POLITICS NOVEMBER 18, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The White House thinks that Democrats got drubbed in the election because they lost the support of “independent” voters. Obama’s advisers, the Washington Post reported, “are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.”
In the president’s interview with "60 Minutes," only part of which was broadcast, but which CBS later put on the Web in full, Obama blamed his party's loss on Republicans being “able to paint my governing philosophy as a classic, traditional, big government liberal. And that's not something that the American people want. I mean, you know, particularly independents in this country.” He promised to adopt “Main Street, common sense values about the size of government,” to do something about “debts and deficits,” and to end the “partisan bickering” in Washington by getting Republicans and Democrats “to work together to change things in Washington.”
In other words, the White House blamed Democrats' 2010 defeat on the loss of independents, and to win them back, it will try to slow the growth of government, encourage a bipartisan spirit in Washington, and reform the government process by eliminating things like earmarks. But what if this analysis is wrong? Not in its statistical facts—no one can deny that the Democrats lost ground among voters who identify themselves as “independents”—but in its interpretation of these facts, and in the political conclusions it draws from them. Here are some salient features of independents.
(1) There is no Party of Independents: Independents are not an organized or quasi-organized group like Democrats or Republicans that have headquarters and nominate candidates, but a creature of pollsters’ imagination. The standard question asked by surveys and exit polls is, "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?" Those who answer “Independent” are independents.
Some states like Florida, California, and New Hampshire do allow voters to register as “unaffiliated,” “independent,” or “decline to state,” but this group is almost invariably smaller than the group of voters who identify themselves to pollsters as “independents.” In Florida this year, 19 percent of voters registered as “non-affiliated,” but 29 percent told exit polls this month that they were “independents.” So it is an elusive category to begin with—not one on which you would readily, or without qualification, base a political strategy.
(2) Not all independents actually vote:If you are considering basing your political strategy on winning over independents, you then need to ask whether there are certain features that unite independents; and whether these features justify a strategy singularly directed at winning them over. In surveying independents, the American National Election Survey asks respondents who identify themselves as “independents” to indicate whether they think of themselves as closer to the Democrats or Republicans or to neither. Pure independents, who identify with neither party, constitute only about 10 percent of the electorate and one-third or less of those who identify themselves as independents. If you look at their trajectory over the years, they rise and fall with the public’s distrust in government. They reached a peak of 18 percent in 1974 during Watergate, and also rose during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 and during the Clinton scandals of the late ‘90s. Their numbers shrank in 2002 after the government’s response to the September 11 attacks.
These independents, who are alienated from the party system itself, are most likely not to vote at all, especially during midterm elections. Politicians can best address them by restoring their faith in the efficacy of government—as George W. Bush did immediately after September 11. That won’t necessarily happen through the kind of modest, good-government measures that the Obama administration is contemplating.
(3) Many independents are disguised partisans: In a useful survey of independents this September, the Pew Research Center distinguished between four groups of Republican and Democratic leaners: “Shadow Republicans,” “Disaffected Republicans,” “Doubting Democrats,” and “Shadow Democrats.” Let’s look at the two shadow groups. The Shadow Republicans, who make up 26 percent of independents, are very likely to vote Republican. They are white, affluent and well-educated. They distrust the federal government. But they are also more socially liberal than the average Republican. According to Pew, 74 percent of Republicans oppose gay marriage compared to 49 percent of Shadow Republicans. They could be expected to vote Republican unless the party nominated an outspoken social conservative like Sarah Palin. In 2010, when candidates campaigned primarily on economic issues, Democrats probably couldn't have won them over.
Shadow Democrats, who make up 21 percent of Pew’s sample, are more affluent and educated than the average Democrat. They tend to be middle or upper-middle class. Over half are white. They represent the growing support of professionals for Democratic candidates. They are as dependably Democratic in their voting as the shadow Republicans are Republican. They are not anti-government, they are liberal or moderate in their views, and according to Pew, they “express consistently positive views of the Democratic Party, President Obama and his proposals.” Why are they independents? What political scientist John Petrocik writes of many independents is particularly true of them. “A reluctance to confess a party preference,” he writes, “is nothing more than a reflection of the inclination of Americans to prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and inclined to judge things on the merit.” Democrats don’t need a special strategy of appealing to independents in order to attract them.
(4) About one-third of independents are important swing voters: The two other groups, the Disaffected Republicans and the Doubting Democrats, who make up 36 percent of Pew’s sample, are swing voters who are not dependable partisans. They are overwhelmingly white. They are not likely to have graduated from college and many of them have not attended college at all. Most of them make less than $75,000. It’s fair to characterize them as white working-class voters. Why are they independents and not Republicans and Democrats? According to the Pew poll, both groups believe that “parties care more about special interests than average Americans.”
What accounts for the fact that the Disaffecteds are more likely to vote Republican and the Doubters Democratic? One source of difference may be the gender gap. The Disaffecteds are predominately male, and the Doubters female. Working-class women are more likely to see the Democrats as the party of economic security and to favor a liberal social agenda. But insofar as members of both groups vote for the other party about one-third of the time—they are not disguised partisans like the Shadow Republicans and Democrats—it’s probably most useful to regard them as members of a single heterogeneous group of swing voters who identify themselves for the moment as “independents.”
And the most important feature of them is not that they call themselves “independents,” but that they belong to a social group that since the 1970s has become an important swing vote. What happened in this November’s election is that many white working-class voters, including white working-class women, voted for Republicans rather than Democrats. As the Pew poll anticipates, that undoubtedly held true among white working-class voters who described themselves as “independents.”
These swing voters are probably one of the two groups that swelled the ranks of independents this election—up to 29 percent in this year’s exit polls from 26 percent in 2006—and tilted the vote to the Republicans. The other is probably the Shadow Republicans, which included voters who had previously considered themselves Republicans, but were alienated by George W. Bush’s second term.
Is there a special strategy that Democrats can use to win over these white working-class independents? And if there is a strategy, does it consist in “changing the ways of Washington?” I’ve not seen any exit polls this year that specifically plumb the views of white working-class independents. That’s probably much too small a category to register in the national polls. So to answer these questions, I have to rely on political history and on interviews I’ve done over the years.
From 1968 through 1994, many white working-class voters in the South and Midwest, alienated by Democratic support for civil rights, abortion rights, and gun control, became partisan Republicans. This group has been likely to vote Republican regardless of who is running or what the condition of the economy is. But for the last four decades, another segment of white working-class voters has gravitated between Republicans and Democrats. Some of these voters identify themselves as “independents,” but that could mean several things: They could be voting one year for a different party than they backed two or four years ago, or they may be splitting their vote. Or, in some cases, it may be because of an anti-government populism that includes skepticism about the two major parties. This description certainly fit many of Ross Perot’s supporters in 1992 and 1996.
In good economic times, these voters will sometimes back a candidate, regardless of party, whom they believe understands them or cares about them. That was part of George W. Bush’s appeal to these voters in 2000 and 2004. But faced with an economic downturn, they will oppose the party that they hold responsible for it. In 1992 and 2008 downturns, many of these voters, outside of the Deep South, backed Democrats because they blamed a Republican administration for the state of the economy. This year, these voters blamed the Obama administration for rising unemployment, and voted against Democrats. In this respect, the fact that some of them identified themselves as “independents” was irrelevant to their decision to back a Republican candidate.
Many of these voters are susceptible to populist appeals, especially during a downturn. After all, they blame special interests for their plight. And those special interests can include business as well as government, as the Pew survey found even in the case of the white working-class independents who leaned Republican. This year, in the absence of an effective populist appeal from the left, many of these white working-class voters embraced a right-wing populism of the type typified by the Tea Parties, which was directed primarily at the government and government programs. The Pew poll found, not surprisingly, that Shadow and Disaffected Republicans enthusiastically back the Tea Party—but as many Doubting Democrats said they agreed as disagreed with the Tea Party.
Because of their embrace of rightwing populism, white working-class voters rejected not only the Obama administration, but its programs. They believed that the stimulus and the health care program made the economy worse. Again, that included the working-class independents who leaned Democratic. Doubting Democrats disapproved of Obama’s Health Care legislation by 54 percent to 32 percent. (By contrast, the more upscale Shadow Democrats approved of it by 72 percent to 19 percent.) These voters now favor cutting government spending and reducing the deficit, although typically they balk at cutting programs that would actually reduce spending. That created a genuine political dilemma for the Obama administration and the Democrats.
What is an effective political response to this group? After the 1994 election, Bill Clinton, faced with massive defection of white working-class voters, adopted a strategy of rhetorical appeasement, declaring that the “era of big government is over.” He also eschewed any new major spending programs. But Clinton was blessed with an economy that, unbeknownst to voters in the 1994 election, was about to enter a boom. It really didn’t matter what Clinton actually did: By November 1996, he could take credit for the economic revival. And the boom was what mattered most to these voters.
Obama faces a much more daunting situation. If he not only embraces the rhetoric of anti-government populism, but lends his support to it by reducing or even freezing social spending, he will risk perpetuating and even deepening the downturn. That will ensure another landslide-scale defeat for the Democrats regardless of what Obama says and does about opposing government expansion. It’s the actual condition of the economy that wins or loses their votes. And what about changing the way Washington works? There are voters out there who care about eliminating earmarks, but they are probably not the white working-class voters who deserted him in 2010. If you want to see how much the white working class objects to earmarks, you can look at the failure of a Republican in Erie, Pennsylvania, to take the seat of the late Representative John Murtha, the king of earmarks, from Murtha’s former chief of staff and protégé, Mark Critz. Or you can look at the high opinion that West Virginia voters had of the late Robert Byrd. The primary criterion by which these voters will decide who to support is the state of the economy, not the size or civility or transparency of the government.
Much of what Obama proposes to do in response to the November defeat sounds depressingly like what he proposed to do in January 2009. It’s not that he didn’t try to work with the Republicans and to change the ways of Washington: He did, and failed, because the Republicans were determined to make him fail and appear weak. Yes, Obama does have to pay attention to those white working-class voters who shift uneasily from one party to the other, but the way to win them over is to get them jobs—and if that fails because of Republican obstructionism, to make sure that these voters blame the Republicans not the Democrats and his administration for the result. If he can’t do that, his only recourse may be to get on his knees and pray that unbeknownst to most voters and many economists, a strong and buoyant recovery is about to begin.
I want to thank Mark Blumenthal, John Sides, and Ruy Teixeira for their help with this analysis.
John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
52 comments
If this is how Obama really interprets the midterm result, thinking that he needs to pander to ill-informed swing voters by shifting his policy focus even farther to the right, he and we are toast. One factor neither this nor many other analyses I've read since the election seems to take into account is all the young and minority voters who supported Obama in '08 but didn't show up to the polls this time around. Before the midterms the airwaves were abuzz with talk of "the enthusiasm gap," but after the fact, despite strong evidence that demoralization among the Democratic base was a key factor influencing the magnitude of Republican gains, no one wants to say anything about it. Obama looks at the results and says, "I have to move rightward to appeal to a bunch of Republican-leaning 'independents'" when in fact most of these voters aren't gettable. Probably a large number of such 'independents' who voted GOP this time around simply didn't show up in '08 because McCain/Palin was such a clusterfuck of a ticket. There are literally millions of voters who supported Obama in '08 who stayed home in '10. Why he shouldn't make them, people who are eminently persuadable, the focus of his political attention is beyond me.
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 1:48am
This is a truly psychotic post by Judis. It's a great object lesson in why Democrats have been failing more than succeeding in the last forty years. Where's the objective self-criticism? This is all self-esteem and no analysis. What Aaron characterizes (inaccurately in my view) as "ill-informed swing voters" are the core of the Americn polity. You win--and not coincidentally govern well-- by understanding how they think and what they want, not by trying to figure out a way to bamboozle them into accepting the agenda of the fading less than 25% view of leftists. This is a good example of why Democrats are most accurately referred to as the Democrat Party. Little actual democracy left here. Obama is on the right track, with hopefully Bill Clinton as a guide.
- Robert Powell
November 18, 2010 at 4:40am
Can't agree Robert. I'm not saying Republican voters are ill informed; I'm saying truly swinging voters, i.e. those who are actually up for grabs, are ill informed. They are ill informed almost by definition. They vote Republican one year and Democratic two years later based not on information about what a candidate and her party are likely to do when in power but on their mood at the time of the vote and which candidate seems more likable or stronger or more consistent. Judis makes a good case that the proportion of the electorate that can feasibly be won back to the Democratic side is small and that for the president to modify his policies to appeal to this small proportion of the overall voting public is a mistake. I don't see the narcissism in this argument of Judis's. And what makes this particular cohort of voters "the core of the American polity"? The fact that they can't make up their minds? That's just silly, Robert. The reason these voters seem in some people's views--yours, apparently, and the president's too--to be uniquely important is that the American polity is fairly evenly divided into those who always vote Republican when they vote at all and those who always vote Democratic when they vote at all, and therefore this relatively small group of muddleheads who use independent thinking as an excuse simply not to think does on occasion hold the power to flip election results. That doesn't, however, mean that the direction they jump is the most important factor deciding elections. Nor does it mean that they should be lionized as America's core voting constituency. The point I was trying to make in my first post is that elections are not won by tailoring one's appeal to the small number of persuadables at the center; they are won by making a strong, clearly and energetically articulated case for the agenda that appeals best to your core party voters. Getting the base energized and to the polls is the sine qua non of electoral success. Turning yourself into a reactive, mushy, poll-driven mess in an effort to chase whatever it is you imagine swing voters want will fail utterly to energize the base, and it probably won't pull that many swing voters either. Swing voters don't vote on policy. They vote on their perception of candidates' competence and leadership ability, qualities which are best exhibited through consistency and the willingness to take a stand.
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 6:17am
I reckon the degree to which the the 2008 result depended on depression of the Republican base is underestimated. Fiscal conservatives were tired of Bush's excessive spending. Christian conservatives were not at all enthused about McCain and though Palin helped a little with that crew, she was all too obviously an Evangelical beard for Johnny Mac. Nobody was all that excited about the Iraq war anymore. If possible McCain seemed even older than his 72 years and his underfunded, stodgy, herky-jerky campaign did little to fire up core GOP voters. In other words, a big part of the flip between 2008 and 2010 is that it wasn't even the same people voting. Natural Republicans stayed home in '08 and natural Dems in '10.
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 7:06am
It's simple. The economy is too damn low! Everyone's pissed off.
- Nusholtz
November 18, 2010 at 7:31am
Has it ever occurred to anyone that politicians say they want to appeal to "independents" are simply using a code word, and don't exactly mean what they say? [Not that such things happen in politics -- especially not with a politician as upright as Obama]. I would posit that it is no more meaningful a description of the electorate as "hard-working Americans" or the "middle-class". As Judis notes, a large swath of the electorate considers itself "independent" even though they are actually partisans, because the value of political independence is esteemed in American society while political partisanship is shunned. Thus, there is no downside for a politician to say that he wants to appeal to "independent" voters or that his political failures are attributable to his failure to connect with "independent" voters. It strokes the ego of the average voter (including the egos of all but the most ideologically committed partisans) and makes him or her feel like the politician is taking their interests into consideration. What this means for policy is anyone's guess, because just about any policies can be pitched as benefitting "independent" voters. If the pitch is successful, the politician is connecting with independent voters; if not, the politician needs to work harder and re-calibrate his positions to make the connection. But "independent" voters can support a suprisingly broad range of policies, especially non-social issues.
- wildboy
November 18, 2010 at 9:35am
"independents" is political speak for "middle class whites" aka "Reagan Democrats"
- subterran
November 18, 2010 at 10:08am
The basic problem is the economy. Economics in the last 50 years is indeed a science with testable theories -- and the only macroeconomic theory that fits the available data is Keynesian. The alternates are either ideological statements (government cant create jobs, two legs good four legs bad, whatever) or Hooveriaian quantity of money theories that do not fit available data--- and whose prescriptions are particularly incorrect in a liquidity trap/recession. Most Americans, even educated articulate Americans, like BHO or Robert Powell, have not yet recognized that Economics is now a testable science.The economy has been and is still in recession/near depression and a liquidity trap.. and Keynesian policies have been applied sufficient to prevent a deporession, but insufficient to prevent a prolonged recession. Obama has at best a muddled incoherent understanding/acceptance of Keynesian economics. Consistent with his muddled incoherent understanding of , and timid approch to, most everythinmg else. Take your pick: BPA spill, heaklth care reform, Afghan war (The Graucho Marx approach: Hello! I must be leaving), DADT.. Obama had the best opportunity of any Democrat in 40 years to make a major difference. To do so for the economy, required a knowkledge of and willingness to apply, Keynesiasnm economics. He failed, and it is in large part the failure of a Hamlet, not a Horatio. Keeping him in office is solving nothing. Independents in particular vote for those who produce positive results --- and if tghat isn't obtained, for those whjo promise positive results. BHO and "moderate" DINOs have done neither.
- drofnats1
November 18, 2010 at 10:09am
Off the top of my head, I can identify two groups which voted for Obama that altogether made up much of the difference in his favor: 1) 18-30 year-olds, most of whom were voting for the first (and probably last) time; 2) moderate Republicans, Democrats, and independents of all ages who either couldn't countenance Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House, or had temporarily lost faith with the Republican Party because they were weary of and worried by the war, the ballooning deficit, and the bailout (and Palin). I doubt very much that the "youth vote" will turn out again for Obama, and the few who do vote again will probably lean Republican. For this in part we can thank the far left who are permanently turned off to Obama. As for the rest, the more Obama moves to the center (and right-of-center where possible and tolerable) the better his chances will be. If he faces Palin as the Republican nominee, which I give three to two odds at this point, it's anybody's guess how it will go. Palin herself is a political stealth weapon. Emphatically, she should not be written off by Democrats and liberals generally. She is more driven by personal ambition even than ideology, a shape shifter who is a very serious threat to Obama in particular.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 11:37am
Judis' ambivalence comes closest to defining the challenge for Obama and the Democrats. I would argue that it's not the economy per se, but the unique conditions that have enveloped most of the nation and most income groups. Prior economic downturns mostly affected those at the bottom. This one affects most everybody. By that I mean this downturn was triggered by a financial collapse, which in turn resulted in a housing value collapse. Sure, we have experienced bursting bubbles before, including the tech stock bubble, but while few owned stock in the tech companies (or tulips when the tulip bubble burst), most own houses. Hence, the pain of this bursting bubble has been shared by most regions and most income groups, even those near the top (whose housing values had the furtherest to fall). Praying for economic recovery (Judis) or relying on Keynesian spending for economic recovery (Krugman) won't do it this time. No doubt the aughts will be viewed by historians as the decade of the great bliss, as Americans blissfully took on ever increasing amounts of debt (public and private) to sustain living standards as the nation's economic base was being transferred overseas. The day of reckoning would have eventually arrived anyway, but the decade of bliss accelerated the arrival date. With a now depleted economic base, the ability to reinvigorate the economy to a level sufficient to sustain a large middle class has been greatly diminished. This may be off topic from Judis' post, but unless Obama comes to grips with the cause of voters' discontent, neither he nor his advisors can arrive at an effective economic strategy for economic recovery or political strategy for political recovery. As to the former, it's apparent that his economic advisors have been far too timid; and as to the latter, it's equally apparent that Obama and his political advisors have likewise been far too timid.
- rayward
November 18, 2010 at 12:14pm
It's actually Johnstown, PA, not Erie. The Democrat in Erie (Kathy Dahlkemper) lost to Mike Kelly.
- flynnb_az
November 18, 2010 at 12:24pm
Since economic growth, we are told again and again, depends on consumers' willingness to spend money, what is needed more than anything now is an across the board tax cut, exceeding in size and scope well beyond the mere extension of the Bush tax cuts. People and businesses small and great need more money in hand to spend, period, and they need it now to spur growth. It's that simple. It can be a temporary cut, with an expiration date, say two years hence, at which time Congress and the next President (could be Obama) can re-calibrate tax rates to address the deficit then. The bottom line is the economy must get going and growing significantly very soon, or it will continue to sputter and stall indefinitely, the worst of all possible outcomes.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 12:36pm
Obama (and the rest of us liberals) should entertain the possibility that nothing short of a national mobilization is needed to save the economy by spurring substantial growth in the near term. I am fast coming to believe this is necessary to pull the economy out of the ditch where it is now stuck. Roosevelt accomplished it by massive spending, not one time but several times over the decade it took to emerge from the Great Depression. Now, a second big government spending stimulus is not politically feasible, and it also may not be economically wise. But a massive tax cut would be possible, at a price. The price in part would be cutting and deferring the spending needed to implement health care reform, while keeping enough of its reforms essentially intact to ensure it's eventual full implementation, though delayed. A corporate tax cut weighted to favor consumer banks is needed, in exchange for agreement not to nickel and dime consumers by adding fees and imposing other small "taxes" on their funds. A small business tax cut is needed to spur immediate investment in growing small businesses. Consumers themselves would need to be nudged, prodded, and exhorted to risk buying and investing American wherever and whenever possible. Any, that's an idea I would strongly support economically. Politically, the angry and noisy left must be curtailed or cut off from Democrats if it will not get with the economic program. For example, something I'm highly invested in personally, that is gay marriage, may need to be permitted to gain favor and support on its own merits with still favorable but muted Democratic Party support. Other interest groups need likewise to cool it for a time. If they refuse voluntarily, they too will earn reduced support in the short term. The left for too long has been an albatross around Democrats necks with its noisy, provocative behavior. They will do far better on their own until the economy comes back on line, and better still as prosperity is renewed and restored. My two cents as a lifelong, committed, and left of center Democrat.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 1:55pm
Tgossard is an example of the economic ignorance that leads to economic disaster because of lack of understanding of Keynesian economics. His post is ecomomic gibberish. Indiscriminate tax cuts are a budgetary waste.. poor stimulus multiplier. Tax cuts to the upper 20% are also a bugetary waste. Non-acceptance of Keynesian economics is as detrimental to economic recovery and future economic strength of the US as non-acceptance of a heliocentric universe would be to designing a space flight to land on a moon of Jupiter (which a Pope in 1600 would insist doesn't exist).
- drofnats1
November 18, 2010 at 2:13pm
Well, at least I tried. I have no problem at all with a Keynesian solution, in fact, I would welcome one. However, drofnats1, what do you propose Obama and Congress do to implement a recovery consistent with Keynesian economic principles; that is also politically feasible (and might save Obama's and Democrats' skins, if at all possible)? Toward that end I have no expertise, only imagination, wild and blockheaded though it may be.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 3:46pm
Points 2 and 3 are crucial. There are fewer true Independents than many think -- most lean decidedly to one party or the other -- and many are no more "moderate" than other voters, just more alienated. Obama is down because the economy stinks, and his accomplishments have been significant and would have been more so had the liberal Dems of the now-waning Congress possessed another three or four Senate seats. Sorry guys but Obama's fate is not his own to make.
- cforeman
November 18, 2010 at 4:20pm
I'm an old-fashioned Political Science guy. With that academic background, and life-long fascination and abiding interest and investment, it is in the domain of political behavior, both of individual politicians and parties, and electorates, where I have good sense and a well-developed gut instinct. Though far from thinking myself infallible, I have had better than average luck predicting how well (or poorly) a candidate will fare, and what and how and an electorate is likely to respond. Some things I can just "smell." One I smell already is the good likelihood that Sarah Palin will be the next President, if something unquestioningly favorable economically doesn't sway "independents" from voting for Obama. I doubt even Clinton could find the right jiu-jitsu to lock up the election if she runs against Palin. (Perhaps, though, her displacing Obama might persuade Republicans to choose a more rational candidate to run against her, but I strongly doubt it). Palin is the one to beat in 2012, and alone Obama won't be able to best her unless he has a strong wind at his back. What but a strong recovery by 2012 would create it? Here I'm open to any reasonable, practical argument. Politically, that is.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 4:28pm
- And the GOP candidate who will best Obama with Independents is ___________ . Help me here. It is difficult to fill in the blank because Primary '12 Inc. will lack the influence of no-nothings who did prevail in the House and prevented a takeover in the Senate. After Iowa and South Carolina there won't be a far right candidate in the running, they'll shape up after a couple of months and the leader will appeal to everyone Angle, Buck or Miller drove off. Or I could be wrong and the GOP will discover that the formula that incited their base this year will not swing toward center until they are spanked in '12. A wise person who believes they have a better chance after Obama is gone will keep most of their powder dry until '16. Why blow it when incumbents win and are gone if four years? To have your name up there with Mondale or Dole? Since FDR, the only threat to re-elect has been a challenge within the party in power or a 3rd Party in the general (LBJ, Ford, Bush 41). I'll be convinced that theory is isn't reliable when I see a GOP ticket which is closer to the center than Obama. I'm taking offers to fill in the blank. Sara-Newt or Hogg-Toomy? Heh, it's not easy...
- michaelg
November 18, 2010 at 4:51pm
- Politically, Palin will have to come up with a magic eraser because her high negatives haven't budged in the two years the public has known her. Maybe John had her in mind to steal the Independents but she hasn't cracked the code so far.
- michaelg
November 18, 2010 at 5:05pm
"Obama's fate is not his own to make." Could be. Had Obama taken more risks early on and fought for a bigger stimulus, he might still have gotten knocked back. Risk implies the possibility of failure. And as for the road ahead, I have to agree that the prospects for any major liberal policy triumphs over the next two years are dim. But when Obama talks about further compromising his already near-fatally compromised agenda in order to appeal to folks only a small number of whom were ever disposed to support him, it becomes clear that he is in over his head and is receiving terrible advice. The path I would support, i.e. aggressive opposition to extension of the Bush tax cuts as well as an initiative or, better, several initiatives to force the issue on further fiscal stimulus with a heightening not lessening partisan warfare, still might not get Obama or another Democrat elected in 2012, but the path Obama seems bent on persuing, i.e. giving us slightly watered-down Republican policy in the name of cooperation--a better word would be "capitulation"--is a guaranteed loser. Why, I ask, would anyone vote for GOP-Lite when right there on the next line of the ballot you can find the full-strength variety for the same low price?
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 5:10pm
"Maybe John had her in mind to steal the Independents but she hasn't cracked the code so far." You're being facious, right? About Palin getting tapped in order to steal the independents? Obviously she was foisted upon McCain in order to energize the GOP base. As you suggest, Palin is toxic with respect to true independents. Tgossard, I cannot second your prediction that Palin will be prez. She might--underline 'might'--get the nomination, though I'm starting to doubt that even more than I did a month ago, but if she does get the nod, Obama will defeat her in the general. Palin is a reality-tv freak. She's on TLC baking cupcakes and her daughter and her daughter's ex baby-daddy have both been on Dancing with the Freakin' Stars. Palin on the GOP ticket would be a nationwide replay of Christine McDonnell in Delaware. She was governor of a state whose total population approximates that of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and she quit after only a year when members of her state's legislature, many of them from her own party, started being mean to her. She's a walking self-parody. I have to think that the powers that be within the Republican Party will do everything in their power to see to it that Sarah Palin does not win the GOP nomination. She still might pull it off, but if she does, no way she wins the general.
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 5:28pm
Good piece, I agree with the analysis. Just note that the Criz district is centered on Johnstown.
- MAR1962
November 18, 2010 at 5:33pm
facetious, not facious
- AaronW
November 18, 2010 at 5:38pm
michaelg, sorry to disabuse you of your confident appraisal of Palin's negatives' trumping her positives. The reason I say that is we—you, I, and the vast majority of those who now respond negatively to her—have neither seen nor heard or appraised the real Sarah Palin, yet, one of the canniest and instinctive of politicians to arrive on the scene in a long, long time. In another thread I described her as her own best stealth weapon. In short, she is enchanting, in the same way Ronald Reagan was enchanting. She finds the political pulse and attunes herself to it. She can transform herself in a fortnight or two and come out a new cowgirl, one just about right to fit the times. She's phenomenal in the way she attracts sympathy and support. She'll be particularly effective in the environment 2012 will present her. She plays her anti-establishment role deftly and it works for her, every time. You say "what happened in 2008 when she was a drug on the market, and a lead weight tied to John McCain (who after all *picked her*. McCain was proved foolish in his choice, but only because Sarah hadn't got her legs under her on a national scale, she had no real message, and her resentment politics didn't work against Obama, who was an elite among elite)? That was not the real Sarah Palin we or anybody saw or heard. That was then. Since McCain's loss, she has dropped out, tuned in, and turned on. And few but her most admiring followers have really seen or heard her as they will have by the time the 2012 campaign season gets into full swing. She will be down to earth, pithy in her comments and quips, will have mastered her delivery and response rhetorically, and she'll have enough of the practical political knowledge a Ronald Reagan type figure needs to succeed. Finally, nobody currently on the scene can best her ambition, her sheer will to win whatever it takes, the ambition a champion athlete uniquely possesses. She *will not be beat.* She will marshall every talent, every resource, adopt whatever strategy (and know just when to change it to her advantage) necessary to win. In this she is exceptional among politicians, her species of ambition, and self-control. I don't make bets hardly ever, less than a half-dozen times in my life. I will lay $100.00 on the table she is the Republican Party Nominee for President in 2012, and I have something on the (subjective) order of 95% confidence if she is the nominee, she will be elected.
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 5:51pm
tgossard, You are right about the continuing need to stimulate demand, and that a tax cut could contribute to that, but only if "across the board" means a payroll tax cut, that is, a cut in our regressive taxes, not our progressive taxes. That assures that almost all of the money will be spent. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in cutting the taxes of the rich or of corporations who are overwhelmingly owned by those who already have money. None. That was perhaps the single biggest flaw in the stimulus package, the tax cuts for those who already have money. Indeed, we should let the Bush tax cuts expire, to minimize the debt consequences, and declare a payroll tax holiday. That would not only boost spending almost as directly as government spending but would provide an incentive to employment by directly lowering its cost. Not only would this be sound policy, but politically hugely popular as tens of millions of working people would see an immediate boost in their paycheck that, for many, is much more significant than the income tax. You are on the right track, but not every tax is the same as every other tax. ___________________ Sarah Palin will not be the Republican nominee. The money that controls the Republican party has not and will not lose control of the party to that extent.
- roidubouloi
November 18, 2010 at 5:57pm
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-los-angeles/obama-s-second-act-keynes-now-regan-later I agree that everything that President Obama wants to do from this point forward, including being reelected, is dependent upon his earlier economic stimulus reviving the economy.
- rallyn
November 18, 2010 at 7:38pm
independents HATE sarah palin.
- mmathog
November 18, 2010 at 7:48pm
I wish I were a gambler, because I would take that bet from TGossard. Palin will NOT be the GOP nominee. Huckabee has a better chance than Palin - he has very low unfavorables in comparison. and a good voice, and no reality-tv-soap-opera baggage. Not that I think Huckabee will be the nominee - just a much better choice for that base. michaelg: I would put Rick Perry on that GOP list. Maybe Perry-Pence or Pawlenty. I actually believe NJ's Chris Christie when he insists he will not run in 2012. am still recovering from the commentary that Mike Bloomberg will run as an independent if the choice is Obama and Palin...
- K2K
November 18, 2010 at 8:25pm
Who would give up a highly paid media career -- which Palin now has -- for a job where you actually have to show up for work and you're accountable for stuff? I see a lot of moving lips here, and an attempt to keep the Republicans toeing the right-wing populist line. Not a presidential effort, however. Does anyone recall any victorious presidential candidate who has pissed so many people off already? Bush was unknown outside TX and played the "compassionate conservative" angle. Reagan had been a two-term governor of California and was a great public speaker generally appealing to a very large number of Americans. Obama used his calm reflective thing to smooth his way to the White House. In contrast, Palin's voice already grates on half the country; half the country regards her as a high-functioning moron; her control panel cannot simply be programmed to win the GOP primary and then start appealing to the nation as an intelligent pragmatist who will get things moving again.
- ironyroad
November 18, 2010 at 8:30pm
irony, prediction aside, the sound of Palin's voice drives me wild, but watching her on TV, depending on what she is saying when she is in her affective state when she speaks in public, is sheerly intolerable. I laugh at myself for having such a Pavlovian reaction, but there's no denying it. It takes hold of me, without fail, every damn time. I'm serious, I have to ASAP locate the remote and push 'mute.' Nothing nowhere nearly has elicited from such a strong aversive reaction. What else can I say?
- Tgossard
November 18, 2010 at 8:56pm
Where I live we could not get many volunteers to work for the candidates who would support Obama, i.e., Democratic candidates. That's because Democrats who would normally do this stuff saw all their work go up in smoke as Obama waited for the Republicnas to see how brilliant he is. If he can't get his party excited about him, no one will be.
- Stuart Wilder
November 18, 2010 at 9:49pm
Tgossard. Unless Obama and the Dems act dramatically as a lame duck congress.. bust trhe filibuster, pass an amazing amount of Progressive bills in days that they failed to do in months, their situation is hopeless re a Keynesian stimulus that must originate in the House. Your question, while well put, is the equivalent of" What should Custer do once he was outnumbered and surrounded at Little Big Horn? Answer: He's toast. Should never have gotten himself in that position. If he manages to survive, for heaven's sake remove him from further command. But maybe he's really most useful as a martyr because it will be forgotten how stupid he was to be massacred. Albeit the difference in Custer's case is that he was overly agressive and militarily inept while BHO's upcoming disaster is due to timidity and political ineptness.
- drofnats1
November 19, 2010 at 12:48am
drofnats1, you validate my surmise that you haven't a politically feasible solution. Passing "an amazing amount of Progressive bills" in a month is a madman's fantasy, which I expect you know already. "But maybe he's really most useful as a martyr because it will be forgotten how stupid he was to be massacred." Martyr to what?!? Martyr's aren't stupid. Either they are willing martyrs who voluntarily deliver themselves up, as a selfless act for a cause or conviction; or, they are innocents with no choice in the matter or manner of their death, which is executed without pity or compassion, and usually done in a brutal, heartless, and cold-blooded act. Remember that the financial meltdown in 2008 and TARP were circumstances over which Obama had little to no control and severely limited options. In addition, the recovery, painfully slow, listless and haltering, could only have been hastened by multiple very large stimuluses, something that was all but impossible to accomplish given the political hesitancy of both Democrats and Republicans. The best thing for Obama to do, if it is at all doable, is get Congressional Democrats on board for a determined push to enact new stimulus bills. There will have to be some plausible roadmap to recovery that will convince the American people that passing stimulus legislation is a compelling necessity. Nobody will be willing to assume the enormous risk to gamble on the outcome. What potential President could get it done? I don't know, maybe Clinton if she's willing to put her neck, and her place in history, on the line, for a slim possibility of success, or a willing martyrdom.
- Tgossard
November 19, 2010 at 2:05am
I think there is a serious under-estimation of independent voters by the posters here, and by Democrats in general (with the possible exception of Obama). In the last two election cycles, voters describing themselves as Independents outnumbered both Democrats and Republicans. This is not "a small minority of muddleheads". As one of them, I can assure Aaron that my rationale for voting sometimes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans is not accurately described by him. It is simply irrational for Democrats on the left who represent at most about 20% of the electorate to insist that what the party needs is to ram their agenda through by hook or by crook. The bad economy is a major determinate, but so is the wide-spread notion that given the opportunity Democrats would have the government dominate even more of the economy than the 44% it currently does (local, state, and federal). This is not something that is desired by a big majority of voters past, present, or future.
- Robert Powell
November 19, 2010 at 4:35am
You nailed it, Stuart. What Robert Powell is missing is that dissing your party's core voters just so you increase your appeal to swing voters is a losing strategy. It'll be the fourth or fifth time I've said more or less the same thing in this thread, but in American elections the key factor determining the outcome--at least of those elections that are, by any stretch of the imagination, competitive--is voter turnout. The number of people who change their party of preference from election to election is small compared with the number of folks who always vote for the same party when they vote at all but whose likelihood of casting any vote at all varies widely depending on their enthusiasm for any particular candidate.
- AaronW
November 19, 2010 at 6:54am
With all due respect Aaron, your arithmetic is faulty. If your "core voters" represent less than 25% of the people who actually turn out and vote, and by getting them "fired up" you alienate the nearly 50% who aren't in that group and in the bargain "fire up" your dedicated Republican opponents, there is no formula for victory anywhere in sight. McGovern; Carter; Mondale; Dukakis; Gore--what they all had in common was that they used your formula. The exception: Bill Clinton. I think results tell us more than theories.
- Robert Powell
November 19, 2010 at 12:48pm
AaronW, I'm as core a "core" Democratic voter as just about anybody. I have voted in every election, local, national, district, city, county, missing only three, since 1968. I have voted for a Republican five times or fewer through all the years. I'm a solidly liberal Democrat (with mild socialist sympathies that I have not once indulged at the polls). I not only voted for, but gave an injudicious amount of money to his campaign, something I have never done before. But I promise you, if Obama and Congressional Democrats were to do what you propose and support, I would not vote for Obama, neither my Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, possibly even not for Dianne Feinstein, a moderate Democrat, and our senior Senator whom I have supported and worked for in every election she has run in since she became Mayor of San Francisco. Not because I'm mad/angry (though I would be). I would not vote for them because they did not sacrifice their personal political priorities and work like heck, with Republicans or not, toward a robust economic recovery. Everything, mind you, everything, every one of my priorities takes a back seat to restoring the economy to health and healthy growth. My G-d, if Democratic voters, core or otherwise don't get with the program, to hell with them, they have acted in an un-American manner, which to me is inexcusable. If the Repubs show they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary, and Democrats don't, I will vote Republican. This g-ddamned recession is the most critical political and economic priority I have had in my lifetime. It is a killer, and time and energy cannot be wasted playing peripheral political games at such a time.
- Tgossard
November 19, 2010 at 1:49pm
Correction: "I voted for Obama and gave an injudicious amount of money to his campaign."
- Tgossard
November 19, 2010 at 1:51pm
- If there is a trend for people to not declare a partisan identity, it is impossible to judge the viability of one candidate in the absence of an opponent. Until we are certain who Obama will face, we can't evaluate his potential to compete for these less partisan but likely voters. But it appears one sweeping statement would be allowed: Success depends on maximizing the base +. That is, one can't succeed without the base but failure is probable if the opponent has secured their base and has greater reach with less partisan voters. The GOP and their primary selection system appears to be working against this necessity & they won't extend their reach if they follow the trend of the past two years. The known candidates and lack of moderate influence in the GOP mean Obama's chances are favorable if seemingly risky now.
- michaelg
November 19, 2010 at 4:45pm
Robert Powell, Tgossard, please explain to me how fighting to extend middle-class tax cuts while phasing out cuts on the top 2%, fighting to defend the newly expanded health-care safety net, and fighting to use federal money to shore up bankrupt state and local governments and to create jobs through infrastructure improvement will be so deeply alienating to marginally-committed, non-core Democratic voters?
- AaronW
November 19, 2010 at 5:09pm
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter and...Gore. All won elections without resorting to a GOP Lite strategy. Dukakis couldn't have fired up a pile of gasoline-soaked rags. For Mondale in '84 there was no viable winning strategy. Carter's loss in 1980 had everything to do with the stagnant economy, with the Iran hostage crisis and with his ineffective, micromanaging leadership style and nothing to do with efforts to fire up the base, an effort which that year was made exclusively by Ted Kennedy. Finally, unless you factor in Nixon's racist dog-whistling "southern strategy," McGovern/Nixon was a referendum on the Vietnam War, not LBJ's Great Society. In summary, your losers list doesn't support your argument.
- AaronW
November 19, 2010 at 5:43pm
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter all got significant support from not only Independents but moderate Republicans as well. And they did it by appealing to their patriotism is terms that computed for the "non-core" in the context of the times. There's nothing wrong with "fighting" for the things you list. But fighting without an effective strategy for winning is simple foolishness at best, and narcissistic self-indulgence at worst. As Tgossard says, we've got a crisis on our hands. Who wins will be the party seen as most effective in dealing with it, and that's not going to happen by adopting kamikaze tactics. Life would be simple if these contests were a matter of noble, patriotic advocates for The Little Guy on one side, and venal, oligarchic real-life embodyments of The Monopoly Guy on the other. But that's not how most voters see the world, this one included.
- Robert Powell
November 20, 2010 at 4:30am
Robert, I think that either I don't understand you and where you're coming from or else you have seriously misconstrued what I'm about. By no means do I think it is good politics for the Democrats to say "fuck you" to white, middle-American folks who have, at least on occasion, voted Republican. One thing I may not have stated very clearly up until this point is that I believe that the kinds of New New Deal policies that I believe Obama and the Democrats should be pushing have the potential to be highly appealing to the kinds of voters we're talking about. But for that to be the case, you have to communicate. And you have to counter the relentless stream of government-is-the-enemy propaganda that perverts people's understanding. And for Obama to go all suicide-bomber would indeed be foolish. But he doesn't have to. He and the Dems still have a LOT of power. This is why his beaten-dog posture of the past month is so distressing.
- AaronW
November 20, 2010 at 7:11am
- There is little value in reaching back before the mid-sixties for evidence to support current voting patterns. LBJ depended upon a significant majority of Republicans for Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Medicare. He knew those bills would be the end of Democrats in the South and he was correct. Consequential or not, Republicans disappeared from Northern states. Nixon exploited white middle class fear but the rigid ideology of each party was defined and it's been forty years since a president could hope the Senate would deviate from strict party line votes. There have been exceptions but each cycle since '72 produced few examples of bi-partisan votes. Notice, the independent voter did not rebel against this trend and build a 3rd party, their reluctance to be organized at the national level meant they'd reward moderation and reject loyalty tests. Thus Obama should exploit the House's and Senate's lack of unity, offer compromise that will be rejected and fulfill his prophesy that the rigid electoral map (which he began to break-up) is the enemy of solution based government. Obama can hold up these four years as proof that Red State-Blue State election results guarantee conflict. His opponent will also be a product of the map he sought to disolve. He need not win a majority from groups who have skewed to the right since the 70's. But he should be able to make a good enough case to them so any potential opponent appears more rigid and radical. The other side will define who does not support the majority sensibilities and that will happen without him sacrificing his base. It may not be obvious now but President Obama's vision of '08 will compare favorably with the product of the next Congress. If he reinforces that message the GOP nominee will appear to be on the wrong side of history that is still developing in the present.
- michaelg
November 20, 2010 at 10:45am
To a certain extent Democrats have already "said fuck you to white middle-class folks who have occasionally voted Republican"--the bank bailouts may have been necessary, but given the leverage they brought did Obama really have to permit the extravagent bonuses? The healthcare bill may prove to be a step in the right direction, but did it really have to be the Reid/Pelosi ram it down their throats version rather than, for example, using Wyden/Bennett as a starting point? And why is Reid/Pelosi still in charge? This IS communication, just of the wrong message. Look, average Americans have a deep and well-founded mistrust of government. It's in our political DNA, and since most of us have as our principle points of contact with it the IRS, the post office, and the TSA, this mistrust is regularly reinforced. The goals of the left may well be "highly appealing to the kinds of voters we're talking about", but that doesn't translate into confidence that this federal government is capable of delivering them. I think michaelg lays it out rather well. This is nothing to do with beaten dogs. It's in my view the most likely winning strategy for 2012.
- Robert Powell
November 20, 2010 at 6:09pm
I'm no fan of the way the bailouts were handled, so in that sense you and I are speaking the same language. I haven't looked into the various health reform proposals in detail, but my impression is that Wynden's plan was basically just an individual mandate with a subsidy for the poor but lacking any provision for pooling individuals to distribute risk, without which any plan would be a nonstarter. And you want this bear-bones, inadequate plan to have been the starting point? That doesn't make sense. In these kinds of negotiations subtraction is always easier than addition. Look, the current administration and Democrats in general have done a terrible job of communicating with white working class and elderly voters. This is a problem I'd like to see fixed. But you DON'T do it by adopting every single fallacy such voters have been fed by your opposition. BTW, I agree with michael that Obama will likely win reelection. My concern is that it won't make any difference.
- AaronW
November 21, 2010 at 6:28am
bare-bones. my tendency to substitute homophones when typing quickly online is a constant source of frustration.
- AaronW
November 21, 2010 at 6:32am
though maybe Sarah Palin might advocate a bear-bones health care plan...one where those without employer-based health insurance can all go see an Alaskan native shaman and have the bones of a momma grizzly waved across whichever part of their anatomy was giving them trouble.
- AaronW
November 21, 2010 at 6:36am
Wyden/Bennett was a lot better than you describe it Aaron. It's successor doesn't look half bad either: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/have_scott_brown_and_ron_wyden.html Definately worth a closer look........
- Robert Powell
November 21, 2010 at 1:32pm
Even if that's the case, RP, what do you think are the chances of a reasonable, pragmatic discussion with the Republicans on how the ACA can be restructured and improved with these new ideas? About as likely as my winning the Nobal Prize for biochemistry, I'd say.
- ironyroad
November 21, 2010 at 3:30pm
- I think Frum forecast how-why Republicans would pay for not getting into the debate while the getting was good. How often do we have a majority in both chambers, a president and most stakeholders willing to give it a shot? Campaigning for, think tanking about and voting against for sixty years was easy. Funny how decades of progressive legislation which worked for people till they died using it is the target of those who predicted it would turn us into Soviets. As with most big plans, it's best to be in on the original design if only to make a plausible case for what you favor and what you don't. Legislation and policy making reward innocent bystanders.
- michaelg
November 21, 2010 at 4:22pm
- doesn't that should be 'doesn't reward'
- michaelg
November 21, 2010 at 4:23pm