From the Washington Post: The death of the political middle, in 1 PowerPoint slide

More evidence that there is no political middle in Congress:

There are any number of reasons for this disappearance — partisan gerrymandering and closed primaries being the two most obvious — but the numbers are unbelievably stark, particularly when you consider that roughly 30 percent of the electorate consider themselves political independents. (According to exit polling, 29 percent of people named themselves independents in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.)

The slide above also explains why there will be no grand or even big bargain on debt and spending — or much of anything else — anytime soon. The political incentive to make deals simply does not exist in the House and, in fact, there is almost always a disincentive for members to work across the aisle. (This is less true in the Senate where a centrist coalition — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich etc — exists although that coalition has shrunk in recent years too.)

The deal-makers — as we have seen from the last month in the House — are largely gone. The two people who do seem capable of crafting deals — Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — come from a different time in politics. (Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, McConnell in 1984.) The middle’s voice in the House is so soft as to be almost non-existent. And it’s hard to see that changing — at least in the near term.

What impact do uninformed voter have on elections?

Not much apparently.

A classic mobilization election

From the National Journal, an argument that the upcoming general election will be won or lost based on which side can turnout the vote. The undecided middle - the folks on the center of the electorate who can vote either way - is very small:

. . . the numbers suggest there are far fewer undecided voters now. While more Americans are registering as independents, fewer are actually open to voting for either party. Analysis of recent Pew Research Center data by Brookings Institution scholar William Galston shows just 23 percent of Americans fall into the swing-voter category; by contrast, 31 percent of voters met that criteria in May 1992. State polls tell the same story. Quinnipiac University, which polls in several key swing states, hasn’t found either Obama or presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney ahead by more than the mid-single digits in Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania over the last year. In most battleground states, there are few examples of either leading by more than the margin of error in any public polling.

“Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama has turned out to be a polarizing president who has induced many voters to choose sides very early in the process,” Galston wrote recently. “So the enthusiasm of core supporters—their motivation to translate their preference into actual votes—will make a big difference.”

Romney's pivot to the center

A useful description of the job ahead of him and the problems it poses:


Romney, after all, managed to secure the nomination only by strenuously avoiding friction with the base. On every major issue, he aligned himself with the party’s Obama-era orthodoxy, and when he attacked his GOP opponents, he made sure to do it from their right. This, of course, was in response to conservatives’ built-in suspicions about whether he really is one of them. So far, he’s given them what they want, at least in terms of policy positions. But they’re watching him closely, looking to see if he sells them out to appeal to the middle of the electorate against Obama – and ready to raise hell if he does.

This is producing some awkwardness already, like when Romney said that he wouldn’t go out of his way to get rid of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (what general election voters like to hear) but refused to say whether he would have signed it as president (thus avoiding a position that would put him directly at odds with the base). The overall effect was to reinforce the image of Romney as spineless. Expect to see more of this straddling in the months ahead. Romney faces more pressure than previous GOP nominees to keep his party’s base happy, but he also seems to recognize that fully embracing its agenda will be suicide in the fall.

Independent voters are not necessarily swing voters.

Ruy Teixeira argues that it is more appropriate to think of swing voters as those who are persuadable, not necessarily just independent:

For an individual voter to qualify as a swing voter, the relevant criterion that needs to be fulfilled is persuadability. And that’s not a quality that’s exclusive only to those who are completely undecided, or who are only weakly committed to a candidate. Even those who are moderately committed can be persuaded to deepen their commitment. And the deepening of an existing affiliation with a candidate can be just as significant, both statistically and electorally speaking, as attracting mild commitment from someone who had previously been mildly committed to another candidate.

The important factor is not where voters’ inclinations started out, but the fact that their inclinations were changed at all. The act of persuading a swing voter has traditionally been thought of as moving a given voter from more likely to vote against a given candidate to more likely to vote for him—say from 55 percent likely to vote against to 55 percent likely to vote for. But it could also mean moving that voter from somewhat likely to vote for a candidate to very likely to support that candidate (say from 55 percent likelihood to 65 percent)—or, for that matter, from very likely to almost certain (65 percent to 75 percent). All three of these examples are mathematically equivalent—and it makes sense to think of them all as swing voters.
He recommends the following book if you want more info.

From the NYT: Does Romney Still Need to Court Conservatives?

Now that Romney seems to have the nomination in hand, commentary has focused on his expected pivot to the middle and whether he can do this without losing his base. This is what 2301s wrote about last week, so you are all ahead of the game.

Here are a variety of opinions about whether Romney still needs to bend far for conservative support.

Obama struggles with the base and the center

I asked 2301 students to speculate on how well Romney might pivot to the center once he - or now that he - has the nomination wrapped up, and how he can do so without losing his party's base. Obama has the same problem.

This story describes how he has to make the environmentalist portion of the party's base happy while also satisfying the center's desire for more fossil fuels. He is also trying to rally the base by pushing the Buffett Rule, but how do you do that without alienating those in the center who might be nervous about tax increases - even if it doesn't directly affect them.

Are "independents" really independent?

For 2301's - as we approach a discussion of elections in the near future. The answer is, well it depends on why people call themselves independent. Is it because they are truly in the middle of the political spectrum and are equi distant from the two major parties - or are they so far to the right or left that Republicans are too liberal or Democrats too conservative for them. This matters, because people often make erroneous statements about independents and assume they are up for grabs by either party. They are not. The following graph shows that independents that lean towards one party are almost identical in opinion towards Obama as party identifiers. Very few people are truly independent - only 7% according to this chart.





Consider this post - Three Myths about Independents - required reading.

Is the Republican Party alienating independents?

Charlie Cook thinks so. This is due to the increased strength of conservatives within the party:


Republicans should be concerned that Mitt Romney’s numbers among independents have been tanking in recent weeks; he went from double-digit leads over Obama in some polls, including one by the Pew Research Center, to a 9-point deficit. He is considered the “most electable” Republican. If other GOP contenders have equally dismal or worse approval numbers among independents, you have to wonder whether this could end up as a choice election, with Republicans coming out on the losing end.

It is becoming quite clear that the conservative base of the Republican Party is driving the car. These voters prefer someone from the pull-no-punches brand of conservatism that created the tea party movement in 2009 and handed Republicans their House majority in 2010. It’s certainly the GOP’s right and choice to do that. The calendar, though, says 2012. The mood of the broader electorate—and, specifically, independents—appears to be very different. If you see any of Obama’s advisers looking bruised from head to toe, it might be from pinching themselves in disbelief.

Before the Walmart Moms there was the Silent Majority

I strongly suggest that 2301 students read through this. It describes how Richard Nixon identified a group that had traditionally voted Democratic - but seemed up for grabs in the 1972 election - and how to mobilize them. His effort led to the realignment that continues to define the current party era. The Republican and Democratic parties look the way they do today as a consequence of this electoral strategy.

- the Southern Strategy.

Walmart Moms - Written Assignment for 16 Week 2301 Students

My 16 week 2301 students will be studying elections this week. As we will note, electoral rules - the winner take all system specifically - favors the development of two large political parties, and thought there is a degree of stability in the membership of each (at least in the short to mid term) certain groups can fluctuate between the two and prove to be factor that determines who wins a given election. Often these groups are given catchy names: "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" are two recent examples.

This year it seems to be the "Walmart moms."

Here are a few stories that describe this demographic group, explain what motivates them and how they might impact the election in 2012. I want you to read through them - and please do your own research as well - and tell me whether you think that this group may well end up determining who wins in 2012.

- Watch Out for Walmart Moms.
- Meet the New Swing Voters: Walmart Moms.
- Insight: Wal-Mart moms - The election pollsters' new favorites.

- Walmart Moms: Not giving up on Obama yet.
- Wikipedia: Swing Vote.

From the New Republic: Left Behind: How Democrats Are Losing the Political Center

The author argues that Democrats are losing the support of independents.

If you don’t think ideological perceptions matter in American politics, you need read no further. If you do and you’re a Democrat, there’s something to worry about. Even as the terms of the political debate in Washington, in the eyes of many Democrats, have moved steadily to the right, the electorate is increasingly likely to see itself as ideologically closer to the Republican Party than to Democrats. Unless Obama and Democrats can find a solution to this riddle—and find one fast—they will be contesting the 2012 election on forbidding terrain.

In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.

In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.

Could Third-Party Tremors Result in a 2012 Political Earthquake? - Matthew Dowd - NationalJournal.com

Could Third-Party Tremors Result in a 2012 Political Earthquake? - Matthew Dowd - NationalJournal.com

Here's more for my 2301 students to consider as you consider the 2011 battle for the Republican nomination, might Jon Huntsman, who is currently running very unsuccessfully for the nomination - consider an independent run?

Are Independent Voters Rational?

A couple of links on the topic from Andrew Sullivan,

- How Independents Vote
- "Rationality" reinforces, does not compete with, other models of behavior.

Are independents having buyer's remorse?

PPP finds evidence that they are:

The key to this strong movement back toward the Democrats right now is the same as the key to the strong movement away from the Democrats last year- fickle independents quickly growing unhappy with the party in power. Exit polls showed independents supporting the GOP by a 19 point margin last year at 56-37. Now only 30% of those voters think that the Republican controlled House is moving things in the right direction, compared to 44% who think things were better with the Democrats. Given those numbers it's not much of a surprise that independents now say they'd vote Democratic for the House by a 42-33 margin if these was an election today, representing a 28 point reversal in a span of just five months.

These poll numbers also point to the reality that Republicans taking control of the House may have been one of the best things that could possibly have happened for Obama's reelection prospects. Although we found the President with slightly negative approval numbers on this poll, when asked whether they had more faith in Obama or Congressional Republicans to lead the country in the right direction 48% of voters picked Obama to only 42% who went with Congressional Republicans. Voters may not love Obama as once they did but they're finding him to be more reasonable than the alternative and that means it will be hard for the GOP to knock him off next year without a top notch nominee.

Playing With Fire?

Congressional Republicans are proposing cutting Medicare and not raising the debt ceiling. Both actions might hurt them - at least with independent voter - in the 2012 election.

How will Independents Vote in 2012?

Tough to know at this point of course, but students of elections are making preliminary analyses and seem to think the size of the independent vote will be small in 2012. Recent polls have suggested that the independents that voted Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2010 maye be shifting back again.

Chris Cillizza:

In American electoral politics, independent voters are the holy grail.

Thousands of hours are spent by political strategists and reporters (read: nerds) pouring over what makes them tick and how best to court them. (Both the Post’s Dan Balz and Fix mentor Charlie Cook have terrific recent pieces on what independents really want.)

The intensity over independents has ratcheted up in recent elections, as they have shown a propensity for wild swings — favoring Democrats by 18 points in the 2006 midterms only to support Republicans by a 19-point margin in 2010.

But, a look at exit polling data going all the way back to 1992 suggests that 2012 is far less likely to exhibit such a wide margin among independent voters as 2010 and 2006 did.
Dan Balz:

The president’s team long has believed that the greatest single cause of the Democrats’ poor showing last November was unhappiness with the economy, particularly among many independent voters, with concerns about federal spending a secondary factor. The president can’t afford to be seen as indifferent to something as sensitive as gasoline prices.

His position on the budget — urging bickering Democrats and Republicans to come to their senses — also reflects the knowledge that many independent voters dislike the political polarization and partisan bickering in Washington. Since the November elections, Obama has called more consistently for cooperation across party lines, and he showed during the lame-duck session his willingness to make deals with Republicans.
Charlie Cook:

One of my favorite questions tests public attitudes toward government’s role. The version that Hart and McInturff use gives respondents a choice between “Government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people” or “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” The order is alternated to prevent bias.

Back in 2007 and mid-2008, the government-should-do-more camp was a slight majority, in the 52-55 percent range; the government-doing-too-much position was in the 38-42 percent range. Starting a month after Lehmann Brothers collapsed in September 2008 and when credit markets seized up, the results tightened up. The more skeptical view of government pulled ahead in the September 2009 poll, 49 percent to 45 percent. In the national exit poll taken by various news organizations on Election Day 2010, the government-should-do-more response dropped to 38 percent, and the more antigovernment attitude soared to 56 percent.

The government-should-do-more camp is once again a majority.However, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll of 1,000 adults (including 200 by cellphone; overall margin of error plus or minus 3.1 points), conducted from February 24-28, 51 percent of respondents said the government-should do more and 46 percent said the government was doing too much. One could conclude that the antigovernment bandwagon certainly isn’t picking up speed.

More important—and I have to give NBC Political Director Chuck Todd credit for pointing this out to me—independents shifted significantly. In the February survey, 47 percent of independents said the government was doing too much, compared with 60 percent who said so last October. Independents who said the government should do more jumped 13 points, from 38 percent to 51 percent.

Why Obama Might Win in 2012

A couple Republican consultants spell out 12 reasons (they'll provide some later arguing why he might not) but one sticks out for us, especially in 2301.

Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago. More importantly, 44 percent of independents now call Obama a moderate, up from 28 percent a year ago. If congressional Republicans are viewed as strident and over-reaching, Obama will be well positioned as a moderating force—with or without any Clintonian triangulation.
This fits with a general point we will make when we discuss elections. The candidate or party that captures the center - the moderates - tends to win.

Will Obama's Compromise With Republicans Drive a Wedge in the Democratic Party?

Greg Sargeant thinks not:

. . . there may be a gap between what high profile liberal commentators -- the so-called "professional left" -- think of Obama, and what self-described rank-and-file liberals think of him. The impression of liberal wrath is also perhaps exaggerated by media organizations that seem eager to feed that storyline.

The question now, however, is whether GOP gains in Congress will induce the Obama team to undertake a strategy that risks genuine alienation of liberals. Obama advisers have reportedly concluded that the key to winning back independents in advance of 2012 is to demonstrate compromise with Republicans in order to recapture his post-partisan appeal.

Where Will Independents Line Up?

From the National Journal:

Can the conservative base of the Republican Party peacefully coexist with independents and enable the GOP to return to power? That is a question that Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Karl Agne posed in a recent Democracy Corps study of conservative Republicans in the South and independent voters in the North.

Greenberg and Agne organized two focus groups in the Atlanta area with middle-aged white voters who identified themselves as strong Republicans and who cast ballots for both GOP presidential nominee John McCain and a Republican congressional candidate in 2008. Based on those discussions, the pollsters concluded that conservative GOP base voters do not oppose Obama because of race but because they are deeply suspicious and fearful that he intends to impose a socialist government on the country. This view is compounded by "an almost siege-like mentality," Greenberg and Agne said, against the mainstream media and popular culture. By contrast, when Agne interviewed white, middle-aged, non-college-educated swing voters in Cleveland, he found that although they were still skeptical of Obama, they nonetheless hoped he might be able to achieve some of his goals.

. . .

Republican pollster Whit Ayres said he read the Democracy Corps study and thought it "very interesting," but he discounted it, including its suggestion that the anxious Right on display in the Atlanta focus groups is the dominant faction in the GOP. "They tend to be the loudest and most intense Republicans," he said, "but they're not the largest group of Republicans, just like Democratic activists in the blogosphere are not the largest group of Democrats."

Ayres said that his polling with Resurgent Republic, a GOP research group that seeks to shape the public debate just as Democracy Corps does, has found that on a range of issues from the economy to terrorist investigations to health care, independents hold views that are more Republican than Democratic.