Dems finally notice flight of independents
posted at 2:05 pm on November 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Democrats have finally figured out that the independents they won in 2006 and 2008 have begun leaving their banner in droves. Polling numbers for both Barack Obama and Congress have dropped rapidly in the second half of 2009, with Quinnipiac’s under-50% approval rating for Obama just the latest data point in that trend. But they seem to have a little trouble connecting the dots to the radical agenda and the manner in which they’ve attempted to jam it down American throats this session:
Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.
Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.
Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington.
A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.
The Q-poll data from earlier today shows the problem better than Congressional approval ratings, which are traditionally low even in relatively good times. Obama has a 20-point approval deficit among independents on the economy (38/58), and a 27-point deficit on Afghanistan (30/57). Even on an issue where Obama gets wan overall support, foreign policy (49/42), he’s underwater among independents (45/49).
Why does that matter for Congressional Democrats? First, midterms are in large part a referendum on the President. Traditionally, a President loses seats in the midterms anyway, even if the President himself remains popular. However, for an unpopular President, the losses can get very large — as they did for Bill Clinton, who was more popular at this stage of his presidency than Obama. Second, Democrats hoped to rely on Obama’s popularity to get big turnouts for their re-election campaigns, especially in tough districts. His collapsing popularity outside of the Democratic base will force them to run against Obama and Pelosi and the Democratic agenda.
But if the Democrats think that the problem is rhetorical, they will find themselves unpleasantly surprised at the midterms. The problem isn’t a lack of smooth-talking Democrats; if it was, Obama would still have approval ratings in the mid-60s. The problem is the radical, government-expanding nature of the Democratic agenda. It’s also tied to the poor performance of their economic program, which was another big-government approach. People didn’t flood town-hall meetings because the Democrats didn’t talk nicely enough, after all.
The big question will be whether those independents will swing to the GOP in 2010 or just stay home. If the GOP stays focused on core principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, the Republicans have a golden opportunity to restore their standing on those issues and get a second look from independents while keeping their base satisfied.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Firepilot, I have no clue to what you are referring to that Social Conservatives voted in droves for Carter, a Liberal Democrat. Can you prove this? And as far as your statement on FDR, Jesus how old are you? You do know that this is 2009 right? As far as you being Fiscally Conservative, great! so am I and so are most Social Conservatives. The point is about you taking Liberal Social positions, not your make believe land where you have to chose between Social or Fiscal positions. Most of us are Conservative on all issues not just financial, that makes me Conservative on 100% of the important issues and not 50% like yourself.
SGinNC on November 18, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Ahh, yeah. None of this matters. Those independents will be forced to buy insurance in droves when the Democrats damn the torpedoes and ram health care through.
So why are we even bothering with any of this?
The Therapist on November 18, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Exactly.
As mentioned many times over the years, Independents decide the outcome of most national elections. Dems and Repubs nominate and independents elect.
patrick neid on November 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Are you that uninformed of history? Geez, 1976 was not that long ago eve. Its amazing how many Social Conservatives think that they and their evangelical social values really are the historical basis of the Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
Look at the Southeast, EVERY Deep South socially conservative state voted to elect Jimmy Carter, and those western “liberals”,I mean small government Republicans voted for the Republican nominee, Gerald Ford. So much for Social Conservatives being the real Republicans. But then Gerald Ford was much more of a traditional small government Republican too.
As Reagan said to Carter “There you go again”. You keep insisting with this strawman argument that I am a “liberal” but you have yet to actually post ANYTHING that I am leftist in regards to. You are probably one of those social conservatives who does not know the difference between Liberal and Libertarian and thinks you can use them interchangably. HINT – You can not.
So, if Social Conservatives were such big proponents of fiscal conservatism like you allege, then why were they such big supporters of the Democrats, like FDR and Carter, and their big government programs? My age is not germaine to ANYTHING in this discussion, and does not divert from the fact that social conservatives have been happy to back Democrats, big government and big government programs, and you still do not realize this.
Just because I may know a bit of political history, does not make me some old person, and even if I was, who cares. If knowing history makes me seem old, then so be it.
But, you are welcome for everyone here to name one leftist position I have, and how I am wrong about the social conservatives having been Democrats for so long. You can even tell me I am wrong about Social Conservatives voting for Jimmy Carter too and other Democrat Presidents too
firepilot on November 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Forget all the fancy ways of saying it, what the people WANT is GRIDLOCK!
At this point, the only solution that makes any sense is to stop the government dead in its tracks!
Freddy on November 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Me? I’m swingin’, baby…
Yellowdog12 on November 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
So much for Hope
J_Crater on November 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM
First off, your info did not prove that “Social Conservatives” voted for Jimmy Carter. What really happened was Nixon was tarred and feathered because of the Watergate scandal and him resigning. Then Ford furthered the outrage by pardoning Nixon. I believe that what you saw. The voting was based on this main fact, and not because Ford was a Social Conservative.
As far as me accusing you of being “Liberal”, that has to do with you saying that we should only be concerned with Conservative Fiscal policies and that we should abandon Conservative Social policies. I hear this alot from RINOs and if you still believe that money is all that matters when we elect Government officials, then you should just proudly wear the shoe that fits.
SGinNC on November 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Really? Social Conservatives did not vote for Jimmy Carter? Must have been all those northeastern liberals in the Deep South that somehow overwhelmed all those great Republican Social Conservatives votes.
And, Jimmy Carter was a social conservative too. All he had to do was bring up being born again, and people in the deep south couldn’t wait to vote for him. And if it was just about Watergate, when why did all the western Republican states support Ford? I guess because he did not talk about being “Born Again” and all that, Ford apparently wasnt good enough and Carter was. Apparently all those RINO small government Republicans actually supported the Republican candidate…
If you think social conservatives supporting “born again” Carter in 1976 over Ford (who the traditional small government Republicans supporting him) had nothing to do with social conservatism, then I have some ocean beachfront here in Idaho to sell you.
How can the GOP getting back to its REAL ROOTS of small government and fiscal conservatism being “abandoning” you social conservatives, when your group came rather late to the GOP and are not even the founders of the party anyways? The Republican party has a long tradition of being for small government and staying out of peoples lives as much as is possible, along with fiscal conservatism.
If you actually think small government fiscal conservatism is “Liberal”, no wonder so many traditional Republicans are have scared off being social conservatives. Gee, I thought “Liberals” were for more big goverment, especially that promotes their own set of values. You can not find any position that I have that is leftist at all, but you continue with rather misinformed positions totally ignorant of history and seem lost in some wonderland where social conservatives apparently started the GOP and anyone who is not one and believers in small government is some darned “liberal”
Small Government traditional Republicans and Independents are actually much more opposite of Big Government Lefties, than social conservatives are. Both the Lefties, and Social Conservatives, think it is the governments job to promote the “correct” social values and put them into law and the schools.
Its us (liberal to you) small government types who want the government to do its job such as in fiscal matters (which is its constitutional job) and get out of our lives the rest of the time and not tell people how to live. You might notice the constitution does not empower the Federal Government to tell people how to live, but it does charge them to handle the fiscal matters of governance, which is exactly where we would like the GOP to get back to.
firepilot on November 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You keep twisting what I say, and I am beginning to think this is on purpose. I never said that being small Govt. and fiscally conservative was liberal. So I am going to say this one more time and I am not going to post again in this thread because it is obvious that you only hear what you want. I am for limited Govt., limited spending, allowing states to retain their constitutional rights and us our individual freedoms. That is where we both agree. Where we differ is that I don’t want state supported abortion, homosexual marriage or so called “Hate” laws limiting free speech. I am not so much for any particular religion as long as they preach kindness and good social policies for all.
As far as all of this other made up crap about telling people how to live. Take a look around, there is always someone telling you how to live, but what I am getting from your postings is you just don’t have a problem when it is a liberal or the Govt telling you how to behave as long as it is not a nasty “Christian”.
SGinNC on November 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2