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:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

People leaving the Democratic Party in favor of the Independents doesn’t likely help Republicans. They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just tired of actually being Democrats.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

People leaving the Democratic Party in favor of the Independents doesn’t likely help Republicans. They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just tired of actually being Democrats.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Maybe you’re right, although I think it shows more that people are getting fed up with politicians in general.

I vote Republican because it’s better than the alternative, but even the GOP has been pretty bad the last decade or so.

Quantus on December 8, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Add to that the shifting population, adding seats to Texas and taking them away from New York. 2012 is gonna be SWEET!

Tony737 on December 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Yep. The Dems that have bailed are just concerned that Obama is “too conservative” for them. That said, they’ll vote for whoever the Democrat party nominates. Only conservatives have principles–hence many did not vote for McCain.

mojojojo on December 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Here’s a question I’d like to see both major parties answer:

How do you appeal to the indies when about the only choice that is Not-Obama is to go about as far to the right as The One is to the left?

For instance, is there such a thing as “sort of” repealing Obamacare, versus either full repeal or leaving it as-is?

Phil_GA on December 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I returned to TX 2 years ago and bought a home in a conservative county…had invitation to join GOP within 2 weeks or so..I declined…how many years do I have to wait before I see a true conservative campaign for the presidency of the USA? Death may greet me first…

hillsoftx on December 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM

People leaving the Democratic Party in favor of the Independents doesn’t likely help Republicans. They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just tired of actually being Democrats.

A good rule of thumb is that independent voters who show up at the polls will favor the challenger over the incumbent at about a 60/40 ration. Republicans will do better with independents for sure in 2012, and the more of them, the better for the GOP. Given the overwhelming amount of seats the Senate Dems must defend, it looks like it will be impossible to prevent them from picking up at least 8 seats.

TheLastBrainLeft on December 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM

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.

With all due respect, my neice is of that generation. In 08 she and her friends voted for barry, natch. But she commented that she had come to the conclusion that her friends were, well, losers. And, that while she still voted for barry, she did so with some reluctance (btw, her parents are both conservative)

So I think my niece can be saved…great, one out of 10…the rest: losers. Without a clue, hangers-on.

But, the problem is, we’re a long way from Hayek, Friedman, Buckley. My journey was helped by all these people….who is helping them now?

r keller on December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

People leaving the Democratic Party in favor of the Independents doesn’t likely help Republicans. They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just tired of actually being Democrats.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Meh, same here. I left the Republican Party but there are few I’ll vote for besides them. (I did vote for Casey Senior in PA for Governor over the Republican.)

hawkdriver on December 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM

About 90% of independents either don’t vote or are closet partisans. Their importance is greatly overstated. The ones who left the Democrat party will very likely still vote with them.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 8:53 PM

But, the problem is, we’re a long way from Hayek, Friedman, Buckley. My journey was helped by all these people….who is helping them now?

r keller on December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

You! Your job. And it sounds like you are doing a good one.

And if the idea that you are “it” scares you — lol, welcome to the horror.

Axe on December 8, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I reckon I’m an anti-independent. When I turned 18 I registered as an Independent. Then I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Reagan in the Republican primaries. I’ve been a registered Republican ever since, and so far I haven’t had any reason to regret that decision or contemplate any change. The only Democrat I’ve voted for in the last 30 years is my state delegate (who was my local high school coach and keeps me up to date on all state legislation – pro-military, pro-life, anti-BS). And I live in West Virginia, a yellow-dog Democrat state (but going red in the last few presidential elections). The Democratic party has lost the center and the middle class. They are counting on the fringes for a plurality.

Elric on December 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM

which means they won’t be as turned off by Obama’s big government message as middle-agers might be

Wait until the message becomes reality more so than it has so far.

Bishop on December 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I see myself as an independent. It seems the two parties are more interested in bickering and scoring political points against each other than helping out the American people. I really wish there was a younger version of Ron Paul with the same foreign. and economic policy but a slightly different domestic party.

Politricks on December 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Most of my conservative friends are Independents.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I think that, in general, a lot of people have grown tired of electing politicians who do nothing to actually help improve the economy. Keep in mind that the approval rating for congress is at a historical low. However, I must admit, I am a bit concerned about the GOP’s ability to win over the independents who are getting tired of Obama. I have no statistical evidence to back this up, but, if I had to make an educated guess, I’d argue that most people who classify themselves as “independent” are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That’s why, whenever I see a GOP candidate talk about how they want to reinstate DADT, or amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, I cringe a bit, because I know that independents will be scared off from the GOP with that kind of talk. Polls have shown that the “millennial” generation are much more approving of gay rights than older generations, and I fear that all of the anti-gay sentiments in the GOP will scare off the youth vote and then those youths will go and vote for Obama again, which would be very tragic.

theoddmanout on December 8, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Any pollsters want to ask the question ‘why’ people are dropping the democrat label?

You are driving your nice new Prius down the road, and a wheel falls off. So you get out and look and say ‘the wheel fell off’.

Ok…..
…….why did the wheel fall off?

Skandia Recluse on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

It’s all conversation.
The voters, due to ignorance and media manipulation,decided to end the Republic on Nov. 4th 2008.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on December 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Can a Liberal be Independent? Isn’t the sign of a Liberal a devotion to the collective, the hive mind, mama Borg?

Independent and Liberal are like oil and water. They don’t mix.

prodigalson on December 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Is it possible that they are registering themselves as not being democrats to load a republican nominee that they find easier to defeat?

Mimzey on December 8, 2011 at 9:01 PM

What is the significance of independents?

When I got my new driver’s license there was an option to register Dem or Repub. I chose neither so I am technically an independent then?

CorporatePiggy on December 8, 2011 at 9:03 PM

For instance, is there such a thing as “sort of” repealing Obamacare, versus either full repeal or leaving it as-is?

Phil_GA on December 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Repealing Obamcare is inherently a moderate, centrist action. It returns the status quo. The “right wing equivalent” would be to get the federal government completely out of the health care industry, which no politician is discussing.

18-1 on December 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Yep. The Dems that have bailed are just concerned that Obama is “too conservative” for them. That said, they’ll vote for whoever the Democrat party nominates. Only conservatives have principles–hence many did not vote for McCain.

mojojojo on December 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Certainly – playing the independent or moderate is an old leftist ploy.

But it seems to me a lot of honestly more moderate Democrats have seen what their party has become. They’ve been raised on a diet of hating Republicans…but they’ve just seen Obama/Pelosi/Reid kill their job and destroy their investments. So the question becomes, believe the litany of hate, or your own eyes?

18-1 on December 8, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Tony737 on December 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Wasn’t there a piece about 2 months ago by Tina talking about a population shift to the South? is it possible that by 2016 the south will gain more seats and the Northeast will lose some? If so that could be a big win for conservatives.

TheOarsman on December 8, 2011 at 9:18 PM

CorporatePiggy on December 8, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I think it varies by state….you can be D, R or I. It also makes a big difference if your state has open primaries. I have two co-workers that are hard-core republicans that want to switch to Independent…I have no idea why but people have their reasons…

peachaeo on December 8, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I vote Republican because it’s better than the alternative, but even the GOP has been pretty bad the last decade or so.

Quantus on December 8, 2011 at 8:38 PM

You can say that about some Republican candidates. You can’t say that about Newt, who is the worst of all candidates. Which means that we’re going to be stuck with him, and that means if I vote, which I probably won’t, I’ll vote third party.

Snake307 on December 8, 2011 at 9:51 PM

So I think my niece can be saved…great, one out of 10…the rest: losers. Without a clue, hangers-on.

But, the problem is, we’re a long way from Hayek, Friedman, Buckley. My journey was helped by all these people….who is helping them now?

r keller on December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

have hope. all the ‘millenials’ will eventually grow up. thats the problem with all the ‘hey the kids are really going for the dems now!’ demographic doom & gloom. it doesnt factor in that they GROW UP. and get wiser. most anyway. even though perhaps they dont dine on hayek they WILL grow up. they’ll have kids, and eventually have a job and want to buy a house. and look for a ‘good school’. the rest is pretty common sense. and the lib hive mind is not. in the real world. they’ll get it. they’re still kids. have faith.

t8stlikchkn on December 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I haven’t been a registered Republican since the 2008 FL Primary debacle. Since Cain has left the stage, have no reason to re-register from NPA to R.

Dandapani on December 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM

That’s why, whenever I see a GOP candidate talk about how they want to reinstate DADT, or amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, I cringe a bit, because I know that independents will be scared off from the GOP with that kind of talk. Polls have shown that the “millennial” generation are much more approving of gay rights than older generations, and I fear that all of the anti-gay sentiments in the GOP will scare off the youth vote and then those youths will go and vote for Obama again, which would be very tragic.

theoddmanout on December 8, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Those are the statements and moments that keep me carrying heart for the GOP, when I hear some Republicans make such declarations as that.

The issue you’re adddressing is as to the extent of indoctrination our once-youth have undergone by public education and the Left in it, and now that they’re in younger adult years, they’re carrying that indoctrination forward.

There really ARE NOT any “rights” based upon homosexuality, any more than there are upon sexuality at all, except as to incorporated within the relationship of marriage and a couple having and being responsible for children (the implication there by the result of their union is that they’re sexually united). Not to exclude, however, the criminal aspects to certain specific acts of a sexual nature.

But there’s nothing as to any “right” that is bestowed on anyone by anything when and as they’re engaged in homosexual behaviors.

The contrary insistence that “gays are being denied their rights” is a monstrous aspect of Progressive, if not Communist, indoctrination of our American youth.

I would like to see more Republicans take a stand about this from a legislative posture. It impacts well people who have thought these issues through — and as to those who call these people names of various sorts, it is they who are in the wrong.

We really have to rework if not reform entirely the Dept. of Education, and DADT is a policy that worked, while the outcome of removing that has already proven right the cautions not to remove it.

Lourdes on December 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Independents like myself got Obama elected, then helped bring in the Tea Party 2010 success only 2 years later, after Obama proved to be both a liar and a complete f’in disaster.

It’s true that indies vote partisan often but that’s usually due to the wretched two-party system. Your choices are usually Bad (your usual voting preference), and then Really Bad (the other guys), Pointless (the third parties), and Abstain. In extreme situations though, they will switch, as the last few years proved. For my part, it will always take a helluva lot of persuasion to vote D-Rat, but massive Republican debacles like the neoliberal Bush Presidency followed up by a John “Shamnesty” McStain candidacy can make a convincing argument.

FYI, if we had more effective third parties, we’d see more varied independent voting than we normally do. Right now, voting third party = abstaining essentially.

smiley on December 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Is it possible that they are registering themselves as not being democrats to load a republican nominee that they find easier to defeat?

This is what I think may be happening. Democrats don’t have to worry about who their Presidential nominee will be. They can switch to Republican or Independent and vote for the person they think Obama can beat.

Ibanez Lotus on December 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Th enthusiasm gap is closing in both directions Dem vs Reps. I would image there will be parity there by the time we are at the national contest. It’s going to be a ride for sure.

lexhamfox on December 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

DADT is a policy that worked, while the outcome of removing that has already proven right the cautions not to remove it.

I apologize, but since the repeal of DADT I have not read any stories that have claimed that the repeal of DADT has negatively impacted the army/navy/air force in any way, shape, or form. As far as I am aware, our troops are just as efficient and combat ready as they were when DADT was in effect.

theoddmanout on December 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM

I have met many independents at conservative gatherings. I’m unaffiliated and a family member finally got fed up with the GOP establishment and switched to unaffiliated so it’s not just the Dems leaving the party. I guess it depends on where you live, I can vote in the primaries so not belonging to a party is no big deal. I have friends who live in blue states and they register as D’s to have an impact in the primary elections but they vote conservative in the general. The GOP doesn’t understand that many independents are conservatives.

beacon on December 8, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Adding to the complexity is the new “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act” which will be in effect for the first time in the 2012 Primary Election in the BIG state of California.

This change doesn’t apply to the Presidential Primary, but it will have a big impact on Senate, Congressional, State and Local races.

Here is the description of the new rules from the San Francisco Department of Elections web site:

Voter Information for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

On June 8, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14, which created the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.

Except for the office of U.S. President and county central committee offices, offices that used to be known as “partisan offices” (e.g., state constitutional offices, U.S. Congress, and state legislative offices) are now known as “voter-nominated” offices.Under the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, all candidates running in a primary election, regardless of their party preference, will appear on a single Primary Election ballot and voters can vote for any candidate. The top two overall vote-getters – not the top vote-getter from each qualified party and anyone using the independent nomination process – will move on to the General Election.

Candidates for voter-nominated office can choose whether to list their party preference on the Primary and General Election ballots. Political parties can no longer formally nominate candidates for voter-nominated offices, so a candidate who finishes in the top two at the Primary Election and advances to the General Election is not the official nominee of any party for the office.

Source: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1908

Time will tell what types of unintended consequences and confusion this new system will cause.

This has the potential to be even more confusing than the stupid “Ranked Choice Voting” system which is used for our Local elections.

wren on December 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM

If you are an Independent and want to vote in the Presidential Primary, be sure to check the rules for your state to see if you will be allowed to vote in the Primary.

The political parties in each state decide whether or not they will require voters to be registered members of their Party in order to vote in their Primary Election.

For example, Democrats in State X may decide to allow Independents to vote in the Democrat Primary. But the Republican Party in the same state might decide that only Registered Republicans will be allowed to vote in the Republican Primary.

And the rules can change for each election season. So you can’t assume that if Independents were allowed to vote in previous Presidential elections that they will be able to vote in the 2012 Primary election.

In 2008, there were a lot of “Decline to State” voters (California’s label for Independent voters)in California who were disappointed to find out they were not allowed to vote in the Primary election.

wren on December 8, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Agreed with t8stlikchkn. Give the rest of my fellow Millenials time to experience the joy of big government and I suspect they’ll start coming around on government spending.

Also, as several people pointed out above, independents are usually fairly reliable voters for one party or the other, they just choose not to register for one. The “true” independents tend to be a smallish percentage of the declared independents and aren’t that decisive; in 2004, independents broke for Kerry and Bush still won.

Final interesting thing to note: the “true” independents who don’t usually vote with one party or another tend to be the least-informed voters. Make what you will of that.

HayekFriendlyCon on December 8, 2011 at 11:31 PM

This should be telling the Republicans something. Someone who appeals to the “staunch conservative” right is likely to lose the general election.

Romney is your candidate, if you want to actually have a Republican in the White House. Push Newt and you will get no crossover Democrats and more than half the Independents will go to Obama meaning the Republicans will lose. If Romney is the candidate you will get nearly all the independents and a good many crossover Democrats and win.

crosspatch on December 8, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Liberals leaving democratic party, cause there is no democratic primary, but in some states in order to participate in republican primary, you need to be a republican at least two months. The operation “chaos” is in full swing, and they are trying to chose mittens for republicans.

anikol on December 8, 2011 at 11:58 PM

My question is… How many Dems will refuse to cast a vote for another 4 years of the current administration? I haven’t heard of many Repubs who would consider voting for him, but like “The Bigfoot Monster” I am sure there are a few out there. On the other hand, I have several Dem friends who say they won’t vote for him again.

NoPoliticalAffiliation on December 9, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Why do people always use their own personal friends and family as some sort of measuring stick to how that think the rest of the country feels? Look, theres 300 some odd million people in America, you add in the fact that our close friends and family are more likely then not to enjoy the same things and believe the same things we do then you realize that the fact that your 20 closet friends would never do this or do that really doesnt mean squat when compared to what the rest of the country does.

Politricks on December 9, 2011 at 3:29 AM

hence many did not vote for McCain.

mojojojo on December 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM

I held my nose and voted for McCain (then took a shower) and look what it got us. Why in hell would I vote for McCain version 2.0?
BTW, if asked I tell people I’m a Conservative who sometimes votes Republican. The Democrat Party is so filth-ridden and socialistic that I won’t even vote for one of them on a local level. I made that commitment back when all the Dems stood behind Clenis and turned a blind eye to his crimes. Turdboy just confirmed the righteousness of that decision. Yes, we are sorely divided and the parties are bitter enemies, but I didn’t make it that way. Look at who’s running a scorched earth campaign.

Extrafishy on December 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM

How many Democrats are just switching parties so they can vote for the Republican candidate (in coordination with the Democratic party) in the primaries?
(Then they will vote for the Democrats in the election.)
If the Democrats can help pick the Republican candidate they will try any dirty trick out there.

albill on December 9, 2011 at 6:22 AM

They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just tired of actually being Democrats.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

They’ll likely still vote Democrat, they’re just ashamed to be Democrats. Wouldn’t you with such a pathetic socialist loser in charge of your party? There is no place for Democrats who hold mainstream American values in the midst of the internationalists and radicals destroying this nation a little bit more each day. But Democrats have a habit of being led like mindless sheep. They will still vote unquestioning for whatever creature is on the ballot with a “D” behind their name.

Happy Nomad on December 9, 2011 at 7:19 AM

I’m probably one of the “droves” but yes I’ll still vote for Obama, for the Supreme Court. No candidate in either party is going to propose solutions for the last 30 years of failed supply side economics and both parties continue to believe the supply side lies. So there’s no real choice.

libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 7:31 AM

If the Democrats can help pick the Republican candidate they will try any dirty trick out there.

albill on December 9, 2011 at 6:22 AM

I defy the Democrat machine to look at the candidates and figure out which one poses the biggest threat to the pathetic socialist loser in the White House. The GOP can’t even figure that one out. The only thing I’m hoping is that it is not Romney, not because I hate Mitt but because it would destroy three years of plotting by Obama and his people to make this all about class warfare with the jug-eared socialist leading the charge against the fat cats and industries who have not paid huge sums of money to the DNC.

I do not consider it coincidence that OWS has popped up when it did with all that union funding behind it. This is clearly an orchestrated attempt by the anarchists of the DNC to make the election about anything but the record left behind by three years of out-of-control spending, Keynesian economic theory, kickbacks to the auto unions and selected “green” industries, and not having a clue that being president actually should take time away from the vacations and golf outings.

Happy Nomad on December 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM

I’ve noticed an uptick in dead people and multiple voters moving away from the dems.

I also noticed the nasty thing that heads up the florida league of voters ranting yesterday about voter discrimination. She was really ticked off that someone was actually having to show an ID to vote. It’s obviously racist as how can a dead person, felon, multiple voter or illegal alien vote if they have to show a valid ID?

acyl72 on December 9, 2011 at 7:44 AM

“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.

Media claptrap. If you just dropped your party affiliation, you probably just started paying real good attention–or caring about the outcome.

Axeman on December 9, 2011 at 8:17 AM

As a long-time Independent voter I went down to the local election office last week and changed my declared party affiliation to Republican so I could vote in the upcoming Primary Election (we have a closed Primary system.) Talking to the clerks as I filled out the form I was told a lot of Independents had been in that week to do the same thing. Make of that what you will.

potkas7 on December 9, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Democrats used to be viewed as the party of the blue collar worker. Who has done more to gut blue collar jobs in this country? You know we take bids in this country to build big projects, and Chinese bidders out bid Americans, and build bridges in this country.

Today the democrat party is the party of trial lawyers, unions, and wall street (Jon Corzine poster boy)

Although during OWS protest, the trial lawyers, and the unions were attacking the Wall Street people, who vote and donate democrat. This was necessary for Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to stage astro turf to back Obama’s claim that the top 1% doesn’t pay their fair share.

Republicans are the status quo party, when we are 15 trillion dollars in national debt, and climbing, I expect more than republican politicians suggestions, we just tread water, pretty soon the waves are going to cover our heads.

Dr Evil on December 9, 2011 at 8:42 AM

I dropped the Republican label years ago after getting fed up with the social conservatives hijacking. Gay people don’t bother me nearly as much as out of control government.

Grindstone on December 9, 2011 at 8:59 AM

I apologize, but since the repeal of DADT I have not read any stories that have claimed that the repeal of DADT has negatively impacted the army/navy/air force in any way, shape, or form. As far as I am aware, our troops are just as efficient and combat ready as they were when DADT was in effect.

theoddmanout on December 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM

As a recently-separated vet, I’m going to have to agree with you. No negative effects whatsoever. And the people I served along side with who were gay no long have to live in the fear they’ll lose their jobs.

Grindstone on December 9, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Independent Conservative, former Republican, here.

I’m of the opinion that there are many, many more independent conservatives among the voting public than the republicans want to admit.

This “we must run a liberal/moderate/progressive candidate (Romney) to bring in the independents” meme is rubbish. They might bring in some democrats with Romney, but they’re losing many conservative republicans and independents in the process.

Some surveys report that there has been a major shift to the center/right in this country thanks to Obama’s far left/socialist policies.

I don’t get why the elite republican party politicians and pundits are seemingly willing to blow this opportunity to nominate a conservative candidate. They’re going full steam ahead with their liberal counterparts on a mission to annihilate any candidate/conservative that dares to threaten Romney’s perch in the polls. Gingrich is their latest punching bag.

Newt Gingrich is rocketing up the polls because the voters have had it with the establishment republicans telling us who we want for a nominee. McCain, Romney…same difference.

Gingrich is the non-Romney voters have settled on, like it or not. He’s the smartest man and best debater on any stage. I’d love to see a Lincoln/Douglas debate with Gingrich/Romney (Romney declined) and Gingrich/Obama.

IndeCon on December 9, 2011 at 9:12 AM

As far as I am aware, our troops are just as efficient and combat ready as they were when DADT was in effect

And you won’t because you rely on newsources. I mean do you hear any problems the millitary has with other EO groups(which eventually homosexuals will be)?

Also not a lot came out, because despite news sources there wasn’t 66,000 gay people in the military. Those that do come out are coming out for a political agenda(see guy who ask question at Republican debate) just like all of those associated with the military knew would happen.

melle1228 on December 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Meh, same here. I left the Republican Party but there are few I’ll vote for besides them

I am not quite there, but I am getting there. I stopped donating money..I will probably register as an independent in this election also.

melle1228 on December 9, 2011 at 9:19 AM

I became an Independent, before the 2008 election when the PUMAS jumped off the party band wagon, I came from an earlier group of democrat voters, that jumped off in 2000. The media didn’t publicize our defection, but if people go back, and look they will see a lot of democrats who voted for Nader in a protest vote in 2000. Not me I haven’t ever voted for Ralph Nader.

The progressive left wing of the democrat party, have driven people out of the democrat party because they are basically “Socialist Democrats”. They hate the blue dog democrats with a passion. Just take a look at the graphic Kos used on his website targeting Gabby Giffords (D) before the 2010 mid term election, scroll down in comments for screen capture. The progressive left inside the democrat party are the ones trying to turn the U.S. into the Euro model…..and we all have a first look at how great the European “socialist” Model has worked out. Is it any wonder after the 2010 mid term elections they became a coastal party?

Meanwhile Obama channels the father of progressivism Teddy Roosevelt. Obama mentions he was called a socialist too….so Obama thinks there is a brand of American socialism that is popular, and will sell in this county in 2012? There are voters who don’t know who Teddy Roosevelt was, there are voters who don’t know the current Vice President of the U.S. That government program of dumbing down the population in the public school system, hit pay dirt. So good luck with channeling a republican president, your voter base didn’t even know existed champ.

Dr Evil on December 9, 2011 at 10:06 AM

I’m going to paraphrase Reagan here who said something along the lines of “it’s not enough to just stand in opposition, you have to offer the voter something to vote FOR, not just AGAINST”.

I would have hoped that we learned in ’08 that running a Dem-lite with DEM like attitudes and ideas against a full Dem is a path to defeat.

Newt, unstable as he is, is “rocketing up” because he provides the starkest contrast in what he offers as first principles in comparison to Obama’s. Sorry, but the other guys so far are milquetoast in comparison on this point. If our candidates, and we, want to truly compete for undecided folks then we have to offer ideas that stand in stark contrast to the last 3 years and that also inspire people to go vote FOR something, it will not be enough to point out the innumerable fallacies and lies of the current pretend emperor.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on December 9, 2011 at 11:44 AM

millennials

and old saw, “20% of 20 year olds vote…..

60% of 60 year olds vote…” i don’t care about the millennials, they don’t vote…

Dr. Demento on December 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Wait, it’s still cool to vote for a black guy, right?

If so, then party affiliation doesn’t matter.

ButterflyDragon on December 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 7:31 AM

Dude, it’s not too soon for you to say something to get banned for.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM

and if a 20 year old votes, then he/she votes for ron paul!

Dr. Demento on December 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM