Skip navigation.
The Texas Blue
Advancing Progressive Ideas

Where Will Independents Land In '08?

Late last week, I found the results of a new project from the folks at The Washington Post and some wicked smart guys at Harvard on independents in the American electorate. What they found may surprise you.

Outside of the obvious implications for one Mr. Bloomberg, the large number of likely voters nationwide who classify themselves as independents — somewhere around three in ten — will be a mobile, influential bloc in the 2008 election. That most of them are leaning Democrat is a product of the obvious: the war, the war, George Bush, and the war.

What surprised me is what the breakdown of the various types of independents revealed. Disengaged voters, comprising 24% of independents, are frustrated by the process but tend to favor Republicans. For every other type, the Democratic favorability was either higher or, as in the singular case of partisan-free deliberators, tied with Republican favorability. That's three quarters of the independent vote.

Of course that doesn't mean Democrats will automatically enjoy independent allegiance — these are independents we're talking about. However, I would hazard a guess that the other categories of independent are more likely to vote than the Disengaged, since they are, well... disengaged. The same chunk of voters that turned out so decisively for Democrats in 2006 are still largely leaning Democrat in 2008, despite the media musings over Congress' dismal approval ratings. You can read the full report here.

'06 vs '08 Independents

It will be interesting to see how those numbers hold up in a Presidential cycle. Even with the dismal dead albatross of the Bush White House hanging around their collective Republican necks, I think the Republicans could cut into the independent vote. I think that will hold particularly true if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee; they've already dusted off the old 1993-1994 playbook and started updating the pictures and the selective quotes.

All I know is that my "independent" friends (usually disenchanted Republicans) will be much more likely to either not vote Republican or vote for a Democrat for President if our nominee throws body blows and straight jabs with the Republicans and their nominee.

I can't stress enough how important it is in the collective electoral psyche to at least play tit-for-tat when it comes to being attacked. Unfortunately, that's going to be particularly important for Senator Clinton should she be the nominee. Because of who she is she's going to have to peel some wigs instead of just responding to attacks.

If only

Lessons from 2004 have to be remembered, after they were learned so hard back then.

Nader 2008

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4580.html

I do hope Ralph Nader would find something else to do with his time. The Green Party won't be on any ballots to warrant him even running for President. He will never do better than his 2000 run. I voted for him then, but he is no longer relevant.

He was relevant a long time ago

Once upon a time, Nader could have had it all. He was the man who had promoted traffic safety. Today this is a non-partisan goal.

However, he threw it away in the 2000 election arguing that *hah* there was no difference between the two 'big' parties and their presidential candidates.

Needles to day, I DON'T think America's better off than we had been in 2000. This administration actually has surpassed all of my expectations for incompetence and despair. Looking back at what I wrote as the Politics Editor of my college newspaper, I smirk at how retrospectively and ultimately naive it was

I was just assuming it would wage a four year domestic holy war against independent-minded women, GLBT people/allies, non-Christians...etc through establishment of a 'religious initatives' office. I never imagined the present day Middle East blood bath or that he would even get a second term!

Syndicate content