POLITICS AUGUST 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The debt ceiling deal has been struck and the score looks to be in the neighborhood of Republicans: a zillion, Democrats: zero. It is perhaps the inevitable outcome of a process in which Obama treated GOP default-threatening tactics as legitimate and accepted the GOP framework that cutting debt, not creating jobs, was the country’s central problem. As a result, we have a deal that severely undercuts Democratic policy priorities and cuts government spending just as the economic recovery is showing signs of tanking. Just how, exactly, did it come to this? The most plausible explanation is that Obama and his political advisors are convinced that striking a bipartisan compromise on debt reduction is the way to the hearts of America’s political independents, who famously abandoned the Democrats in 2010.
Following this logic, Obama’s actions—treating the Republicans’ extraordinary threat not as an illegitimate bargaining tactic but as an opportunity—begin to make a measure of sense. Since independents are supposedly fixated on a bipartisan compromise to reduce spending and cut the debt, Obama would use the leverage provided by the Republicans’ threat, in a judo-like fashion, to enlist both parties in a grand bargain to restore long-run fiscal health. As a result, independents would reward Obama for being, in that tired phrase, “the adult in the room” who stood up for their fiscal priorities.
But it hasn’t worked out that way. As Obama has talked endlessly about a “balanced” approach to getting the country’s fiscal house in order, the economy has continued to stagger and that support from independents is nowhere in sight. Pew data show his approval rating among independents down 16 points in the last few months to an abysmal 36 percent. As for Obama’s re-elect numbers, they have also tumbled, with just 31 percent of independents now saying they would vote to re-elect him, compared to 39 percent for a generic Republican.
To understand how very unlikely it is that Obama’s long sought-after deal is going to magically turn around his numbers, we must visit one of the most robust but amazingly underappreciated findings in American political science: independents are not independent. That is, the overwhelming majority of Americans who say there are “independent” lean toward one party or the other. Call them IINOs (Independents In Name Only). IINOs who say they lean toward the Republicans think and vote just like regular Republicans. IINOs who say they lean toward the Democrats think and vote just like regular Democrats.
Right now, according to Pew data, IINOs are 68 percent of independents, split 36/32 between Republican-leaners and Democratic–leaners, respectively. That leaves less than a third of independents who might really qualify as independent. This figure, in turn, translates into just 13 to 14 percent of adults, and inevitably a lower percentage of actual voters, since pure independents have notoriously low turnout. In 2008, according to the University of Michigan National Election Study, pure independents were only 7 percent of voters.
So how’s the debt deal going to go over with these different flavors of independents? Well, Democratic IINOs and pure independents both are concerned about the job situation over the deficit by a margin of two to one, according to Pew data. In fact, the only part of the “independent” pool that actually thinks the deficit is more important than the job situation are Republican IINOs, who right now give Obama a 15 percent approval rating, the same as regular Republicans. Good luck winning that group over.
But maybe pure independents only say they’re concerned with the economy when their real passion is bipartisan compromises on the debt, and so they’ll ignore the bad jobs situation and turn out in droves for Obama. That’s not likely to happen either. As John Sides has pointed out, voting preferences among pure independents are more influenced, not less, by the state of the economy.
These are the facts, but politicians, and Obama especially, seem to have a hard time grasping them. Perhaps that’s because independents are the Rorschach test of U.S. politics—you see in them what your beliefs and preferences incline you to see. Obama and his team want to see teeming hordes of voters who are above the partisan allure of party, untroubled by the bad economy (or, at least, not planning to vote on that basis), and pining for a Washington where the parties, darn it, just work together. So that’s what they see.
The administration’s chimerical search for the independents of their dreams has not served the country, nor the president, well. Obama has stumbled ever further into a political heart of darkness, hemmed in on all sides by radical GOP views on government and governance. And he can’t expect independents to bail him out.
Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
20 comments
Trenchant analysis. Obama attributes his victory in 2008 to his post-partisan shtick. But could it be that the thing voters hungered for in 2008 and the thing they thought they were getting in Obama was--shock! horror!--a DEMOCRAT?
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 3:17am
Yes, this is a very astute analysis of the political situation. I consider myself an independent but I lean strongly Democratic and almost always vote that way. I'll vote for Obama in 2012 but without much enthusiasm. He's been very weak in his dealings with the Republicans, and I don't like his coziness with Wall Street. Russ Feingold for president!
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 2, 2011 at 9:13am
With the imploding economy and the mess in Iraq, Mickey Mouse could have defeated the Republican candidate in 2008 (although some believe Mickey must be a Democrat because Mickey is either gay or asexual). What Obama needs to do is give those independents, and many Democrats, reason to vote for him in 2012, something he didn't have to do in 2008.
- rayward
August 2, 2011 at 9:17am
"Following this logic, Obama’s actions—treating the Republicans’ extraordinary threat not as an illegitimate bargaining tactic but as an opportunity—begin to make a measure of sense." You are right on the money with this one. Republicans show that they are the party of the rich, the very rich with many fools as members. Obama, remember is a millionaire and stands to benefit personally for agreeing with the Republicans making the poor pay and the rich save. Obama saved himself a bundle with his agreeing with the Republicans and the Tea Party while making believe he is for the little guy. Another reason for me to vote for anyone running against him 2012 beside his anti- Semitism and love to talk to anyone from Islamic terror .
- Poupic
August 2, 2011 at 10:18am
Over the last six to twelve months, Obama has put on a clinic of what NOT to do in negotiations. DON’T start the negotiation with unilateral, substantive concessions. DON’T rule out your own ability to circumvent the other side if a deal is not reached. DON’T allow the other side to frame the terms of the debate. DON’T fail to anticipate the most obvious next move of the other side. DON’T project weakness. DON’T signal that a deal—under any terms—is more important to you than to the other side. Obama is the kind of intellectual guy who should never be allowed to participate in the dirty, grimy world of real-world negotiations. He seems to be a good policy wonk and general administrator, but a chief executive has to be able to negotiate well, project strength and anticipate the other side’s next move. Obama should have remained a law professor. I think someone should challenge Obama in the Democratic primary. For one thing, it would send a signal to Obama and future Democratic presidents about taking Democratic priorities for granted. For another, at this point I think a “generic Democrat” might have as good a chance as Obama in the general election. That is, Obama’s incumbency might bring more baggage than advantages. http://www.hulu.com/watch/264380/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-dealageddon-a-compromise-without-revenues
- NateG
August 2, 2011 at 10:44am
I would love to be Obama's car dealer. I'll he's never paid less than sticker price in his life. Come to think of it, I'm starting to think he's never paid a little as sticker price.
- rlpeterson
August 2, 2011 at 11:28am
Pretty flimsy analysis, with way too much truthiness. Sounds like just another "progressive" who's just upset because Obama did not wave his magic wand and make everything OK.
- GSpinks
August 2, 2011 at 11:35am
Ruy Texeira has studied politics for way too long to take the Administration's claim at face value that it is looking for "independent" voters. David Plouffe and David Axelrod know full well that there are few truly independent voters who don't lean on one party or the other (and that many of these true independents actually don't bother to register or to vote at all). What the Administration is looking for are "persuadable" voters -- in other words, every Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning voter, or a "soft" Democrat or Republican voter, who would be willing to cast a vote for this President. The exit polls from the midterms showed that many of THOSE voters soured on Obama because of the bad economy and voted for Republicans or didn't bother to vote at all. The same polls showed that those voters valued compromise in Washington and expressed concerns about the budget deficit as well as jobs. Polls of those voters also generally show that they are not persuaded by partisan ideology of either stripe, but often ignore the rhetoric and cast their votes on less tangible factors such as "leadership" qualities or general economic trends. In short, the Administration is not being dense in chasing after "persuadables", and they are not so foolish to think that doubling down on liberalism (especially when that liberalism won't yield any legislation in Congress) would make the "persuadables" turn out for Obama in 2012.
- wildboy
August 2, 2011 at 11:55am
Repubs like Spinks validate the thesis of the article. Obama is proving to be the Neville Chamberlain of our time. I have already heard from him many times that Adolf , I mean Repubs, are folks you can do business with. Like Neville, BHO is a nice, bright, humanitarian guy with a personality and policies unfit for the crises of his time. The sooner he is replaced the better--Progressive politicians who oppose this deal, speak out forcefully, and advocate Keynesian economic policies (already supported by a majority of voters) will have a leg up in 2016-- and could win in 2012.
- drofnats1
August 2, 2011 at 11:57am
Any liberal who would abandon Obama over this needs to be reminded that there really was no difference between Gore and Bush, right? Remember how that one worked out? A primary challenger is not likely to lead to a better outcome in 2012 -- it is only worthwhile when you can't win anyway and want to feel better about losing. Most of the time, politics is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Get used to it!
- JEFF FREY
August 2, 2011 at 12:10pm
DavidD: You're not an independent. You're a liberal who doesn't like the Democratic party
- Virginia Centrist
August 2, 2011 at 12:20pm
Post-modern politics maybe? Instead of talking to actual people, talk to focus groups, split hairs from computer projections, read tea leaves? Obama and Co need to get out their offices, their bubble. They need to walk around some big city neighborhoods and talk to people. They will get an earful. They will see what they don't want to see: people struggling, on their watch. It's enough years yet to stop blaming Bush, especially since some of the worst of his ideas could have been stopped already. You know some FAA people are working now without pay, paying for their own travel expenses, because of this meshugas? Real wages are falling, cost of living is rising even as people lose the value of their homes and portfolios and, of course, their jobs and their futures. So, of course we are proud to be cutting domestic spending to Eisenhower levels. Does this make ANY sense? Of course once you are in the bubble it's nearly impossible to get out. I'm just imagining this - but - I visited Washington once and it's a Roman city, full of majestic architecture, that wide river. Imagine now that you go from White House to helicopter to the magnificent Air Force One. You can watch a computer screen as "your" SEAL commandos glide across an international boundary unseen, you can command "your" drones, "your" gigantic aircraft carriers launch their banshees at a word from YOU. You think, the flaming arrows fly. You walk in a bubble, you command the TV anytime you want, by the same token, you are walled off from the world. It can't be easy to deal with and it must be intoxicating. Power must be a very strong and frightening and addictive drug. I imagine it could change the sweetest person...and people with money, enough money, similarly do not live in the same world as ordinary Americans. Obviously they don't see the same reality - most Congresspeople are quite well-to-do - are we surprised when they screw us up? As for the Republicans, read what a certain Colorado GOP member called Obama. I'm from that particular state. This attitude isn't uncommon out there. Not so long ago, the KKK ran that state and the much of the political and economic hierarchy remain Anglophilic WASP. This is true throughout many red and even "purple" states that occasionally send Democrats to Congress. Key industries - extraction (oil, gas and mining) and ranching, sometimes in opposition to farming, sometimes not, have inordinate power and all can be deleterious to the environment, all depended upon the extermination and control of Native Americans, many were founded by powerful Brits, some depend upon cheap ("illegal" immigrant) migrant labor. Of course some Red states depended upon slave labor until quite recently in historical terms. Many receive Federal subsidies too. Corporate welfare is a very real phenomenon but who discusses this? Meanwhile, the very laborers who pick crops now, under brutal conditions for very low pay, are despised. There is terrible bigotry out West against Mexican people. These are not suppositions, they are facts, and they are part of America that some of us don't want to see, because we want to see a post-partisan, post-racial world, where everybody is happy and treated fairly because America Is The Greatest Country On Earth; but that is a fantasy. And we can't afford to have a White House that lives in one although, they all do - simply by virtue of the power and trappings and glory of the job of Temporary King. So, it's telling that Bush's disastrous, deficit-exploding, job-killing nation-destroying policies didn't create the Tea Party (note use of GOP rhetoric; not bad huh:) - Obama's very presence created the Tea Party, and all the wishful thinking in the world isn't making the KKK underside of America go away. We saw it emerge during Sarah Palin's rallies. I have a feeling McCain himself regrets having chosen her. No decent person could relish the ugly side of America that emerged and which now won't go away, and which has, against all principles of fairness, democracy, and the peoples' will, apparently seized control of the government and our economy. This is hardly Obama's fault - but ignoring its existence is something he can't afford, we can't afford, singing kumbayah won't make it go away; and it has to be confronted head on. The polarization of some elements in America is real, it's atavistic and predates the Civil War, we are only now becoming able to confront the history of the Native Americans, still unable to deal with "the other" in the form of Mexico - many of whose people are Native Americans themselves. Indeed, when Gabby Giffords was shot a Native American recited a prayer from his tradition at the memorial service and some damn fool, a "Christian", objected as I recall; e pluribus unum, indeed. Some of us aren't comfortable with math and science and have a belief system as absurd as any Salafi fantasy - yet - being a "Christian" has become a prerequisite for running for President - why? This is getting very strange. We need to be able to discuss it because I don't believe this should be a part of civil life period; religion was not something the framers wished to impose upon the nascent state of America; it was something they tried to protect but also, to protect us from. Thus the debate over education has become fraught with religious bigotry - one Wisconsin TP'er, an aspiring congresswoman, apparently compared public schools to the NAZI party and doesn't understand why creationism shouldn't be taught, also Easter, etc, in public schools. This attitude should not be pandered to! Not under any circumstances. So people making a big deal about Obama being a Christian (and not a Muslim, oh heaven forbid!) - ask why his being a Christian is a) important b) good? Why is being a Christian President good for America, diverse, a nation of all colors, faiths and peoples, why is this supposed to be a good thing in the first place? As for the debt ceiling deal, zillion to zero GOP, maybe, just maybe, this is what the President himself wanted all along? This way he can conveniently blame the GOP for the disaster in 2012, when the economy has already tanked again and he's running for re-election? Definitely, there should be a primary challenge. We need to know who this person is, and this was a key complaint throughout the Democratic primary season leading up to 2008: a very charming, bright, inspiring, charismatic person we just didn't know well. People said oh he's a Manchurian Candidate, meaning, a closet communist, Muslim, Communist Muslim; or something, right? I think he is a closet Republican. Otherwise none of this makes sense.
- Sophia
August 2, 2011 at 1:15pm
You're kidding, right? Have you lost your mind? Obsession with I's? Where better to place one's attention ever?
- alhall1
August 2, 2011 at 1:36pm
Virginia Centrist: Please don't presume to tell other people what they are and aren't.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 2, 2011 at 2:20pm
Ruy writes: "Pew data show his approval rating among independents down 16 points in the last few months to an abysmal 36 percent. As for Obama’s re-elect numbers, they have also tumbled, with just 31 percent of independents now saying they would vote to re-elect him, compared to 39 percent for a generic Republican." Losing
- mr_rationale
August 2, 2011 at 6:01pm
Seven percent changes elections. Even granting this article's manipulation of numbers, it makes sense to focus on swing voters. Purporting to know what these independents think before the debt ceiling bill is signed is absolutely ridiculous. It's not news that most voters care more about jobs than deficits (or more correctly in this case, debt). And there's much to criticize about the president's above-the-fray approach. In the end, I suspect, his "only adult" stance will pay off. Swing voters matter.
- emccded
August 2, 2011 at 9:21pm
Actually, I think independents just want government to work. This is consonant with much of Obama's talk on reforming government. Interestingly, we have Republicans who, in normal times, want government not to work (so that the private sector can do its magic). Additionally, they developed an allergic hyperreaction to the 2008 election and decided then and there that they also don't want government to work in order to spite Obama. [Can you blame them? I think they were looking 1933 in the face and a charismatic, potentially transformational leader in the face. Obama could have powered through very many things without a filibuster and sent the Republicans back to their 1930s hiding places.] Low info voters (i.e., most people) would prefer that government is unobstrusive and promotes their pursuit of happiness. (Bettering economy = good for oneself and one's family.) Low info non-voters are largely jaded by the political process ignoring them, but if government all of a sudden starts working for them for once, they'll take it. This is why it's so crucial for a normally anti-government party to become virulently anti-government. If they simply got out of the way (or, worse, co-operated) in 2009-2011, people might start to like government. More to the point, they might start to buy in to that Obama sell of government that works for you. And more detrimentally, they might start to see that electing the government party in overwhelming droves actually produced policy outcomes consonant with their own views. Remember that the American public's views on so many things--financial reform, taxes, wealth distribution, health care, the environment, etc.--are factually, if not operationally closer to Democrats' views. The problem that Obama and Democrats have to contend with is that they are much more natural fit for Americans' views in the aggregate, but the aggregate polling population isn't who votes. And there's quite a bit of disinformation to confuse the voting public besides.
- chaitless
August 2, 2011 at 10:19pm
There are some very strange market dynamics at work. Unprecedented no less. I think Obama has done a decent job navigating these realities. Most all of the moves he has had to make have been the kind that offer very little credit for success because success is defined as avoiding the black hole. There just isn't any graceful way to do such a thing. It's tough to thump ones chest in a politically partisan manner with any honest payoff one can lay hold of under these particular circumstances. It's tough out there kids. I think we are seeing a man who is trying his best doing what he can (which isn't really much) to avoid disaster and frozen dislocations of money flowing toward a future with very limited visibility and confidence.
- jacko
August 2, 2011 at 11:46pm
When I voted for Obama I had no illusions about his politics. I did not think he was Hubert Humphrey reborn. He is the son of academics, he went to elete schools, he was president of the Harvard Law Review and he taught at the University of Chicago. I thought that he was the kind of Republican I could abide. Now I see that the times demand a true Democrat to resist the onslaught from the extreme right which is what the Republican Party has become. It is scary to see that the populist anger is almost entirely on the right and the so-called left is in the hands of upper middle class folks with only a dilettantish interest in traditional liberal policies. We are not really in the freight car with Woody Guthrie but we listen to his music in our Lexus.
- paskunac
August 3, 2011 at 6:12am
Genius: We are not really in the freight car with Woody Guthrie but we listen to his music in our Lexus. Not that this describes "us" but it sure describes the power elite on the so-called Left and that is a huge problem, but people who aren't members of the club, who really are in the freight car so to speak have no political voice and less ability to influence events. We can grouse, and we can vote, but if our votes aren't counted (cf Bush/Gore), and if we collectively matter less than the corporate "persons", what can we do?
- Sophia
August 3, 2011 at 7:19pm