Big survey, little new information. Many independents are actually partisans. Many others just have no idea what they're talking about. A few really do pay attention and swing anyway. The party that wins more independent votes tends to win elections. For some reason this leads the Post to conclude that "frustration with political combat in Washington and widespread skepticism toward the major parties" might be "enough to provide the spark for an independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg" even though this is always what independents think and third parties never win.
« Rate Your Blog | Main | If This Be Minimalism »
Independents
01 Jul 2007 10:09 am
Comments (22)
If you think the two-party system sucks, try living in a country where multiple parties are the rule, like France or Israel. It's even LESS like representative democracy.
Freddie,
The last time a third party took the presidency in the United States was in 1860, and that was preceded by massive ferment and rearrangement that was percolating strongly by 1855. I mean, ten times the uproar you see now, and organic, not manufactured.
.
I get tired of this. Every time some one tries to do this it ALWAYS involves them blowing all of their resources on the big enchilada and no thought to their infrastructure at all. It's as if they think that people will magically come to their senses and follow them once they get the throne.
The last time a third party took the presidency in the United States was in 1860, and that was preceded by massive ferment and rearrangement that was percolating strongly by 1855. I mean, ten times the uproar you see now, and organic, not manufactured.
.
I'm not suggesting theres going to be a successful third party run any time soon. I just think that Matt often contradicts himself when it comes to political feasibility.
How do Bloomberg's policy stands differ significantly from any of the top Dem candidates? All the writeups on him and on the supposed "we hate political infighting lets get something done" faction talk about global warming, Iraq, immigration and health care. I know one party that wants to do something on these issues and it isn't the Republicans.
That article is a classic example of collecting a substantial amount of data and presenting it in a way that makes it impossible to interpret easily.
There is a great deal of cherry picking (e.g. "Dissatisfaction binds most independents. .... when asked which party better represents their views on a dozen issues, about two in 10 volunteered that "neither" does. Three in 10 said the political system would get better if there were no parties" Although the data in the first portion of the paragraph was worth inclusion the portion quoted should have been excised.
Journalists don't have the training to make sense of survey data. They do their readers a disservice when they attempt to do so.
What does come out from this survey is the extent to which political journalism has served particular politicians over the years. Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Newt Gingrich fare badly whereas Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Michael Bloomberg do well. Although individual accomplishments/failures certainly matter I suspect that asking individual respondents about specific politicians would yield interesting responses. I am curious, for example, what a typical voter would list as the common characteristics of Ross Perot and Michael Bloomberg.
The Republican Party came in second in the Presidential race in 1856. They weren't a third party in 1860.
A third party candidate doesn't have to win the race to change everything. Going one step past the Nader factor, all it would take is for a third party to pick up one large state (Texas, Ohio, Penn) to prevent a majority of electoral votes, and turn the decision over to the House.
...even though this is always what independents think and third parties never win.
I didn't read the Post article, but the important point to focus on is not that 3rd parties have a chance to win, but that if there are enough "independents" who think that way---whether or not they are true independents is moot, it's what they tell the pollsters that matter---then it increases the likelihood of some 3rd-party candidate entering the election and, not winning, but fucking with the results.
Broderville types seem to think an Independent president will end partisan gridlock in Washington.
How?
Lets say Bloomberg or some Unity08 type is elected president. How is he going to get 60 votes in a senate controlled by two parties with no stake in his success? How is he going to get a majority in the House to vote his way? Both parties in Congress will have every reason to see him fail.
"I suspect that asking individual respondents about specific politicians would yield interesting responses."
How many of these independents know that Michael Bloomberg is to the left of most Democrats on social issues?
Several 3rd party run's since 1860 involved vain assholes. (Perot, Nader, Teddy Roosevelt). A couple have involved racist, vain assholes. (Thurmond, George Wallace). Some were by committed socialists. (Debs, Thomas, and Henry Wallace, though Wallace later recanted.)
I'd say the history of 3rd parties in this country was all over the map.
Third parties have a poor record. But saying they can never win is nonsense. It will happen when it happens.
Bloomberg has nowhere to go. He won't win NY from Hillary or Rudy so if either is nominated he is SOL. He has no base in California either at the voter level or with the Hollywood and money people. He left the Democrats, then he left the Republicans, great tactics for vote gathering. And the red states have no reason whatever to support him except, perhaps, disgust with the current GOP antics.
As George pointed out the Republicans were not the third party by 1860. And the Democrats split. Guess who won - the party that didn't split.
Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans in 1912 with his Bullmoose campaign. Guess who won - the Democrats who hadn't split.
Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats split from the Democrats in 1948. It is a tribute to the good sense of America (at the time) that even the South rejected him. The Democrats still won, largely because Truman was an astonishingly gutsy man and America liked that.
True. Perot, Nader, Debs, and others well forgotten, were running into the wind. But they lost because voters didn't see them as presidential timber (long time since you heard the that cliche, ain't it?)
The most interesting third party guy in US history may be the forgotten Bob LaFollette. At times he was astonishingly popular. He had an effect on the Bullmoose split in 1912 that put Wilson into office. And in 1924 he ran as an independent and still got about 17% of the vote.
Dan Balz is the NEWS SIDE equivalent of David Broder. The Post is always careful to explain that the editorial and news are separated and (Broderish and worse) analysis in the editorial side is because the op-ed contributors are paid to provide (nonsensical?) commentary.
Dan Balz brings the high church of middle-of-the-roadism and he-said/she-said journamalism to the news pages.
It isn't that the Post is incapable of doing good data based reporting on these kinds of surveys. It's just that Donald Graham and Len Downie like the middle of the road muddling mumblesh*t.
p.s. the difference between Bloomberg and the other Democratic candidates is $1.7Billion in net-worth and recent membership in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Jeffrey Davis:
Several 3rd party run's since 1860 involved vain assholes. (Perot, Nader, Teddy Roosevelt).
Teddy Roosevelt a vain asshole? Well, maybe. But no moreso than when he was President, and no moreso than a lot of other presidents. He wasn't running just because he was a vain asshole, though. He was running because he felt Taft had betrayed him.
And, of course, he wasn't a third party candidate once all the votes were counted. He reduced the GOP to third party status.
He belongs in a separate category, because he was actually a more progressive candidate than either of the pre-existing parties offered, and he had both presidential experience and a substantial political base.
In short, your conclusion:
I'd say the history of 3rd parties in this country was all over the map.would be a lot stronger if you'd given TR his due.
The first poll I remember as to political status was in the 5th grade. Most people answered independent, for the same reasons, I believe, that many adults do; they are simply uncomfortable taking the position of labelling themselves under one banner.
That doesn't mean they don't have opinions, just that they are reluctant to put themselves in an unpopular position. Many of their opinions, polls also reliably show, are quite in line with the Democratic party. Hell, I know die-hard Republicans who, if questioned about the issues, tell you a lot more than their self-proclaimed bubba-hood ever does. And the Beltway Centrists are no different - just kinda chicken to have real opinions, so they harrumph about their "reasonableness" and "regular guy" status. But this is a lie, because they don't engage in actual issues - it's just posturing.
As to third parties - yeah, I agree the Beltway line on this is fatuous at best. If you asked the right kind of poll question, I bet you'd find that the country has never been happier to have gridlock in the capital. Sure, they won't be satisfied with that forever, but it's so clearly and patently a vast improvement that it gives lie to the "fed up" line.
I'd say TR is the exception that proves the rule on third parties. If we had another TR, I think the country would be ready for it - a true, muscular, progressive bubba. Bloomberg, who I respect in many ways, is no TR. Replace an aggressive battler of lobbyist influence a la TR's "trust busting" and I think the country could make great steps. I don't see a TR out there.
Third parties are what reactionaries call for, when they want to oppose change, without admitting it.
If you want change, elect a solidly Democratic Senate. 21 Republican seats and 12 Democratic Senate seats are at stake in 2008.
Many independents are actually partisans.
They say Ind. constitute 30% of the total vote. Disguised partisans constitute 24% of that, so the disguised ones constitute 7% of the total vote, and they seem to split more or less evenly. On the other hand, the three groups that aren't disguised partidans but DO vote constitute 52% of that 30% of the vote, so that works out to 15.6% of the total vote. If we assume a third or so mostly wind up voting R and vice versa, that effectively leaves 5% of the total vote capable of shifting one way or another. (We're doing the minimum here.) That's lots more than the margin of victory in a competitive race, and probably enough to compensate for stay-at-homes.
A few really do pay attention and swing anyway.
{waves} That would be that 5%, yes.
m, hoo... rah
It should also be mentioned that women tend to be liberal, but are also to label the collections of beliefs they hold as liberal than men are (TNR's Open University had an interesting post on this). This leads to a lot of de facto liberal women calling themselves independents.
Several 3rd party run's since 1860 involved vain assholes. (Perot, Nader, Teddy Roosevelt). A couple have involved racist, vain assholes. (Thurmond, George Wallace). Some were by committed socialists. (Debs, Thomas, and Henry Wallace, though Wallace later recanted.)
I would be remiss if I did not point out that one of the most successful 3rd Party runs since 1860 involved a LaFollette Progressive.
Every time some one tries to do this it ALWAYS involves them blowing all of their resources on the big enchilada and no thought to their infrastructure at all.
Bill hits the key point. If you were serious about the need for third-party politics in the US, you would not be thinking about a run for the Presidency in 2008 but in 2020. Right now, you would be building local chapters and clubs, running candidates for local offices they can actually win, and finding a way to support good major-party candidates without losing your institutional identity. Once you have a real organized base and a significant number of voters (10 percent would be enough) in strategic states who primarily identify with your party and vote for it every election, then you run someone for President.
Anything else is a vanity project.
Comments closed July 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
This sort of post always sort of confuses me. I can't find it right now but not too long ago you wrote against arguments for "political feasibility". As you (correctly) pointed out, everything is politically impossible until it isn't. Isn't this another example of that? Third parties will never win, until they do.
Posted by Freddie | July 1, 2007 10:56 AM