Free Markets, Free People

Polling independents

One of the things I do quite often is throw poll numbers up here.   But they’re usually numbers from selected polls.  You’re unlikely to see me put up numbers about what percentage of likely voters some candidate holds in an election, especially a year out.   They’re essentially worthless. 

But three I do find interesting and telling are polls that measure the satisfaction of voters, like the “direction of the country” polls, polls that look at voter enthusiasm for each side and finally, polls that attempt to determine the size of the independent vote pool.

Those three types of polls are usually trending polls, i.e. they measure these things at regular intervals.  It is those trends that I find valuable and make it easier for me, personally, to get a handle on the mood of the voting public.

For instance, in the 2010 midterms we saw a decided shift of independents from the Democratic side to the Republican side as well as much more enthusiasm on the right than the left in those elections.  The result was a resounding Republican win with them picking up around 60 seats in the House.

Today we have one of those polls from Gallup.  It measures where independent voters are trending.  So let’s take a look.

The first thing that strikes you is the fact that the pool of independent voters has increased:

The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%.

Did you catch that last sentence?  There is a 4% difference in favor of Democrats with party identification.  That’s actually an decrease for the GOP as we’ll see later on.  Look at this chart from Gallup:



The key year is 2010.  Note that Republicans, as mentioned did very well that year in the mid-terms but still trailed Democrats in percentage of party identification.   Also note that increased identification as an independent began almost immediately after 2008, when Democrats controlled both the legislative and executive branches.

But since 2010 Democrat identification has flattened out.  In fact, if you look back toward 1988 the current percentage of identification with Democrats is at what one could consider a low.  But the same can be said for Republicans.

So what do the trends tell us?  Well, to me they indicate a very deep dissatisfaction with both parties.  And, in fact, in terms of self-identification, each party is “bottomed out” with those identifying with them being what one would consider their hard-core base.  For whatever reason they unswervingly identify with one of the two parties and, if I had to guess, go to the polls and pretty much vote a straight ticket.

Looking at the numbers, however, you realize that they’re obviously not enough, within these bases, for either party to win an election.  Democrats have a 4% lead in what they have to make up, but that’s not necessarily as much of an advantage as it might seem.  Because it all depends on how many independents they have leaning their way as to whether they can get the required majority of voters.

How dissatisfied is the voting public with the two parties?  Well, this little tidbit should give you an idea:

Gallup records from 1951-1988 — based on face-to-face interviewing — indicate that the percentage of independents was generally in the low 30% range during those years, suggesting that the proportion of independents in 2011 was the largest in at least 60 years.

So now the question is, even with that level of dissatisfaction, assuming no third party run, who do (or will) independents side with?  First keep in mind that while Democrats enjoy a 4 point lead in party identification, that’s down from the  7 point lead they enjoyed in 2008.

Secondly, in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a 12 point advantage among independents, with 52% leaning Democratic compared to 40% leaning Republican.  Now?




Now a virtual tie.  The huge advantage that Democrats enjoyed in the last presidential race among independents has dissipated. 

Of course everyone knows, or at least those who follow politics know, that the fight for the presidency will be determined by the “big middle” – those who identify as independents.

Given this chart, and despite the fact that their party identification has dropped a couple of points, it would appear that the GOP has made huge gains among independents.  This is a trend I’ve been remarking on for quite some time.  The 12% advantage is gone.

So now, what if anything does this tell us?

Well, it tells us that the presidential election isn’t a slam dunk on either side, but neither, at least at this point in time, is it a run-away for either side.  It will be exceedingly close, no matter who ends up as the nominee for the GOP. 

But I’d also say this – so far most of the blood-letting, politically speaking, has been on the Republican side with these interminable debates going on.  The numbers you see above reflect one party with its nominee already decided and the other still in the midst of deciding.

So given that point, I’d have to say that being tied among independents at this point is not particularly good news for the incumbent party.  Independent voters have trended away from Democrats and, for the most part, stayed away.   What one has to wonder is if the tie will be broken when the GOP finally settles on a nominee and which way it will go.  If I had to guess, once that is done, we’ll see another fairly significant change in “leaning” independents for one side or the other as they decide whether or not they can indeed support the nominee the GOP has named.

And that’s what is going to be interesting.  Instead of talking about who can beat Obama, the GOP needs to be concerned with who can and will attract independent voters.

That will not appeal to the staunch conservatives, especially the social conservatives, because, those independents still to be influenced most likely are moderate or, as some activists like to characterize them, from the “mushy middle”.  They are that 10% that don’t show up in the 45-45 tie.  They are the prize.

Unfortunately, that means appealing to a group that may be just as likely to vote Democratic as Republican and less likely to be attracted to either side pushing what they consider extremist ideas.

Just a point to consider.

Meanwhile, on the right, another choice is going to have to be made.  They are going to have to decide if they’re going to hold out for the perfect candidate or do what is necessary to get Barack Obama out of office.   And that means some probable nose-holding and lever pulling (that’s where the enthusiasm gap comes in).

Yes, friends, 2012 promises to be a political junkie’s dream in terms of watching the politics of the day develop.  Unfortunately, it promises the same sort of election we’ve had for decades – making another choice among a field of poor choices and then somehow expecting that poor (but best relatively speaking) choice to work miracles.

What was Einstein’s definition of insanity?


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

15 Responses to Polling independents

  • I situation as I see it is that the Democratic Party looks nothing like it did 20 years ago.
    A majority of Democrat politicians in 1990 would be considered more conservative than most RINOs today.
    Meanwhile, the Republicans are having the same fight today that they did in 1976. The parallels between Palin and Reagan are quite remarkable, most remarkably in terms of how the party “insiders” look at and treat them.
    The real problem for Republicans is that their “insiders” are what made George Wallace’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” line so true.

    • @Neo_ Wow, interesting take, but I am not clear if you are suggesting the officials are generally more or less conservative. My take is that the congress is far more conservative on both sides than it was 20 years ago. If you look at what Reagan actually did, Republicans today would call him a liberal (Ron Paul already has).

  • I haven’t voted since 2004. People ask, “How can you not vote?” It is simple. When voting for the lesser of two evils you’re still picking evil. I won’t do that anymore.

    • @tkc882 South Park says its a choice between “a giant douche” and a “sh!t sandwich.”

      I have to say, Romney comes off as a giant douche…which makes Obama…

      • @Harun @tkc882 Yep that’s our choices. There is an interesting play that could try as we close in on the 2012 election, the “I am never going to run again so I am beholden to no one” card. Of course the clear implication would be that he has been beholden to many interests during his first term, but then, who the hell didn’t know that?

    • @tkc882 I am inclined to agree, perhaps for different reasons. I think our legislative process is hopelessly distorted by special interest money and lobbyists (on both sides). As a result, I firmly believe that they talk to us (voters) but they work for them (funders). With 80% of Americans believing that government does not represent voters, the only true majority we have in this country is a majority of people that think government sucks and needs to be fundamentally changed in order to serve the nation’s interests.

  • 1) The GOP needs to come up with a policy to shrink banks. I would suggest a two-fold policy:

    a) No bank can be more than 4% of GDP.
    b) Banks must prepare a list of executives that will be personally liable for any bailouts they receive. The bigger the bank, the more people on this list get covered.

    Actually one or the other work, but shoot for both.

    • The reason I mention this specifically, is that I find many people on the Left and Right who are very unsatisfied with how the banking system has been handled since 2008. I would guess independents are also in that group. This is a cross over issue.

    • @Harun Interesting, the GOP has gone out of it’s way to block such efforts and Democrats have been proponents of such efforts. The SAFE Banking Act would have done pretty much what you suggested and it was opposed by all but three Republicans Coburn, Ensign, and Shelby (and a bunch of Dems in Wall Street’s pocket).

    • @Harun Well Both parties decided to totally ignore anti trust laws and allowed just a few big banks to swallow up hundreds of regionals, This led to “too big to fail” as well as less competition.

      • @kyle8 @Harun I don’t disagree, but I would not say ignored, I would say were well funded to look the other way as well as making some very intentional legislative changes to allow the creation of these behemoths.

  • We all know, of course, that presidential contests are state-by-state, and that early aggregate tea leave numbers like these can only hint at trends. Obama’s Rasmussen index numbers continue to hover about where they’ve been for two years, since he first took off the mask (which he’s going to try to put back on) as he shoved Obamacare down the country’s throat. He stays (with likely voters) at about 20% strong approval, about 40% strong disapproval. People are not crazy about him, in other words. The overall approval numbers in Rasmussen stay around 44-45 somewhat approve, 52-53 somewhat disapprove. Is he going to rally the troops this year to defeat the Republican? Not in Virginia and Ohio, I would bet. Nor in Florida and North Carolina. He’ll definitely walk away with California and New York. Hence my previously stated prediction that he will win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college, and then try to run again in 2016 after the next public relations cloud heals his wounds.

  • The trouble with this assessment, Bruce, as that Romney, is among the worst choices we could make. Are we as conservatives really to believe that the man who created Romney care and who Obama stole so many ideas from in the creation of Obamacare that he has to acknowledge Romney as a co-author lest copyright infringement suits follow, will upon election destroy a government health care?

    It’s as I said the other day:

    The lack of ability of the GOP to come up with any seriously conservative candidates, indeed their unwillingness to do so, in combination with the obvious lean of the Democrats and specifically Obama leads me to a rather startling conclusion;

    If this bunch is the best we’ve got perhaps we deserve to go down the destructive road that any one of these individuals would lead us.

    Make no mistake, here. I take no great pleasure in saying this. I simply observe that which is.At the same time, I make no argument that any one of the GOP candidates with a possible exception of Ron Paul wouldn’t be better for the country than is Obama and company. Yet, the differences are marginal ones.I suggest you all that the GOP candidates currently on the stump offer us is a somewhat slower path down the same road.

    Gallup suggests ( ) that conservatives are the largest ideological group in the country. Of course you’ll never hear this from the main street press. Trouble is you won’t hear it from the GOP much either.

    Whereas the GOP seems intent on chasing the supposed center, it turns out that the center isn’t even the lion’s share of the votes. In the end it comes down to the question of what kind of wake up call me to be issued to get the GOP back to its conservative roots?

    It’s not a matter of holding out for the ideal candidate anymore, Bruce. It’s rather than that the largest part of the electorate has despaired of supporting the GOP leadership…. Rockefeller Republicans, all , who no longer … nay, NEVER supported their point of view.

    Recall, please, that the GOP leadership was never tremendously and throat with Ronald Reagan, either… And only embraced him and his values when he started winning. I watched gavel to gavel the 1976 republican convention. Frankly, I was amazed that Reagan came back for more.

    Alas, that the GOP leadership never has learned that lesson.

    Do we need to see another defeat along the lines of Bob Dolr and John McCain? And after getting their heads handed them on two separate occasions, if they haven’t gotten the message yet what makes anyone think they ever will?