Not Very Suprising (4.00 / 1)

This is consonant with Pew polls I recall seeing, as well as with how people generally shift allegiances, letting go of one and pausing before taking up a new one.  Had there been any significant divergence between House, Senate and presidential results, then that could have signaled a growth of dealignment, but no such divergence showed up to any great extent.  Then there's the lopsided split of support for Obama vs. the GOP over the stimulus battle, coming down to "bipartisanship means the GOP should support Obama."

So even though we don't have another poll that's directly comparable to this one as a cross-check, we do have some cross-checks, and they all appear to check out as well.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:39:48 AM UTC

A graph helps. (4.00 / 1)

So I whipped one up.

Red is the Republican share, blue the Dem share, and green is the non-partisan crowd. I graphed it without values (you can see them in the table above) to emphasize the waxing and waning of the green portion.

(I'll be interested to see what this does to my home server...)

---

by: nvalvo @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:42:10 AM UTC

Can you do a bar graph side by side rather than stacked? (0.00 / 0)

Might make it even more apparent.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

---

by: Reality Bites Back @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:32:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Election results (4.00 / 3)

House:

2004  232 R 202 D 1 Ind (Sanders)
2006  202 R 233 D
2008  178 R 257 D

Senate:

2004  55 R 44 D 1 Ind (Jeffords)
2006  49 R 49 D 2 Ind (Lieberman, Sanders)
2008  41 R 57 D 2 Ind (Lieberman, Sanders)

Consistent with the polling data, in 2006 Republicans were replaced in the House with a mix that was heavy on Blue Dogs.  The 2008 newbies had very few additional Blue Dogs, mostly regular (dare I say real) Democrats.

The ones that have been dropping off are moderate Republicans with the result that the GOP representatives are far more constricted both ideologically and geographically.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:23:55 AM UTC

clarification (4.00 / 1)

Did you mean in this sentence:

This is based on a poll, conducted daily for the past five years, and with a sample size of less than 0.2% (zero point two percent).

To say the error for the sample size was less than 0.2% (compared to, say, the 209 values of 40.9, 26.1, and 33.1) or the sample size was 0.2% of the population?

I'm guessing you meant the former as in:

...and with a large enough sample for an estimated error of less than 0.2% (zero point two percent).

??

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

---

by: WVaBlue @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 15:13:10 PM UTC

Not Exactly (0.00 / 0)

In a political duopoly, ie only two major political parties, voters who want to leave one party have only one choice, which is to join the other party in the duopoly.

That voters left the Republican Party does not necessarily mean that they are actively endorsing the Democratic Party, only that it is the least worst choice they have. Or, in the case of Obama's candidacy on the Democratic Party line, they were hoping that he might actually do something to reverse the "wrong track" direction that a majority of Americans think the country has taken.

If U.S. election laws were not written to make it virtually impossible for competitive third parties to take root, voters might actually have real choices.

Since they don't, I do not think that increased numbers of self-identifying Democrats represents anything other than a rejection of 8 years of disastrous GOP governance.

Before the beginning of the 2008 election cycle, nearly a third of voters did not identify with either party, continuing the 20 year trend of political disalignment and providing a volatile segment of voters large enough to determine the outcome of elections, especially at the presidential level.

The existence of this bloc waters down ideological partisanship to a large extent. As does the existence within the Democratic Party of a large bloc of Blue Dogs who vote more like Republicans on key issues. It makes legislative decision-making a helter-skelter hodge-podge of deal-making greased by millions of dollars of pork added into controversial bills to buy the votes of recalcitrant legislators.

The legislation passed by Congress typically represents not the will of the people but our influence-peddling elected representatives self-dealing pursuits of special interests.

Basically, I consider both parties to be self-serving political straitjackets that do more harm than good. I am convinced that neither would survive if they and the nation's electoral laws did not prohibit third parties and the American people could form political parties that reflect their real priorities.

You can say whatever you want about competition between the two parties of the duopoly but the conclusion is undeniable in my mind that the U.S. democracy is deeply, deeply flawed and more often than note fails to serve the interests of the American people.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 16:25:24 PM UTC

No (0.00 / 0)

This is wrong:

Since they don't, I do not think that increased numbers of self-identifying Democrats represents anything other than a rejection of 8 years of disastrous GOP governance.

There is a third option. Voters can chose to identify with neither major party. That happened in increasing numbers during 2005-2007, but the trend reversed in 2008 and 2009.

If people were just rejecting Republicans, rather than embracing Democrats, then the number of new Democrats would not have increased during the entire span.

The numbers reject your hypothesis.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 18:00:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As someone once famously said: (0.00 / 0)

"You have your math, I have THE math."

---

by: KainIIIC @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 18:08:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, Not Exactly (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, Chris, it is your interpretation of the numbers that leads you to reject my hypothesis.

The numbers per se do not reject my hypothesis.

As I said, the increase in Democratic registrations was in conjunction with Obama's candidacy and the hope, I believe, of the new registrants that he was going to lead the country out of the ditch it has been in. That would explain why they did not register as Independents.

Many if not most of these new Democratic registrants, by the way, may have been what are increasingly referred to as Millennials.

The way I read analyses of this new generation of voters, who register 2:1 Democrat, is that they tend to be pragmatists rather than ideologues, preferring consensus-building and workable if imperfect solutions over partisan bickering.

If this is true, to the extent that these new Democratic registrants are Millennials, they may in fact be less partisan even though they have gravitated towards the Democratic fold, detracting from the validity of your interpretation of the numbers you cite above.

Also, to the extent that these Millennial voters gave Obama his edge in the 2008 presidential election, if they did, as analysts claim, their disdain for unnecessary partisanship might help explain some of Obama's odd statements during his campaign that we progressives viewed as unnecessarily compromising.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 19:02:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, no (0.00 / 0)

That would explain why they did not register as Independents.

First, we are not talking about voter registration. We are talking about voter self-identification. These are numbers on how many people personally identify as Democrats, Republicans or neither.

Second, while it is likely that the people who stopped self-identifying as Republicans are not the same people who started self-identifying as Democrats, the simple fact is that the number of self-identified Democrats ha increased, while the number of non-partisan identifiers has not.

More people self-identify as Democrats now. The same number of people self-identify as non-partisans. There is simply no way around those numbers.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 19:39:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More Inferences (0.00 / 0)

First, I agree with what you are trying to do here, which I think is to refute those who argue that we are either in or heading towards a post-partisan era.

But numbers, while helpful, do not clinch the argument of those of us who think that the partisan issues that separate progressives from conservatives and right-leaning centrists are enduring.

Whether one uses surveys of "self-identifiers" or registered voters, we just cannot impute any degree of partisanship to these people.

I happen to think that vast numbers of people are trying to get away from the Republican Party because they do not like what it has done to the country or what it stands for.

But just because they self-identify as Democrats does not mean they are more or less partisan than when they were Republicans. I know lots of people who self-identify was Independents or un-declared who are very partisan.

I also know a lot of political blobs who say they are Democrats but are fairly clueless about the underlying, very poignant and valid partisan issues that drive many other members of the party.

So if I may be so bold, I would urge you not to be so unequivocal in citing statistics that you deem to provide "Definite Proof that American Is Not Becoming Less Partisan".

I don't think the country is becoming less partisan, but not because of the numbers you cite. They are interesting and to a certain extent helpful. But they are not conclusive and do not provide "Definite Proof" of anything.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 20:02:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The national's electoral laws do not prohibit third parties (0.00 / 0)

This is sort of a nuanced digression about the nature of third parties, but the American political system isn't inherently biased against third parties.  Rather, it is biased against third parties that lack a geographic base.

My own theory is that the Democratic Party especially functions as a coalition.  If we had a multi-party system, it would be hard for progressive parties to form a governing coalition without the equivalent of Blue Dogs or the DLC.  I predict that a parliamentary system in the US would create an array of parties that resembles the Israeli political landscape.

To get back to the point of the OP, I think that it would be a mistake to put too much stock into partisan identification.  Party ID has historically been fluid over a relatively small range.  The Electoral College and first-past-the-post system magnifies the ramifications of 5% (or smaller) shifts.  It would be so much more interesting and accurate if we had survey data taken this frequently for a seven-point scale (strong Democrat, weak Dem, Dem-leaning independent, independent, Republican-leaning, weak Rep, strong Rep).  I know such data exists for the NES taken every two years.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 20:47:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I Wrote is. . . (0.00 / 0)

the following:

"If U.S. election laws were not written to make it virtually impossible for competitive third parties to take root, voters might actually have real choices."

However the parties and election laws actually function, there are only two viable choices open to American voters: they can either vote Democratic or Republican.

If they vote for any of the struggling third parties, their vote is pretty much limited to being a protest vote.

For a nation as diverse as ours, two major political parties that function as they do fail to even remotely provide a full range of choices.

To the contrary, they limit them AND prevent voters from going over to viable third party alternatives. Deliberately so, in my opinion.

An electoral system that functions like this is a severely constrained political system. As I wrote above, it is a deeply, deeply flawed democracy, if it is in fact a democracy at all.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 21:01:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It functions (4.00 / 1)

In a multi-party system, you often have a governing coalition put together after the election.

In the American system, you have two permanent coalitions.  Third parties arise on occasion, but they are either consumed by one of the existing two parties or they force the destruction of a major party and feast on its entrails.  The Democratic Party works as a coalition between different de facto parties like the DLC, the Blue Dogs, and the Congressional Black Caucus.  

I argue that the left has generally been horrible at putting together an effective de facto progressive party within the Democratic coalition, thus minimizing the influence of the left within the center-left.  This includes a failure to have a House Progressive Caucus with a discernible leadership corps and (until recently) a lack of interest in mounting primary challenges.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:29:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

that the left has not flexed its muscles inside the Democratic Party as it could have and should have.

But progressives have the potential to get into the driver's seat if they play their cards right and voter outrage with the looting of the U.S. Treasury on behalf of corrupt bankers and zombie banks continues and pressures Congress to stop the blood-letting.

Isn't Matt Stoller over there doing something with the progressives?

Has he let us in on what his plans are?

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:55:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the pundits, only Republican partisanship counts (0.00 / 0)

So if the country's less Republican, it's less partisan, QED. How this leads to the view that "bipartisanship" still means that everyone should agree to do what the Republicans want is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

---

by: Redshift @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 19:59:02 PM UTC