An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

A new Pew Research Center polls find that more than ever the true battleground for elections is going to be over which party can win over independent voters — since independent voter identification and centrism are surging:

Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. The political values and core attitudes that the Pew Research Center has monitored since 1987 show little overall ideological movement. Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies. Nor are there indications of a continuation of the partisan realignment that began in the Bush years. Both political parties have lost adherents since the election and an increasing number of Americans identify as independents.

The proportion of independents now equals its highest level in 70 years. Owing to defections from the Republican Party, independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past. While they like and approve of Barack Obama, as a group independents are more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector. Yet at the same time, they continue to more closely parallel the views of Democrats rather than Republicans on the most divisive core beliefs on social values, religion and national security.

But, Pew finds, Democrats shouldn’t be chuckling too much: they’ve had a bigger erosion in independent voter support between December 2008 and April than the GOP.

And Republicans shouldn’t be chuckling about that: “this represents the lowest level of professed affiliation with the GOP in at least a quarter century. Moreover, on nearly every dimension the Republican Party is at a low ebb – from image, to morale, to demographic vitality.”

One notable finding:

By contrast, the percentage of self-described political independents has steadily climbed, on a monthly basis, from 30% last December to 39% in April. Taking an average of surveys conducted this year, 36% say they are independents, 35% are Democrats, while 23% are Republicans. On an annual basis, the only previous year when independent identification has been this high was in 1992 when Ross Perot ran a popular independent candidacy.

517_1.gif

What does it mean? It could be a sign that if Obama flops and the GOP doesn’t give independent voters an affirmative reason to support them (just blasting Obama won’t be enough) there could be an opening for an independent candidate in 2012, even if such a candidate has the system stacked against him/her.

Pew also indicates that if you’re interested in accuracy you need to stop listening to liberals who say the country is moving towards liberalism — or conservatives who say the country is moving towards conservatism. NOT TRUE:

In fact, fewer Americans say the government has a fundamental responsibility to provide a safety net than did so two years ago, and the share supporting increased help for the needy, even if the debt increases, has declined.

Yet more broadly, the public remains conflicted about government’s role. This is abundantly clear when it comes to opinions about health care: There is overwhelming agreement (86%) that the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible. However, nearly half (46%) say they are concerned about the government becoming too involved in health care…

517_2.gif

And there is this danger sign for the GOP, which continues its position on social issues:

Republicans and Democrats hold increasingly divergent views about the role of government, the environment and many other issues. As the partisan divide widens, the overall course of the public’s thinking is being determined by the tilt in opinions among the growing number of independents, who have a more moderate ideological point of view.

The political values of independents are mixed and run counter to orthodox liberal and conservative thinking about government.

517_3.gif

Meanwhile, PEW finds that the GOP hasn’t gotten much more conservative, but it has shrunk in size and it faces considerable challenges:

Its constituents are aging and do not reflect the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the general public. As was the case at the beginning of this decade, Republicans are predominantly non-Hispanic whites (88%). Among Democrats, the proportion of non-Hispanic whites has declined from 64% in 2000 to 56%, as Latinos and people from other racial backgrounds have joined the ranks of the Democrats. At the same time, the average age of Republicans increased from 45.5 to 48.3, while the average age of Democrats has remained fairly stable. For the first time in at least two decades, Republicans are older than Democrats on average.

Republicans continue to be disproportionately comprised of Southerners (39%) and white evangelical Protestants (35%). However, these figures are largely unchanged from 2004 and up only slightly since 2000 as the GOP has lost supporters across all regions and religious groups.

The bottom line it you take all of this together:

1. Neither party can take independent voters for granted.
2. The party that wins over the bulk of independent voters will likely win elections.
3. If you follow political news, it’s clear Obama is facing rumblings of disappointment on his party’s left flank, but if he moves too far to the left he could lose independent voters.
4. For the GOP to make a genuine comeback it has to move beyond Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and others who already have the adoration of the conservative base choir and talk in exclusionary, small-tent terms, and start appealing to independent and moderate voters — which suggests that telling former Secretary of State Colin Powell to go take a hike may not be the wisest strategy.
5. The GOP will want to continue to hammer on issues that make independents uneasy about Obama and the Democrats, and Obama and the Democrats will want to keep reminding voters why they turned away from the Republicans — particularly because many Republicans are now in the ranks of that growing and vital segment of voters called independent voters.

  • shannonlee
    A viable independent candidates...my kingdom for a viable independent candidate!
  • casualobserver
    You know, with all this growth in centrism and independence, what the blogosphere could really use is a place for all those people to share thoughts. Sad that no one has done that yet.
  • CO, why not you? Start a blog for those who hate both liberals and conservatives. Oh. No, that wouldn't be you, would it?
  • tidbits
    CO makes a good observation and suggestion. It appears that that there are three of us here who would participate.

    Does anyone know of a filtering system that would keep the wingers from infiltrating and dominating the conversation?

    Credit to TMV for encouraging more intelligent exchanges than many other sites.
  • Degrance
    "What does it mean? It could be a sign that if Obama flops and the GOP doesn’t give independent voters an affirmative reason to support them (just blasting Obama won’t be enough) there could be an opening for an independent candidate in 2012, even if such a candidate has the system stacked against him/her."

    I can't make out, due to the poor formatting, whether this is a quote or a statement by the author but this statement is pure drivel. I can see no relevance between party affiliation being down and interest in a third party candidate. I think what this is indicative of is fatigue with the silly bickering that goes on in place of national politics these days. People long for the days when there were reasonable people on either side of the debate and they worked things out (yes it did use to be like that, at least as compared to today)

    Having said that Bernie Sanders has my vote if he wants to challenge the two party system. I'm proud to say he is my senator and the only nationally prominent independent that I know of.
  • casualobserver
    tidbits, it was more out of sarcasm than nobility. Because I am first a pragmatist, the problem with the notion is that both bloggers and the people in the poll above largely get to "independent" out of dislike, not philosophy. They also think they are centrics because they selectively disagree with both parties.....sort of misapplied averaging theory.

    GreenDreams, for example, is an anti-capitalist and dirt-worshipper. He will claim he is unaligned with the Democratic Party, but really only because they have not done enough to promote anti-capitalism and dirt-worship nor gone to Crawford Texas to assasinate George Bush in front of Laura and the daughters. I agree it is arguably a form of independence, but its not centrism.
  • tidbits
    CO - It is probably true that most Independents arrive at that position out of distaste for the current major parties, but not all. There actually are principled reasons for centrist positions or, if you prefer, a core belief system inconsistent with both Republicans and Democrats.

    If you will entertain an example. Both Republicans and Democrats use, depending on who is in power, the IRS Code as a social engineering platform. It is perfectly defensible, I believe, to take the principled position that the Tax Code should be a revenue generating program, and that it should not be used for social engineering.

    In a broader sense, one could take the principled view that the purpose of government should be to devise pragmatic solutions to common problems, leaving moral issues for private debate and individual consideration, rather than legislative battles royal. Since neither party advocates this principle of government, it is viable to select Independent status based on core principles of government and not merely on disaffection with major parties or their mode of operation.

    This is a bit defensive on my part, but I have begun to react negatively to those who suggest or infer that "centrists" and "independents" lack core principles.
  • casualobserver
    tidbits, I don't disagree with your first paragraph thought, and I wish there were more of your composition.

    I could be had with your second paragraph too, but the devil is always in the unspoken details. If you want to criticize Republicans for industry specific corporate tax breaks, I'll go along, but I hope you're not saying cutting marginal tax rates is social engineering and undesirable.

    I'm right there with you on paragraph 3, but realize I get there by being more the son of Ayn Rand as opposed to Timothy Leary. As a libertarian, I love freedom of choice and recognize it means tolerating other people's own choices, but not necessarily celebrating them and certainly not having to pay taxes to support them...e.g. subsidized abortion rights, government funded stem cell. To the extent there has to be government, the more local it is, the better. Not sure if that's you or not, so it would be interesting to hear if you get to "principled independent" via the same logic or not.
  • tidbits
    Co - Nice discussion. Thank you.

    On the Tax Code example, my solution would probably be a modified flat tax...at least I'm willing to entertain the idea. If that were the case, marginal tax rates would become irrelevant. I have no objection to anyone making a living, or making a fortune. To be honest, I think marginal tax rates are a sham, at least based on my experience. Owning a business myself, I actually have three businesses in place; one to operate the public business, another to own the building that rents back to the first, and a third to own the fixtures and equipment that rents back to the second that rents back to the first. This structure is necessitated to take advantage of various tax loopholes designed to engineer certain social results. As a result of all this, I pay taxes (legitimately) at about one third of what would be my "marginal" rate.

    On social issues, both Ayn Rand and Timothy Leary have interesting perspectives, though I subscribe to neither. Constitutional civil libertarian would be a better description of my position. When I discuss leaving moral issues for private debate and personal consideration, that applies to both sides. Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.

    On your final point, local v. national government, we are probably not in full agreement. While difficult to glean from your statement, I suspect that you are more anti-government than I. Where we might find some common ground is here: that if we could eliminate unnecessary social/moral intervention by government at all levels, government would necessarily be considerably smaller and would have the opportunity to be far more efficient and effective.
  • Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.


    This pretty much sums up my feelings on abortion.

    I'm about as pro-choice as one can be on abortion, but I feel that the only truly pro-choice position is the one that argues that abortion should be completely outside the sphere of government--that is--the government should neither outlaw nor fund abortion.
  • superdestroyer
    This is an artifact of how the questions were asked. The U.S. is tending to the hard left. The problem is that what is not centrist is actually very liberal. It is also hip for many progressives to claim that they are independent when they actually always vote for Democrats.

    The real question is how many people can be pursued by a campaign or a candidate and that number is shrinking and very rapdily.

    The Democratic Party will soon be at a stage where it will automatically get more than 50% of the vote. That is why the left is pushing so hard for national popular vote and other reforms that will ensure that the Democratic party is the only relevant party.
  • Degrance
    nicrivera & tidbits

    "Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another."

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The government doesn't and couldn't "fund abortion." If there is funding involved it is for health care, of which abortion is a small part. Excluding abortion from government funded health care, in effect, only hinders the poor from getting proper medical care. If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman's ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

    The logical conclusion from your viewpoint would be that the rich abort on a whim because they have unlimited access to abortion. Is that your thesis?
  • tidbits
    My thesis is simple, Degrance. Government should get out of the morality business...on both sides. It should neither outlaw nor encourage any side of a moral issue.

    If one does not except the basic thesis and believes in government intervention in moral issues then you can legitimately argue for funding abortion, of if one is on the other side, for outlawing abortion.

    Both private insurance and government healthcare programs routinely limit coverage. Should only the wealthy have access to cosmetic surgery? It is excluded from most insurance and from proposed and existing government health care programs.

    A better example might be euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Should government fund it? Should it be outlawed? My belief is that it is a personal moral decision and government should not be involved.
  • If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman's ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.


    I completely disagree. Having the right to do something, doesn't mean you are entitled to have other people pay for you to do something. If Joe Sixpack wants to have elective plastic surgery done to give himself a better looking nose, I completely support his right to do so. But I don't support forcing taxpayers to pay for his elective nosejob. Forcing people to pay for medical procedures (particularly ones that are elective) is not a pro-choice position.

    Whether people have the financial means to have a medical procedure done is a completely different question than whether someone has the right to have a medical procedure done. One might believe on humanitarian grounds that the government has an obligation to ensure that ability to pay for a medical procedure should not be an obstacle to having that medical procedure done, but this can only be done when the government forces a person or persons (i.e. taxpayers, hospitals) to pay for these procedures on behalf of people who cannot afford to pay for these procedures themselves. And forcing people to do things, even with the best of intentions, is never a pro-choice position.

    Furthermore, let's just admit right now that in the majority of cases, abortion is an elective procedure (yes there are cases in which abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, but these cases make up a minority of all abortions). In what kind of free society are people entitled to have other people pay for elective medical procedures, much less medically elective procedures that a large segment of the American population feels is moral repugnant?

    If you want abortion to remain legal (as I do), then you have to be willing to respect the rights of all parties involved--both women who do not want the government to force them to go through a pregnancy against their will as well as Americans who do not want the government forcing them to pay for abortions.
  • rbwinn
    As soon as independent voters gain ballot access, political parties are done in this country. For instance, here in Arizona I have to get 22,000 signatures to run for the same office a major party candidate has to get 4,000 signature to run for or a Libertarian has to get less than 100 signatures to qualify for. Since 1800, when a political party took over the government of the United States, party politicians have been passing laws at state level to prevent independent voters from becoming candidates for office. What independent voters need to do is to go register as candidates for office. This stranglehold cannot be broken if there are no independent candidates.
  • IndyAl
    OK up until the comment about Colin Powell, I was following this. But why would any party want a member who votes for the opposition's Presidential candidate against a moderate ex-military friend? Powell is not a republican and RINOs need to be ignored more than expunged. Republican party needs a charismatic leader like Reagan with core values who can also appeal to independents - not a Rino Democrat like Powell. The likes of Schwarzenegger, and Powell, - need to follow Benedict Arlen Specter - and become Democrats. Republicans need to listen to conservatives who have the ability to appeal to Independents - not by being more like Democrats - but by sticking to core values. This is going to be very clear after 4 years of a Marxist rule calling themselves democrats. In 2012 there will be no need for an Independent party. Unlike 1992 when you couldn't tell a bush from a clinton, there should be a clear choice in 2012 - Obama has seen to that!
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC