And then blame those who still voted for the two major parties for the results?
And while I’m no far-left wacko, my beliefs are pretty much where the mainstream Democratic party is on most, but not all issues. When I voted for Gore, it was because I really liked Gore, and believed he would make the best president of the choices in 2000. Still think so. He ran a lackluster campaign- Bush ran a better one- does that mean that Bush deserved to win? Maybe. But if the election were held today, I’d vote for Gore again. So, the battered woman analogy really doesn’t fit in my case.
I also think that we have become so polarized in this country, that no matter who wins, a major portion of the country will be unhappy- if its a centrist- the bases of both parties will be unhappy. With this much polarization, how can any government function? Increasing inequality, decreased civil liberties and increased power by the religious right only feeds into it.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I agree completely with Cosmo on this one. It is amazing that people just continu down the same path of failure, because it’s all they know.
You’re right. We disagree. Because an election cannot be thrown if its won by one or the other party of a duopoly. That’s a 100% surety.
It’s great that they’re studying independents for a change, but they still miss the point. Indepedents and the movement we are creating goes beyond the boundaries of these self- or should I say “party-serviing definitions and categories which seek to define us in relationship to how we will help, hurt or serve the two parties. Of course many independents vote for Democrats and Republicans in a thoroughly 2-party system. What are the alternatives? But that misses the fact that independents are going beyond these categories to say something about the political process and how partisanism threatens the future of this country. Independents are making the statement that they (we) are more concerned about the state of democracy in this country than we are about the parties. If you look through the lens of the 2 parties, this is hard to see (hence the DP totally misses that most of the country is thoroughly anti-war, until we are so deep into the war, that they’re taking credit for being antiwar would be laughable if it wasn’t murderous.
So, the independent movement continues to grow – and the pundits and media continue to miss the point. Hence, they’re shocked when Mike Bloomberg announces his change of registration to independent (far be it for them to look at the hisotry of his mayoral runs in NY – They would see that it was an alliance between indies and the Black community (to the tune of 47%) that put Bloomberg in office
On Saturday, June 23rd, Jacqueline Salit, the President of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (http://www.independentvoting.org/ ) appeared on CSPAN’s Washington Journal. Ms. Salit ran Mayor Bloomberg’s campaigns on the Independence Party line in 2001 and 2005. In this show, Ms. Salit talks about the bottom-up movement that has been growing which produced the Bloomberg move. You can see the show by clicking on ttp://independentvoting.blogspot.com/ .
Gwen is right about needing to redefine what being independent means. Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) is engaged on a bold experiment — building an independent movement but not (at the moment) building a national independent party. It avoids the Nader trap of running an insignificant spoiler. (By the way, my quarrel with Nader’s 2004 run wasn’t that he was a spoiler, but that he was insignificant.)
But as independence grows, it will draw sharks, self-proclaimed independents who seek to destroy, careerists seeking to promote their own names, right-wingers also fed up with the 2-party system (remember the buzz over 10 Commandments judge Roy Moore), those wanting to create the Michael Bloomberg Party. How will it navigate those waters?
[...] ALSO READ TMV’s Joe Gandelman’s analysis of this study and another provocative article on independent voters HERE. [...]