The commonplace Versailles meme is that the Democrats lost because they're too far left. But the reality is that the Democrats are just plain politically incompetent. Of course one can argue that they're not incompetent, that this is what they're supposed to do, and at one level, that's a very defensible position. Except that it also makes no sense at other levels. Better to say that they are incompetent, and that this incompetence serves powerful elite interests (which are also profoundly, psychopathically self-destructive). But one thing they are not is "too far left."
Take, in particular, the excellent post-election analysis from John Sides at The Monkey Cage a couple of weeks ago, "Do Democrats Understand Political Independents?" The answer, of course, is "Are you kidding?" Most importantly: This is not just a post-election analysis of the results, but of how the Democrats are misinterpreting the results.
First off, Sides contextualizes this whole problem in terms of the recurrent media habit of creating mythical new archetypal swing voters every election cycle:
It seems like every time a party is defeated in an election, it blames that defeat on some group whose loyalties it once had but lost. Party strategists then talk endlessly about how to get this group "back." Remember "values voters"? Does anyone think that the Democratic Party's success in 2006-2008 came about because they successfully appealed to "values voters"? You'd think that after a few of these wild goose chases, people would start to learn.
But no. The lesson of the 2010 election is, apparently, that the Democrats must get independents back. And this will necessitate some kind of bipartisanship or centrism or something, because independents have become more conservative. See, for example, Bill Galston.
Of course, sometime back Chris pointed out that it's not just groups in the political middle (or right, in the case of so-called "values voters") who swing. Virtually every demographic group swings from election to election, and sometimes those who no one talks about swing the most. A swing from 75-25 to 65-35 is every bit as big as a swing from 55-45 to 45-55. What's more, swings in participation rate also count tremendously, as the drop-off in young voters this past election serve to remind us.
But what's most remarkable about these lost voter narratives is the purely anecdotal, if not downright mythical nature of these voting groups. Soccer moms? These are just catchy stereotypes that serve the needs of a lazy, intentionally superficial press corps. They are about as real as Iraqi WMDs. And this time is no different:
This diagnosis fails to separate independents who lean towards a party from the true independents. This is always necessary, as I previously pointed out:
For one, many claims about the opinions of independents never separate leaners from pure independents. If there is a 15% drop in Obama approval among the entire mass of apparent "independents," this could mean that there is a drop among independents who lean Republican, independents who lean Democratic, and/or pure independents. Why does this matter? Because the political consequences are different. If Obama loses 15 points among independents who lean Republican, he is losing voters who are unlikely to vote for him in 2012 anyway. But if he loses 15 points among independents who lean Democratic, then he has more serious problems.
In 2010, the story is about Republican-leaning independents. Ruy Teixeira:
...Republican-leaning independents, just like ordinary Republicans, have become more conservative (also by 7 points) and...Republican-leaning independents are now a larger part of the independent pool (now 40 percent of independents compared to 30 percent in 2006). As political scientists have noted over and over again independents who lean toward the Republican party act very similar to Republican partisans (and Democratic leaning independents act like Democratic partisans), so this is a hugely important fact in understanding the changing political behavior of independents.
Among the rest of the independent pool, there has either been no change in the number of conservatives (among non-leaning or pure independents) or a slight decrease (among Democratic leaning independents). So the increase in "conservatism" among independents is completely accounted for by the increased conservatism of Republican-leaning independents and the increased weight of Republican-leaning independents among independents as a whole.
With Parker Griffith handily losing the Republican primary in Alabama's fifth congressional district last night, both members of Congress who switched parties in 2009 have now been defeated in primaries in 2010 (two weeks ago, Arlen Specter was handily defeated by Joe Sestak). Politico is likely correct to argue that this will likely have a chilling effect on party switching in general:
The upshot of the resounding losses by Specter and Griffith is that, at least in the near-term, it may be more difficult than ever to woo party-switchers. That's because implicitly or, more often, explicitly, a flip is made contingent on the basis that the new party will support the switcher.
That can mean securing a plum committee assignment, clearing the primary field, guaranteeing financial help and extending endorsements.
But if none of that adds up to persuade voters to renominate their convert, what's the point of jumping?
No one should be surprised at voters rejecting politicians who backstab their old friends in an attempt order to keep their job. There is little reason to trust politicians like that.
Still, two other examples in recent years--Joe Lieberman in connecticut and Charlie Crist in Florida-- suggest that it may be possible to still thrive if they leave their current political party, just as long as they do not join the opposing political party. First, in becoming Independents, they can skip primaries altogether, thus avoiding the wrath of base voters who are less likely to embrace a formner political opponent. Second, polling in these two examples suggests that the key to Crist and Lieberman was maintaining a decent base of support in their old party, something which cannot be done if they had overtly joined the other team.
Former partisans who become Independents require coalitions of Democratic, Independent and Republican voters in order to survive. These coalitions are tenuous, however, because different groups in the coalition like the politician for different, often conflicting, reasons. In order to maintian these coalitions, it is necessary that voters read what they want to read into the politician, something which becomes far more difficult when the politician explicitly joins a new team.
For example, in 2006, Joe Lieberman won re-election by 10%. In order to do this, he successfully built a short-term coalition that gave him received 70% of the Republican vote, 54% of the Independent vote, and 33% of the Democratic vote. This same coalition also allowed him to maintain positive approval ratings during 2007. However, the coalition began to collapse in mid-2008, when Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President. At the time, Quinnipiac found that Lieberman lost much of the center-left support of his coalition:
"Sen. Lieberman's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in 14 years of polling, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats giving him low marks, probably because he is campaigning for Sen. John McCain," Dr. Schwartz said.
By the end of 2008, Lieberman's approval rating collapsed to a record low:
Connecticut's U.S. Senators get their lowest approval ratings ever, a negative 38 - 54 percent for Sen. Joseph Lieberman...
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.
By embracing McCain, Lieberman lost most of the remaining Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent portions of coalition. He explicitly picked a side, and his Democratic support disappeared.
Similarly, in Florida Charlie Crist is receiving most of his new support from Democrats. The Pollster.com trend chart in Florida shows that presumptive Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek has experienced a collapse in support since Crist switched parties five weeks ago:
However strong he looks now, Crist's position is tenuous, for the same reason as Lieberman's. If Crist were to announce that we would caucus with Republicans if elected to the Senate, then his support among Democrats would collapse and his campaign would effectively be over. At the same time, if he were to announce that he would caucus with Democrats, then he would lose a decent amount of his commanding lead among Independents, as the Republican-leaning Independents in that group would switch to Rubio. That would also likely put Rubio in the lead, likely for good, as long as there was a Democratic nominee to oppose Crist.
In short, like Specter, Griffith and Lieberman, the worst move Crist can make right now would be to explicitly state which team he would join the the United States Senate. As such, it isn't a surprise that Crist is refusing to provide any clarity on that matter. Once he does, his campaign is probably over, because it longer seems possible for a true party switcher to survive the wrath of the voters.
On the eve of what was thought to be, perhaps, a sign of progress in the six-decade long health care reform debate, joblessness mounts. Depression increases. The intensity of illness is on the rise. Few if any can afford to visit a doctor. People are unemployed, under-employed, and if an individual has an income, hours are reduced. There is barely enough to pay the most basic bills. let alone insurance premiums. Yet, staffers have been asked, no told, by business owners, workers must pay a larger portion of their health care coverage. Bosses bellow in unison; with profits down, certainly the corporations cannot continue to offer perks. Medical indemnities are a privilege, not a guarantee. If you feel ill, if you are injured, take two pills and call no one in the morning.
Do not dare telephone the Democrats. They have made their peace with the health care crisis. Republicans will not respond to the cries of a public, and Independents are, as you know independent! The decree; health care reform was dead on arrival.
Nate Silver nabs an important poll finding: now that Barack Obama is President, large numbers of Democrats and Independents think that the environment is getting better, even though it totally is not:
This is very worrying, as it is a sign of how complacency can set in among grassroots supporters once their preferred political party takes power. Even though Obama has only been President for three months, even though his major environmental legislation largely remains bottled up in the Senate, many of Obama's supporters seem to think that the environment is improving simply because he is President now.
This is, of course, crap. The level of carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses, in the atmosphere continues to increase. Water scarcity problems are getting worse. Soil contamination is getting worse. Mass extinctions are continuing apace. These problems are not going away, or even stabilizing. As Nate writes, at best, the "environment is getting worse less quickly, not that it's actually improving."
This is a problem that can also be seen in the audience for progressive media declining since the election. Once an individual's preferred political party takes power, oftentimes that individual seem to think that the problems that made them support that party are just solved. The truth is that taking political power just gives you an opportunity to finally work on those problems, and doesn't mean anything is actually solved.
While Obama's presence in office probably isn't the only factor in the newfound, unjustifiable Democratic and Independent optimism on sustainability and the environment, it is still disturbing to think about how "HOPE" can quickly turn into complacency. This is a fine line for politicians to walk, as they know both that they need their very presence in office to instill confidence (otherwise, why would people vote for them?), and that they need continuing grassroots pressure once in office to help pass their agenda. In this case, we need to do a much better job of continuing to rally the troops, because winning the election didn't solve anything. All it did is provide us an opportunity to solve the problems we face. On that front, a lot of work remains to be done.
Random thoughts for a Thursday evening, as the convention and vice-presidential season draw to a close:
Two focus groups of independents and undecideds did not like Palin's speech. The groups were conducted in Michigan and Nevada, respectively. So far, I haven't seen any reports of focus groups that liked Palin's speech.
There seems to be an absolute ceiling of about, or just over, 6% for Obama's national lead. No matter what has happened in this campaign, he has been unable to beat that number. There also seems to be a natural, absolute floor of about, or just less than, a 2% deficit. That a campaign with this many emotional highs and lows, twists and turns, comings and goings, has never wavered from this fairly narrow, 8% range, strikes me as important. I highly doubt that the campaign ever will move outside that range, and that the final results will be somewhere from a 6% Obama victory to a 2% McCain victory.
The amount of attention that Palin is attracting is, with the exception of Barack Obama himself, unlike anything I have ever seen before in politics (I only started paying attention to politics at the age of 10 in 1984, so that is my frame of reference). Not only did she nearly match Obama's viewers last night, but even blogosphere traffic went through the roof with her selection. The last three days have been the biggest days of traffic for Daily Kos ever, including Election Day 2004. At Open Left, our traffic is the equal of our best days ever, the ten day stretch from February 3rd through February 13th (Super Tuesday through Donna Edwards). Obama's news conference was entirely about Palin. Really, it seems that everyone is obsessed with Palin right now.
I had my doubts before, but now with Palin and the huge number of people watching both conventions, I am convinced this is going to be a very high turnout election. The Democratic base has also been massively energized by their opposition to Palin, as Obama is on track to raise $10M today alone.
McCain has been thoroughly overshadowed by his running mate. It is hard for me to see how that is good for him. I think he went way too far in the "balance" direction, and will come off as old, crusty, worn-out and uninspiring tonight. There is something very "Kerry-Edwards" about the Republican convention this year, from the flashy running mate to the constant harping on being a veteran. If McCain gets shown up by Palin, how will anyone end up voting for him? All Palin does is reinforce Obama.
Even though the tracking polls will be better for McCain tomorrow (and the new, weird, CBS tracking poll already is), that is mostly because Monday's great numbers for Obama will be removed. I'm not sold that this convention will help him. From focus groups not liking Palin, to downplaying issues and keeping a Kerry-like focus on being a war hero, to being shown up by his running mate, and to really everyone at this convention except Palin being a bad speaker, this entire affair might not age well for McCain over the coming several weeks.
In my diary last weekend, "The Democratic Swing & Independent Swing--What The SUSA Polls Can Tell Us", I amplified Chris's point about the magnitude of the Democratic swing being larger than that of the independent swing, by presenting a state-level analysis using the Survey USA polls with different VP candidates generating the ranges used for the "swing" calculations. I did this for all voters, and for Democrats and Independents. In this diary, I want to take a look at how Edwards on the ticket changed things.
The point here is not to make the case for Edwards--I think I've already done that quite convincingly. Whether or not he would reverse himself and accept if called, his presence on the ticket clearly makes a landslide much more possible. So the point of this diary is just to get a little better fix on what his presence accomplishes in regard to the swings Chris was comparing. Because, one way or another, if Democrats can get to the point that the battlefield looks like it would with Edwards on the ticket, then we are defintely on the road to having ourselves another 1932.
From 2004 to 2006, Democrats actually made more gains among self-identified Democrats than they made among self-identified Independents. Now, in 2008, because partisan self-identification has shifted starkly in favor of Democrats, Barack Obama has much more to gain for self-identified Democrats than he has from self-identified Republicans and Independents combined.
For the past four months, according to Rasmussen, the average national partisan self-identification has been Democrats 41.4%, Republicans 31.7%, and Independents / Others at 26.8%. Even when Rounding in favor of Republicans, if the general election electorate identified 41% Democratic, 32% Republican, and 27% Independent, and if Obama held down 90% of Democrats while McCain held down 90% of Republicans, then Obama would only need 37% of Independents to reach 50% +1. To put this in perspective, in 1984 Walter Mondale received 36% of the Independent vote, 1% shy of what Barack Obama would need.
If Democrats make up 41% of the electorate in November, and Independents only make up 27%, then Obama has significantly more potential votes to gain among self-identified Democrats than he has to gain among self-identified Independents. Let's say that Obama's possible range of support among self-identified Democrats is 75% to 90%. This would represent 6.2% of the electorate. By contrast, let's say that Obama's possible range of support among Independents 40% to 60%, representing 5.4% of the electorate. As such, according to these estimates, which probably exaggerate the possible Independent range, Democrats are actually a bigger swing block than Independents.
In this diary, I want to use the recent Survey USA polls testing possible VP nominees for the purpose of taking a closer look at Chris's argument here, particularly the last sentence, saying that Democrats are a larger swing block than indendents. As we'll see on the flip, of the 15 states analyzed, this is clearly true of all but one state....
For the past four months, according to Rasmussen, the average national partisan self-identification has been Democrats 41.4%, Republicans 31.7%, and Independents / Others at 26.8%. Even when Rounding in favor of Republicans, if the general election electorate identified 41% Democratic, 32% Republican, and 27% Independent, and if Obama held down 90% of Democrats while McCain held down 90% of Republicans, then Obama would only need 37% of Independents to reach 50% +1. To put this in perspective, in 1984 Walter Mondale received 36% of the Independent vote, 1% shy of what Barack Obama would need.
If Democrats make up 41% of the electorate in November, and Independents only make up 27%, then Obama has significantly more potential votes to gain among self-identified Democrats than he has to gain among self-identified Independents. Let's say that Obama's possible range of support among self-identified Democrats is 75% to 90%. This would represent 6.2% of the electorate. By contrast, let's say that Obama's possible range of support among Independents 40% to 60%, representing 5.4% of the electorate. As such, according to these estimates, which probably exaggerate the possible Independent range, Democrats are actually a bigger swing block than Independents.
Realignment Watch: Pew Reports On GOP Collapse--Dems Have Yet To Capitalize
The Pew report released ten days ago represents possibly the strongest indication yet of a major ongoing partisan realignment, along the lines of what was last seen in 1930/1932--or at least half of one, as people are leaving the Republican Party in droves--almost one in five since 2004--while more independents are leaning Democratic. So many other things have been happening, however, that it doesn't seem as if this report has gotten nearly the attention that it deserves. If nearly one in five people had left the Democratic Party since 2004, the coverage would have been so intense, it would have driven Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears into obscurity, but with the GOP undergoing collapse, not so much. Still, why are WE paying so little attention? And, more importantly, what can we do to take maximum advantage of this turn of events?
Pew (3/20):
The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.
In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.
In particular, good as the news may be for Democrats, it's main importance may be in calling attention to a potential for even further, and much more substantial gains--if Democrats will recognize the opportunity, and move to sieze it. One indication of that is the growth of independents, rather than Democrats, but with a widening margin of Democratic-leaning independents. The challenge is to move substantial numbers of independents into the Democratic Party, while continuing to drive down the number of Republicans. And the way to accomplish both these goals is for Democrats to go on the offensive, and aggressively take charge of the political narrative in America.
The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.
The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.
Despite these trends, the proportion of voters who identify with the Democratic Party outright has not increased in recent years. Currently, 36% say they think of themselves as a Democrat, virtually unchanged from 2004 (35%) and 2000 (35%). Instead, as the proportion of self-identified Republicans has decreased, the percentage of independents has grown substantially, from 32% in 2004 to 37% today.
This means that nearly one in five people (18%) who considered themselves a Republican in 2004--pre-Camp Casey, pre-Katrina, pre-Social Security privatization defeat, pre-Terri Schiavo, pre-NSA Scandal, pre-USA Scandal, pre-Foley/Vitters/Craig, pre-"Macaca"--no longer does so. Nearly one in five.
John Judis and Ruy Teixeira take a look at the demographic and ideological characteristics of self-described independents and their potential role in the presidential election. It's clear that the post-partisan rhetoric from Barack Obama that's annoyed a lot of bloggers has tremendous appeal to this segment of the electorate.
In the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific rim states, independents tend to be white, younger on average than the typical partisan voters, and middle class. They live primarily in cities and suburbs. They think of themselves as "moderates" or "centrists" who are to the right of the national Democrats and to the left of the national GOP. They are skeptical about "big government" and "big labour," but supportive of government environmental and consumer regulation. They are opposed to the religious right's social conservatism and laissez-faire economic policies of conservative Republicans. Unlike the neo-conservatives, they have little enthusiasm for overseas military adventures. Independents in the Southwest and Mountain states are equally distrustful of the religious right and neoconservatives, but are more strictly libertarian on economics and on gun rights.
What all these independents share, however, is skepticism about the two party system itself. Many of them voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. They see Washington as dominated by "special interests," and unlike Democrats or Republicans, see the political parties themselves as "special interests." The parties are part of the problem.
"And now a question about the power of different groups in influencing government policy, politicians, and policy makers in Washington. Do you think (READ EACH ITEM) have/has too much or too little power and influence in Washington?"
Big Companies: Too Much: 90%--5% Too Little: 5% Labor Unions: Too Much 43%--46% Too Little
Too Much Influence, Independents Only
Big companies: 86%
Labor Unions: 49%
The failure to mention the overwhelming national consensus behind reducing corporate influence in Washington is a huge hole at the center of the analysis from Judis and Teixeira. That they mention independent dislike of big labor, a group on which independents are clearly split, and ignore big companies is disturbing.
My basic feeling is that when people either register or self-identify as "independent," they do so because they want to appear above the two-party system. Either they don't like either party, or they think that they vote for the best candidate, rather than the party line. Now, I have no problem with people who think they are too cool for the two parties, but I do have a problem with people who think they are too cool for the two parties playing a role in determining who leads the two parties.
If you are too cool to be a Democrat, then you shouldn't have the right to choose who leads the Democrats. That really feels like having your cake and eating it, too. Why should someone who isn't even willing to identify as a Democrat tell self-identified Democrats who their leader should be?
Now, I should note that while I favor a closed primary system, I also favor same-day voter registration. Republicans, Independents and supporters of third-parties should be allowed to vote in a Democratic primary as long as, on the day of the primary, they register as Democrats. That is an extremely low barrier to participation. If however, someone isn't even willing to self-identify as a Democrat on the day they want to vote in a Democratic primary, then as far a I am concerned that person can go be too cool for Democrats somewhere else. Only those people willing to identify themselves as Democrats should be allowed to choose Democratic nominees. If someone thinks s/he is better than Democrats, then that person shouldn't tell Democrats what to do.
The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn't come as such a surprise, however.
This new ad from McCain is interesting in the way it uses both multiple Democrats and Republicans as foils:
The ad flashes the faces of Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani and Romney when an announcer says, "All the candidates for president say they'll stop wasteful spending. One man has actually done it."
This isn't using Democrats in the same way that Republicans often do: attacking them as liberal elites, or claiming that only one very special Republican can defeat them. This is, instead, actively campaigning for all Clinton and Edwards voters in a Republican primary, as though every candidate listed were targeting the same voters.
And, actually, they are targeting many of the same voters. Since the New Hampshire primary is an open primary, anyone in New Hampshire can choose to either vote on a Democratic or Republican ballot on the day of the primary. So, not only are Democrats competing amongst themselves for support, and not only are Republicans competing amongst themselves for votes, but they are all competing amongst each other for votes, too. It is one electorate with two separate competitions.
This does make me wonder why McCain does not mention Barack Obama in the ad. After all, Obama has advantage among non-affiliated voters, where he is ahead of Clinton and Edwards combined. You can't effectively go after New Hampshire independents without going after Obama. I actually wonder if this will make New Hampshire more difficult for Obama, since he leads among voters that all fifteen, sixteen or however many candidates there are will be targeting. Since they are so highly coveted, independents are a rocky place to build your support in the New Hampshire primary.
Short answer, yes. Medium-length answer, no. Right answer: yes.
It has become conventional wisdom that the extreme downward turn of John McCain's presidential campaign is due, at least in part, to his public embrace of an extremely hawkish position on the Iraq war. This argument has become quite pervasive. It is even quite tempting for progressives to embrace this argument, since it offers an anti-war outlook on the 2008 campaign: support the Iraq war, and your bid for the White House will fail. For example, on Sunday Arianna Huffington argued that Iraq was the primary reason for McCain's downfall:
John McCain's cratering campaign is an object lesson in how to kill a candidacy in three simple steps: 1) locate the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history 2) embrace it 3) implode. (Bonus step: spend money like you are Paul Bremmer).
STATE BLOGS
