Independents everywhere
posted at 8:30 pm on December 8, 2011 by Tina Korbe
In a sign that voters are increasingly disillusioned with party politics, more individuals now identify themselves as independents than have in 50 years. That’s bad news for both parties, but slightly worse news for Democrats, who’re losing affiliated voters at a faster rate than Republicans. ABC’s Amy Bingham reports:
In eight states that will be must-wins in 2012 – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – Democrats lost 5.4 percent of their registered voters while Republicans lost 3.1 percent. The number of independent voters in those states jumped 3.4 percent.
“People are frustrated and the way you tune out in American politics is that is you drop the label of the two parties,” said Steven Jarding, a Harvard public policy professor and Democratic campaign strategist. “The danger for Obama in this is he is not only going to have to capture them but capture more of them because there are less Democratic voters.”
It’s also an opportunity for both parties, as conventional wisdom and history both indicate that elections are won at the margins. Every undecided voter poses to every candidate a challenge, but also a promise: “Convince me your mind and message are sound, motivate me to care enough to take action on that message — and I’ll vote for you.”
In 2008, Obama proved himself adept at winning over independents, but, in 2010, many of those same independents swung for Republicans. Unfortunately for the GOP candidates, who are presently engaged in the primary battle, Obama still has the incumbent’s edge: His campaign has already launched two get-out-the-vote initiatives. Whoever scores the GOP nomination will have to be prepared to mobilize independents particularly rapidly. Wouldn’t hurt to ensure the GOTV infrastructure is in place long before the primary ends.
On that note, Obama has also, if you’ll recall, launched an initiative aimed expressly at millennial voters (ominously named Greater Together). The GOP candidates don’t talk much about any particular attempts to capture millennials — but plenty of my pragmatic generation count themselves as independents. In fact, since 2008, millennials have definitely helped to dwindle the ranks of the Democratic Party. According to a report by the Pew Research Center:
The “Millennial Generation” of young voters played a big role in the resurgence of the Democratic Party in the 2006 and 2008 elections, but their attachment to the Democratic Party weakened markedly over the course of 2009. The Democratic advantage over the Republicans in party affiliation among young voters, including those who “lean” to a party, reached a whopping 62% to 30% margin in 2008. But by the end of 2009 this 32-point margin had shrunk to just 14 points: 54% Democrat, 40% Republican.
Note, though, that those numbers compare the ranks of millennials who self-identify or lean Democrat with the ranks of millennials who self-identify or lean Republican. The number of millennials who actually identify as Republicans has barely gone up since 2008. I’d argue that’s because Republicans rarely directly ask millennials to expressly register as Republicans.
It’d be an enormous encouragement to me to see even just one candidate attempt to solidify support among independent and Republican-leaning millennials. Yes, the millennial generation does have a more favorable view of government than older generations, which means they won’t be as turned off by Obama’s big government message as middle-agers might be — but that’s no reason to assume millennials can’t be or aren’t turned on by a message of economic freedom. You can bet Obama is looking to woo every single voter he can; Republican candidates should, too.
Related Posts:









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
Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.
steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.
Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM
So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.
CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM
The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…
I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.
Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM
How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?
The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…
Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Sounds good.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.
Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.
No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM
From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM
How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM
How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?
Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM
A new way to handle primary debates…..
Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.
Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM
View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.
http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg
2017 here we come.
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM
I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)
albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM
It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.
pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Hear!..Hear!..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*
GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM
A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.
marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.
bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM
There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.
Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.
The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.
Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.
Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.
Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.
ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM
But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM
I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.
It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.
Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.
No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!
Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Nein, nein, nein
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
+1
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM
There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.
redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.
If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?
triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM
…someone should insist on it!
KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM
I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.
fair and balanced
tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM
I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.
Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.
Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM