"Political wisdom" about the "Independent Voter" is completely, deliberately wrong.

[Political Heretic]

I hope that Democrats learn the right lessons from Mass., which regardless of whether they squeak out a win or loss is a harsh and totally preventable failure.

Capitulating to the right and trying to spinelessly hold the center does the following things, contrary to conventional "beltway wisdom" (an oxymoron of the highest order):

1. It disenfranchises independent voters. Pundits tell you that independent voters want muddle of the road, weak, spineless politicians that try to have it both ways and hug the political "center." That's false, and we can see that it is false as we historical observe independent voters swing from one charismatic leader promising bold change to another - independents are moved by courage, determination and guts, not kum ba ya capitulation and compromise.

2. It angers the left - and rightfully so - cause the left to either sit home in disgust and defeat or actively work against democratic capitulators.

3. It's like blood in the water to the sharks of the right. They can smell gutless wonders ten miles away, and it completely charges up their base.

The worst thing that has happened to American politics is the perpetuation of this myth by political pundits that in order to win independent voters you have to play the hold the center at any cost game, and you have to be "bi-partisan" than you have to speak softly and timidly and spend all your time trying to be peace maker and reconciler of all political factions - that you can't get to bold in any one direction because independents will abandon you.

No one ever asks for evidence or challenges this meme. But the history of elections shows a much different picture. It shows that when independents overwhelming break for one candidate over the other, they break for a guy promising bold, uncompromising leadership, promising definitive change, and promising to end the old "petty politics" of the past.

The broke for Regan because of that, they broke for Obama because of that. And you LOSE independent voters by being be afraid to LEAD and trying to coddle and compromise your way to victory.

Americans value guts, and bold action. Capitulating, hand-wringing, we have to try to please everyone nonesense is the ultimate turn off to independent voters. And it has the added effect of infuriating the base.


I feel like this point cannot be emphasized enough: beltway pundits are completely wrong about independent voters. They are wrong possibly on purpose, I don't know - but certainly what they claim is contrary to voting history. Independent voters are moved less by a specific political position (left, right) and they are not "centrists" per se. Independent voters are moved by GUTS - by people promising to boldly lead and then doing it.

Independent voters didn't vote for and didn't want leaders that would appear to wring hands, and cry and try to make every compromise possible and appease every interests. They voted for leadership, they voted for leadership that would fight and lead, not try to "follow" the whims and wants of every corporate or conservative constituency.

The course that democrats in Washington have charted so far (1) makes independent voters disillusioned and apathetic (2) makes a liberal base furious enough even to create opposition to the establishment party (3) galvanizes the right who smell weakness from 10 miles away and are embolden by it.

It fails on every level.

Good could come from a democratic loss in Mass today, and good could come from killing this pathetically insulting to working class families insurance care bill - that good would be forcing Democrats to examine their failed strategy, feel like their backs are up against the wall a little bit, confirm for them that capitulating to conservatives gains them absolutely nothing, and causing them to decide to get tough and come out swinging - uncompromisingly choosing to fight at least for party platform principles if not even more bold thinking - in an attempt to win back the hearts and minds of both independents (that they've lost) and their own base (that they've lost).

EDIT - and so that my positions are clear, I'm don't actively want a Mass. Democratic loss, though it seems likely. But I do want an heath insurance reform bill that I believe will hurt working families in the long run to be killed.

You can see here, for more about my political positions and home at DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7481629

[cali]

1. you make some good points such as the observation about independents

and charismatic candidate but you completely overlook the local factor in the race, and believe me, that's a huge factor here.

And sorry, but not a bit of good will come from this loss. In fact, quite a bit of bad will result from it.

[Political Heretic]

2. I know, I'm generalizing from a particular.

There are complexities to the local race that effect the outcome. But I think in this instance, its very hard to deny that broader politics is affecting the outcome as well. I think its hard to deny that this is a referendum election.

I don't know how you can say "not one bit of good" will come from this. Good can come from anything. And any opportunity for the Democratic Party to get its head screwed back on straight would be a huge win for working class families.

Democrats have needed a wake-up call for a long time now, and their refusal to listen to softer warning bells means that some major crisis failures was unavoidable. If Democrats are able to learn the right lessons from both this election and from health care - good could come from it.

If they double down on what has been the strategy of the modern democratic party for at least a decade now, they will suffer big losses in November and put the Presidency at risk in 2012.

This is a huge opportunity for Democrats to figure some important things out. I hope that they do.

[Hawkowl]

3. Very true

I no of an ever increasing number of people who refer to themselves as independents who would NEVER vote rethuglican (me being one of them).

Many of the independents simply stay home when faced with the choice between coke or pepsi. Why bother? Blue Dog vs. Moderate rethuglican? Who GIVES A FUCK! They both suck and a pox on both their houses.

The polling data is out there, and the Dem leaders would rather suck at the corporate teat rather than stand up for the people. Doing the right thing is hard. You have to have an ethical code. A set of morals and a code of conduct.....

Otherwise you are a spineless, motherfucking "pragmatist". I think in modern America, pragmatist should be translated as simply someone who will change their position for cash.

[Egnever]

4. Beltway pundits are paid to push agendas

It has nothing whatsoever to do with thinking. The sooner people realize this the better. They are consistently wrong time and again simply because they are paid big bucks to make the corporate agenda sound good.

[Grand Taurean]

5. Registered an an "unaffiliated" which is "independent"

for intensive purposes. I still vote for Democrats 95%+ of the time.

[Grand Taurean]

6. Registered an an "unaffiliated" which is "independent"

for intensive purposes. I still vote for Democrats 95%+ of the time.

[iceman66]

7. There is much truth in what you say.

If independent voters were motivated by political issues or ideology, they wouldn't BE independents.

If we are to have any hope this fall and in '12, it's far past time for Obama to show some 'guts'.

[Uncle Joe]

8. I believe you've nailed the gist of the situation.

Independents respect leadership and having the courage of your convictions to follow through, this doesn't mean to bull doze or ram rod in spite of any facts to the contrary, but should you deter, the facts damn sure better be good!

If you campaign one way and then unilaterally disarm and turn 180s with the wind, how can an Independent believe the sincerity and strength of your logic, reasoning or message?

Thanks for the thread, Political Heretic.:thumbsup:

Edit for P.S. I also believe "conventional wisdom" is deliberately wrong; about what motivates Independents as a corporate means to control and distort the populace's perception of political reality.

[hfojvt]

9. why shouldn't independents be centrists?

If they leaned to the left it would be logical to register as a Democrat. If they leaned to the right it would be logical to reigster as a Republican. The fact that they are independents says to me that they are neither right nor left. The idea that independents would vote for a Republican because Democrats were not progressive enough just does not make sense. Like they all would have voted for Coakley if only the Democrats had tried for single payer. Right, they want single payer, or even a public option, didn't get it, so they voted for a Republican.

Nope, that does not compute.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Logic is the key, Independents that use logic would expect Democrats to lean left as you say and

Republicans to lean right. An Independent would be swayed by the strength of the argument, if you don't believe in your own argument, why should an Independent?

If you're a Realtor and you want sell someone a home, you don't say "You don't want to buy a house, do you?"

[Political Heretic]

12. Your logic is flawed.

Independents, by and large, if disaffected with politics and disgusted with both parties. It has little to do with their political policy positions, which run the entire spectrum.

You get them to turn out overwhelmingly for one candidate or another when that candidate promises to truly lead and to get things - something, anything - done. It almost doesn't even matter what it is, as long as the candidate is tough, is a fighter, promises to lead and promises to somehow be above the politics bullshit of Washington...

Independents are NOT "centrists." They run the entire spectrum of political ideas. There's plenty of room for centrists in at least the Democratic party if not both parties. Independents are independents overwhelmingly because they are disgusted by both parties, and by the political gamesmanship in general. They become moved to vote as a block when someone shows guts, frankness, and a promise to get things DONE shows up.

That's why independents voted en mass for Reagan and then turned around and voted en masse for Obama.

[hfojvt]

13. that sounds like your opinion

Do you have any data to back that up? Reagan was a long way from Obama. 28 years.

Being disgusted with a party would probably mean somebody was disgusted with the candidates. If you want better candidates, then you need to vote in the primary - and being registered as an independent can prevent that it many states.

I still say most independents are centrists.

[Dr.Phool]

16. I know a lot of FORMER Democrats who are now independents.

And it's because the Democratic Party has been tracking too far to the right.

I'm one of them. Why? Because the party was no longer representing my interests. I will state categorically that I'll never vote for a Republican. But, there's a lot of Democrats I'll never vote for again either. You've got to earn my vote now.

[hfojvt]

17. and if you are not voting in primaries

then how do you expect to move the party to the left? I voted for a 6th party in 1992 and again in 1996, but I never changed party registration. Only by being in the party could I effectively work to defeat Clinton in 2008. Just because I am a registered Democrat does not mean that Democratic candidates don't need to earn my vote.

[hfojvt]

14. also, my research here

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ExitPolls/

shows that independents were not that important to Obama. Obama won Republicans and Democrats combined by 37.59 tp 32.7. If he had lost the independent vote by the same percentages that McCain did, he still would have won 50.35 to 47%.

It also looks like Reagan got the same percentage of independents in 1980 as Ford did in 1976. Carter, however, lost independent votes to Anderson, and also lost Democratic votes to Anderson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

[Atticus]

11. Thank you for a well considered and well written post.

It is actually difficult to take in how badly things have been allowed to go.

We continue to pay lip service to "fighting for the common man", but we are using those same lips to kiss the ass of any corporation with a checkbook and a wish list.

[Odin2005]

15. Great post! I agree, IMO the Ventura-ist Indies here in MN are a good example of that.

Indies generally want bold and fresh ideas, common-sense policy-making, and effective leadership. It's a pattern one can see going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

[TexasObserver]

18. Recommend. I don't agree with every sentence, but Yeah.

[TxRider]

19. Good points, but

Independent voters want leadership on jobs, foreclosures and the economy, not HCR when were in the biggest economic crisis since the depression with record unemployment rates.

The HCR squabble is akin to fiddling while Rome burns to them.

And the Wall street folks cushy treatment is insult on top of injury.

[NuttyFluffers]

20. biology favors strength, it goes even beyond even human psychology.

be as spineless and weak as a wet noodle and you will lose, period, end of story. stand for something and win. capitulate and lose.