You May Loathe Independents, But You Need Us

Oh, do you need us. I was poll-smoking (as is my want) when I stumbled across this gem:

Although the gap between Republican and Democratic allegiances speaks to the GOP's current troubles, Kohut said that the shift mostly reflects the defection of independents from the party rather than a more favorable overall assessment of the Democratic Party.

Full article under the spoil tag, since the source requires registration. Full poll available in handy-dandy PDF format.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Republican Party loyalty in decline since 2002

By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
12:31 PM PDT, March 22, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged since the second year of George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political dominance for more than a decade, a major new survey has found.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for People and the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, half of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, while only 35% aligned with Republicans.

What's more, the survey found the public attitudes are drifting toward Democrats' values: Support for government aid to the disadvantaged has grown since the mid-1990s, skepticism about the use of military force has increased and support for traditional family values has edged down.

Those findings suggest that Republicans' political challenges reach beyond the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and Bush.

"Iraq has played a large part; the pushback on the Republican Party has to do with Bush, but there are other things going on here that Republicans will have to contend with," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "There is a difference in the landscape."

A key question is whether those trends signal a broad and lasting change in the balance of power between the parties or just a mood swing that will soon pass or moderate. It remains to be seen whether Democrats can capitalize on Republicans' weakness and gain a durable position of political dominance.

"This is the beginning of a Democratic opportunity," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The question is whether we blow it or not."

Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster, said he believed the Pew poll exaggerates his party's problems and that the situation will improve as attention shifts to choosing Bush's successor.

"Once we have new nominees to redefine the Republican and Democratic party in 2008, then we will have a far more level playing field than we have today," Ayres said.

But other Republicans believe such poll results signal a clear end to the era of GOP domination that began with President Reagan's election, continued when the party took control of Capitol Hill in 1994, and helped elect Bush twice to the White House.

"There are cycles in history where one party or one movement ascends for a while and then it sews the seeds of its own self-destruction," said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative analyst and author of a 2006 book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted American and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

"It's clear we have come to an end of a Republican conservative era," he said.

The Pew poll measured the views of 2,007 adults from Dec. 12 through Jan. 9. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The study of long-term shifts in political attitudes and values is part of series of periodic reports dating back to 1987.

The gap between Republican and Democratic identification, which Pew measured by counting people who are leaning toward one party or the other as well as those with a firm allegiances, is the widest spread between the parties since Pew began since the studies.

Although the gap between Republican and Democratic allegiances speaks to the GOP's current troubles, Kohut said that the shift mostly reflects the defection of independents from the party rather than a more favorable overall assessment of the Democratic Party.

The proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined since January 2001 by six points, to 54%. But the public's regard for Republicans cratered during the Bush years, as the proportion holding a favorable view of the GOP dropped 15 points to 41%.

Republicans seem to be paying a price for a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the state of the country during the Bush years. Three out of 10 people said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the country--a 25-point drop in the last seven years.

While Republicans rode to political power calling for smaller government, support for government action to help the disadvantaged has risen since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Back then, 57% believed the government had a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves; now 69% believe that.

On the other hand support for Bush's signature issue--a strong, proactive military posture--has waned since 2002, when 62% said that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength. Now, only 49% believe that.

On social issues, the survey found that support for some key conservative positions has edged down: The people who said they supported "old-fashioned values about family and marriage" dipped from 84% in 1994 to 76%.

Support for allowing school boards to have the right to fire homosexual teachers dropped from 39% in 1994 to 28% in 2007.

Maybe that'll show the stupid GOP congresscritters.

Quote:

---

Back then, 57% believed the government had a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves; now 69% believe that.

---

Gah, increasing support of socialism is troubling.

Especially the stupid ' the poor are getting poorer'- GAH! no, they're not! Even a widening rich-poor gap doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. :wall:

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, do you need us.

---

Forgive me for raining on you party - I have doused you in confetti elsewhere, so bear with me.

1. Who is 'us'?
2. Independent from what?

Don't you think there may be hordes of independents out there who want to be totally, rigourously independent from, say, the Lemur's view on budgetary conservatism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Don't you think there may be hordes of independents out there who want to be totally, rigourously independent from, say, the Lemur's view on budgetary conservatism?

---

Nope, all of the independents became so to be just like me. It's an established fact.

Heh, obviously we wouldn't be indies if we fit comfortably into an ideological bracket. What I was trying to get at, and what this poll supports, is that in their long tenure in power, Republicans managed to lose the independents who tipped the scale in their favor in the first place. This is interesting, because if you listened to the rhetoric coming from our esteemed right-wing posters, you would have believed that indies are weak and useless, that all Republicans who don't toe the party line are R.I.N.O.s, and that once the purges are complete, and ideological purity has been attained, everything will reek with joy.

Well phooey on yooey. Lose the independents, you lose the nation.

Strange, it seems to me that over 95% of your posts/threads lean more towards the Democratic party's ideology. I believe you calling yourself independent is like calling Bill Clinton a faithful husband. No offense my prehensiled tailed friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Strange, it seems to me that over 95% of your posts/threads lean more towards the Democratic party's ideology. I believe you calling yourself independent is like calling Bill Clinton a faithful husband. No offense my prehensiled tailed friend.

---

Mind you Dave, if someone of your forthright view describes Lemur as merely "leaning towards Democrat ideology" I'd take that as a sure bet he's independent. Real Euro-weenie lefties like me only get you frothing at the mouth with fury, until we offer a :flowers:

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Strange, it seems to me that over 95% of your posts/threads lean more towards the Democratic party's ideology. I believe you calling yourself independent is like calling Bill Clinton a faithful husband. No offense my prehensiled tailed friend.

---

None taken! I must make a confession — I am contrarian by nature. Put me in a roomful of Earth First reps, and I'll inevitably start expounding on the joys of eating meat. Place me among pro-lifers and I begin to sound pro-choice. If I hang out with lefties, I sound like a righty. It's a problem with my temperament that I have no intention of fixing.

We have a large number of vocal, articulate, well-reasoning right-wing posters in the Backroom. Compound that with the fact that my nation has spent years dominated by Republicans, and, well, you do the math ...

And your personal observation doesn't even touch on the theme of the thread. Do you feel that Republicans can pursue ideological purity at the expense of indies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

None taken! I must make a confession — I am contrarian by nature. Put me in a roomful of Earth First reps, and I'll inevitably start expounding on the joys of eating meat. Place me among pro-lifers and I begin to sound pro-choice. If I hang out with lefties, I sound like a righty. It's a problem with my temperament that I have no intention of fixing.

---

...so you're happiest in a room full of people, many of whom are starting to view you as a flaming rectal sphincter....:inquisitive:

Have you been talking to someone about this, oh Lemury one?

Masochism is usually tied up with sex and sexuality, but for you it's clearly linked to smashing other people's archetypes. Maybe a few 50-minute hours of chatting with some friendly Jungian?



:devilish: Enjoy your contrarianism you silly mugwump.

I don't really think my contrarianism calls for therapy, just a judicious application of baking soda and duck tape. Besides which, I'm quite moderate politically, which puts a natural brake on just how ornery I can get.

Perhaps a more accurate definition would be anti-extremist. Who knows. This is factors more about me than anyone in the Backroom ever cared to know, anyway.

I've said it before, but I don't really think "independents" exist as a group. Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance. :wink:

More importantly though, an "independent" is just someone who doesn't fit neatly into either party- that doesn't mean that they're of the same mind about issues. Some could be in favor free markets and small government, while others could be ardent socialists- yet are moral consevatives. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance.

---

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

I've said it before, but I don't really think "independents" exist as a group. Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance.

---

Would that be like people who call themselves Libertarians then:yes:

Quote:

---

More importantly though, an "independent" is just someone who doesn't fit neatly into either party- that doesn't mean that they're of the same mind about issues. Some could be in favor free markets and small government, while others could be ardent socialists- yet are moral consevatives.

---

Wierd isn't it , does anyone actually fit neatly into either party ?
Do even the leaders of those parties fit ?

I always had the impression that elected congressmen had a wide variety of opinions. Politicians formally toe the party line during nomination and election, but party discipline isn't very stric once you've taken seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I always had the impression that elected congressmen had a wide variety of opinions. Politicians formally toe the party line during nomination and election, but party discipline isn't very stric once you've taken seat.

---

For both major parties this runs the gamut. A fair percentage really do hold pretty closely to the party line. There are others who differ on an issue by issue basis and quite a few who trend consistently away from the party line.

The minor parties are a bit more "true blue" for the most part, but they are often fixated on one or two issues which lends itself to that.

A good article about how Rove's divisive tactics lost Bush (and the Republican party) the middle ground, which some of my fellow Orgahs so despise. Key quote:

Rove advised a moderate, congenial and compassionate Republican, elected with a minority of the popular vote, to forget about retaining the political centre. Rove believed that appealing to moderates was a fool’s game when there were millions of alienated evangelical voters waiting to be tapped.

“Play to the base” was Rove’s mantra — and he could create what he called a “permanent majority”. If four or five million fundamentalists who had previously never voted could be marshalled into a new political movement, victory would be his. The rest could be bribed with large amounts of government spending (cash for churches, pills for the elderly, tax breaks for big business, tariffs for steel, subsidies for agriculture).

So Bush cut taxes, turned on the spending spigot and stuck to a strictly religious line on social policy: no new federal embryonic stem cell research, judicial appointments designed to reverse the Roe vs Wade case that established women’s right to abortion, a constitutional amendment to ban civil recognition of gay couples and a clumsy attempt to play politics with Terri Schiavo, a woman in Florida in a permanent vegetative state.

Bush’s response to 9/11 fell exactly into this Rovian pattern. Some war leaders respond to an attack by bringing the opposition party into their cabinet (as Winston Churchill did) and creating a government of national unity. Bush did the opposite, forging a war policy solely in the executive branch, sidelining the Senate and then running a mid-term election strategy by accusing Democrats of being soft on terror. It worked in the short term. But by the 2004 election the strains were beginning to show.