Irrelevant Frauds!

Ed Kilgore on the big survey of independents:

You should read the whole, elaborate thing, but the great utility of this survey is its typology of independents, who are neatly divided into five "D's": Disengaged (24%), Disguised Partisans (24%), Deliberators (18%), Disillusioned (18%) and Dislocated (16%). [...]

Overall, the survey casts a lot of light on some of the more outlandish claims about indies. They are not frauds or irrelevant, to be sure, but they are also not a centrist monolith that Democrats can win simply by moving to the right on this or that issue.

But, look, a huge proportion of them actually are frauds ("disguised partisans") or irrelevant ("disengaged") especially since I'm willing to wager that a non-zero fraction of the "disillusioned" are frauds, irrelevant, or both. It's just that when elections are really, really, really close you need all the votes you can get, so that even if "deliberators" are only a tiny slice of the electorate their views are still very important.

Comments

All true, but it is worth pointing out, ad naseum, if necessary, that the myth of some Independent Monolith waiting for an eccentric billionaire to galvanize them is just a bunch of silliness.

Posted by AJ | July 2, 2007 4:58 PM

Also, if it's a really, really close election, then the people you alienate on the left by moving towards the centre need measuring really carefully, to make sure you're actually gaining.

Posted by Meh | July 2, 2007 5:05 PM

'Dumb' is missing from that list.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 2, 2007 5:05 PM

What about "dislocated' people who are the reverse of the dislocated described above? The people who are the Lou Dobbs indies, not the Bloomberg indies? Don't they get a cutesy name, or do we just assume that they're counted as "disillusioned?"

I really wonder about this vast constituency of socially-tolerant, good-government, technocratic fiscal conservatives who are genuinely right between the two parties. I've never met any of them, but they're theorized about all the time, and I imagine they must be insufferable when you actually meet one.

Posted by SDM | July 2, 2007 5:21 PM

SDM,

I think the vast majority of them are OP Ed Columnists and TV Pundits.

So yeah, they are pretty insufferable!

Posted by Eric | July 2, 2007 5:24 PM

I really wonder about this vast constituency of socially-tolerant, good-government, technocratic fiscal conservatives who are genuinely right between the two parties.

I think I went to college with some of them.

They were douche bags.

Posted by Freddie | July 2, 2007 5:37 PM

It's been clear for several years now that Independents tend to line up right alongside the Dems whenever it comes to issue polling. Be it the war or Bush's approval rating or whatever, you have the Dems and the Indies just a few points off from them, and then you have the GOP way off on their own planet.

But last week, I was looking at the crosstabs for the latest poll of the presidential candidates, and what I saw was striking. Whoever the candidate, be it Hillary or Giuliani or whoever, the Independents fell right smack dab in the middle of the D's and R's, exactly where a centrist model would predict them to be. It's the age-old problem of people liking the Democrats' message but not actually liking the Democrats, and I'm not sure what there is to be done about it.

Posted by Steve | July 2, 2007 5:41 PM

the Munchkin Chorus: libbidy libs, the Hitler type. Libbidy libs, the Hitler type.

Posted by Linus | July 2, 2007 9:57 PM