Independents are calling the electoral shots

[FarCenter]

Most of these voters want bipartisanship and centrism, not populism. Will Obama and fellow Democrats listen?
By Doyle McManus - January 24, 2010

Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 by assembling a broad coalition of Democrats and independents, but since the summer, independents have been deserting Obama's cause, and not only in Massachusetts.

That's what has White House strategists and Democrats in Congress most worried about this fall's elections: Independents, the country's most fickle voters, are in the driver's seat. They're unhappy about the economy, worried about the potential costs of the Democrats' healthcare bills and disappointed that Obama's promises of bipartisanship didn't come true.

And they're quick to fire a party that isn't delivering the goods -- as they did in Massachusetts' special Senate election last week.

"They are the least loyal voters to a president of any party," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said last week. "That's why they're called independents. They took George W. Bush down too."

Since 2006, there has been a massive "dealignment" from party allegiance, with more voters calling themselves independents today than at any time since the invention of modern polling. In Massachusetts, more than 50% of voters actually register as independents -- in part because that allows them to vote in either party's primary. And the trend isn't confined to New England; nationwide, the number of voters who call themselves independent has risen to 37% in the Gallup Poll, against 33% who identify themselves as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.

In recent months, independents' sentiment has started to swing away from the Democrats. Over the course of 2009, the share of independents who said they "leaned Republican" grew from 31% to 40%; those who leaned Democratic dropped from 47% to 38%.

Many of those independents voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008, but they didn't turn into liberals along the way. The independents' underlying ideology has actually been fairly stable, even if their voting pattern hasn't.

"They're conflicted centrists," said Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which did a major study of independent voters last year. "They are closer to the Democrats on social issues, but they're closer to the Republicans in being skeptical about big government."

<SNIP>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus24-2010jan24,0,1570723.column

[Lorien]

1. Bullshit. What you call "centrism" these days is nothing more than Reagan conservatism

"The Right" are now the batshit crazy fundie facists, while "the Left" has taken over the position of the free market socialism for the rich starve the poor repugs. Aside from Kucinich and Grayson there are no traditional Dems on the Hill-which is why those of us who ARE traditional Dems are now registered as Independents.

[anonymous171]

2. Independents/Centrists have no ideology. They just vote how they're told

[asdjrocky]

3. Total BS.

Big business calls the shots, and they always have.

[anonymous171]

4. And Big Business is centrist (socially liberal, economically fascist)

Which is why their media is so centrist.

[LWolf]

5. Independents come in all political flavors.

They are not, by any means, all "centrists."

I was an independent for most of my life, until the 2000 selection, when I finally registered with a political party.

And even though I've been a registered Democrat for 9 years now, I'm still not a partisan. Issues trump party every time with me. Democrats earn my votes, or don't get them.

I bear no resemblance at all to a "centrist."

Any citizen who doesn't march lock-step with a party is an "independent," regardless of their political leanings.

In my opinion, the nation needs many more independents. Enough to hold the 2 major parties accountable for what they do when elected.

[cliffordu]

6. "independents" act like they're ordering from takeout:

"Lessee....One from column A, and two from column B......

OR


"Make me happy or I'll vote for the other guy..."



What do they really stand for? Who do they really stand with??

Are independents just shoppers with ballots??

[leftstreet]

7. This is what happens when they turn Citizens into Consumers n/t

[cliffordu]

11. ....And candidates into commodities.

[OHdem10]

8. It was the Tea Party, Teabaggers who sooped into Mass. creating

the appearance of grassroots crowds and creating Buzz.

These same Teabags have put the ARCH Conservative Rubio ahead
in Fla.

The Special Election in NY, they backed the Arch Conservative.


There is nothing Centrist about them. Their most prominent backer
Dick Army, IMO who is to right of Atilla the Hun, stated on
one of the Morning Shows---The TeaBaggers represent the Center
in this country. In other words, the Center in this country
is right wing.

The Teabaggers are supported by the most RW in this country
and anyone who believes they represent the majority in this
country and therefore are center is smoking something.

However, we have such a gullible media, they probably will
buy this. I am interested to see whom they will support
McCain or the rabid RW Hayworth.

Never underestimate the creativity of Conservatives to use
any means necessary to get back to power. Yes the Teabaggers
started as Grassroots but the GOP very smartly moved in
and have taken over while making it look like this is some
innocent group of rebellious Americans.

Does anyone remember how the GOP put Schwarzenegger into office.
Eerily similar to the Scott Brown win.

If the Democratic Party are going to stand by and do nothing,
we deserve what we get.

[jsmithsen]

9. Two Types of Independents

There are two types of independents. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal yuppies and suburbanites on the one hand. Economically populist (at least protectionist) and socially conservative working and lower-middle class people on the other. Those of us who are economically populist/New Deal/Social Democratic and socially liberal (most people on liberal/left blogs) have to decide which of the above to "recruit". It is unlikely we will ever recruit both groups again (last year was a fluke due to Bush/financial panic).

[FarCenter]

10. The foreign policy dimension is another complication

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are globalist, imperialist parties. For the Democrats this takes the form of spreading democracy and American social and cultural values around the world, ala Carter and Clinton. For the Republicans this take the familiar military imperialism of the Bush administration. Both parties back Israel, right or wrong, and both parties are free traders who envision the extension of the US corporate and financial influence in foreign countries as a way of enhancing American power and prestige, no matter the cost to American workers.

This also turns off independents who are in favor of fair trade, a non-interventionist military posture, and a respect for other countries' social and cultural values.