Pew: Independents Oppose Party in Power ... Again

Independents Oppose Party in Power ... Again







These results are bizarre.

Independents are more conservative and believe Republicans can do a better at improving the job situation (which they created and while they're opposing every stimulus bill), reducing the deficit (which they blew threw the roof) and managing the federal government (which they want to eliminate)?

Still, given the first chart, it goes without saying that if Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents vote, Democrats will win.

How many tea baggers have switched from registered republicans to independents? I know there were some on another board last year who said they switched, and some of those were the same ones who have been spreading the tea party agenda. There was a push by Lou Dobbs back before the 2008 elections to get people to register as "independents", and his followers were mostly radical republicans who were worked up over the immigration issue.

That's the essential conservative position. Which means that according to this poll, 59% of independents are conservative in the Reagan anti-government fashion.

I was hoping that the current administration would start to move the numbers down, looks like so far the opposite has happened.

Having fewer than 50% prefer small government and fewer services is a prerequisite for progressive changes. This is the core problem in getting everything from stronger anti-corporate legislation to the public option or later single-payer in health care.

I can't even begin to think of a rational explanation for it other than willful ignorance about what is actually going on and/or brainwashing by Fox News (which is the more likely culprit IMHO).

:banghead: :crazy:

In the mind of some independents, they gave the democrats a chance and they failed. If you were someone who was concerned about deficits and wanted to vote republicans out b/c of the bush fiscal policies, this administration has been a failure in your eyes because they have added more to the deficit in 1 year than bush ever did in a single year. Worse, the reason (the stimulus) when judged by the standard set by the people who pushed for it.. failed.

Now, likely this is the point where you try and twist what is being said above and make the argument about whether or not the stimulus failed... which ISN'T what I am saying. This is about being in the mind of a conservative leaning independent who believes fiscal discipline is important. In THAT PERSON'S mind borrowing nearly 1 trillion dollars to achieve the same doomsday scenario (unemployment near 10%) is not success by any standard.


This statement is just silly, "Still, given the first chart, it goes without saying that if Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents vote, Democrats will win."

Since no actual numbers are assigned to any category, you don't know HOW MANY there are. There could be a large number in category 1 and in the bottom category.

What it does showcase perfectly is the enthusiasm gap... high %'s of people dissatisfied with Obama plan to vote, while lower %'s of people satisfied plan to vote.


The funny thing about "independents" (like myself) is that people seem to think they are someone IN BETWEEN D's and R's... when in reality they are a large conglomeration of people who sit OUTSIDE the D's and R's. Those to the left of the democratic party (like myself) are probably highly disappointed in this administration and its failures to pass any truly meaningful reforms. Those to the right of the democratic party are likely furious with the deficit spending and lack of results... thus you have the right side swinging back towards the republicans as a lesser or two evils (in their eyes) and the left side not really caring since they were thrown under the bus months ago.

that Independents have become more conservative, and the rest.


Are the races close? See the percentages of each group that definitely plan to vote in the right column?



If the percentages of "definitely will vote" in the top half of the chart were mirrored in the bottom half, what effect do you think that would have?

Democrats outnumber Republicans in number of registered voters.

It's done without the slightest bit of consideration as to who makes up independents. Why wouldn't they become more conservative if they feel the democratic party has failed them???

The democrats ran on FISCAL CONSERVATION. I can certainly understand why someone who lists fiscal conservative as a key issue would be upset with this administration. How can you not understand this?

You really look at this and think it is STRANGE? A nearly 1 trillion dollar defecit busting stimulus which, by their OWN MEASURE, failed to do what was promised and you can't understand why someone who is a fiscal conservative might turn against Obama?!?! Really? This is bizarro world?




"Are the races close? See the percentages of each group that definitely plan to vote in the right column?"

"If the percentages of "definitely will vote" in the top half of the chart were mirrored in the bottom half, what effect do you think that would have?"


AGAIN... without knowing the numbers of people in each group, you have no clue what it means and I don't know what type of effect it would have. However, I can certainly see the effect of this administrations bashing on the "professional left" in this graph and maybe they should have thought of that before those chose to attack their base.

"Why wouldn't they become more conservative if they feel the democratic party has failed them??? "

So it's either they lean Democrats or RW?



Really?

Please don't try the "fiscal year" crap... it is so incredibly dishonest. The "fiscal year" starts in October, so what you are doing is actually trying to tack the stimulus onto bush's last year and then start Obama's presidency from October 2009. You wonder why independents are turning away? To say that Obama's first year deficit is lower than bush's last year deficit is an accounting trick. bush was a shitty president for a billion reasons.. including his horrible spending habits and ability to turn a surplus into a deficit. However, Obama is primarily responsible for vast majority of the 2+ trillion dollars added to the debt in 2009 and 2010.


Let's look at the ACTUAL FACTS from the article

"The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record"

'The non-partisan CBO forecasts the budget deficit will amount to 9.1 percent of gross domestic product this year, only exceeded in the past 65 years by 2009’s 9.9 percent."

If an independent turned against the republican party because of bush's SPENDING HABITS.. Obama is looking far worse by comparison to THEM.

" The "fiscal year" starts in October, so what you are doing is actually trying to tack the stimulus onto bush's last year and then start Obama's presidency from October 2009. "

The 2009 budget was Bush's last.

The stimulus has nothing to do with that.

Now, you need to stop spinning.

Sometimes I wish I could be so blinded by something to toss all sense of reason and analysis aside and just believe.

"Sometimes I wish I could be so blinded by something to toss all sense of reason and analysis aside and just believe."

Evidently, you must have gotten your wish.

Right, because I am the one who thinks all the stimulus spending happened in FY 2010.

It is spinning like this that has caused the independents to swing more towards the GOP.

If you were just HONEST about what has been and has not been accomplished, MAYBE the democrats could hang on, but nut jobs are so insistent to paint a picutre that isn't true that they make the whole party look worse.

The bulk of the stimulus was spent in FY 2010 (October 2009 through present)

By your logic the few months of stimulus in FY 2009 resulted in an increase in the deficit, but the bulk of stimulus spending in FY 2010 reduced it?

I would laugh too trying to make that point.

Yeah, February 17, 2009 -> Sept 30, 2009 is a "few months".

Hmmm, let's see there are 12 months in a year. From February 17, 2009 to Sept 30, 2009 = 7.5 months = 62% of the year.

Ah, but don't let reality get in the way of your spinning.

Now, let's move on to your second spin point.

"By your logic the few months of stimulus in FY 2009 resulted in an increase in the deficit, but the bulk of stimulus spending in FY 2010 reduced it?"

Yes, of course it did. This is because of how tax revenue is counted. The stimulus spending in 2009 (which added to the deficit in 2009) created jobs which created REVENUE that gets credited to FY 2010 because the bulk of the revenue comes AFTER.

So if I send a company/state/local government 100,000 in FY 2009 to give someone a job... it ADDS $100,000 worth of spending to FY 2009. Now, in 2010 that person who received that job is going to be paying TAXES.. thus, I have already SPENT the $100,000, but will be receiving about 20% of that money BACK. Sooo, if I spent ANOTHER $100,000 the NET will be $80,000 b/c 20,000 came back to me in REVENUE.

Are you really trying to pretend you don't understand this simple concept???

"February 17, 2009 -> Sept 30, 2009 is a 'few months'"

Stimulus funding didn't hit the streets until in July, still it significantly less was spent in FY 2009 than in FY 2010.


What? So you're crediting the stimulus with helping to reduce the deficit?

So tell me again why this makes sense?

:rofl:

Nearly 200 billion was spent in FY 09 JUST FROM THE STIMULUS.. on top of other spending initiated by Obama. Sorry to tell you, but FY 09 is his defecit since he ran the budget and the spending for the majority of the year. I find it funny that you are running away from it, since you are trying to claim that it was good spending?

Second, the reason it makes sense because they consider the defecit to be too high to begin with. The fact that it was reduce from a projected 1.4 to 1.2 trillion doesn't make a fiscal conservative suddenly think you are a prudent spender.

Why can't you be honest about the spending and the defecits?

less than $140 billion of a $787 billion package was spent in FY 2009.


"Sorry to tell you, but FY 09 is his defecit since he ran the budget"

What? The President doesn't come in and change the budget allocations for a budget already passed and signed into law.

Still, what does that have to do with the fact that the deficit was reduced in FY 2010?

Sounds like you're trying to find anyway to spin this as a positive for Republicans.

When you find yourself trying to justify why a positive for Democrats is really a positive for Republicans, stop.

Once again, you are wrong.

First, THIS President did come in and change budget allocations, which was one of the good things. Spending was accelerated and a projected 500 billion dollar deficit became a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit.

Second, this has nothing to with being a "positive" for republicans or democrats.. it IS what it IS.

The fact that the "deficit" is being reduced isn't a win for fiscal conservatives, because to them the deficit was wildly out of control at 500 billion per year, which is why many of them voted for Obama, who ran on a fiscal responsibility platform.

Where you are getting confused is that you don't even remember what this discussion is about. It's about you, bafflingly, thinking that it is "bizarre" that independents may be moving back toward "conservatives" after being disappointed by Obama... especially if those independents happy to prize fiscal conservation, since Obama's deficits are currently waaaaaaaaay ahead of anything he predicted on the campaign trail.

"The fact that the 'deficit' is being reduced isn't a win for fiscal conservatives, because to them the deficit was wildly out of control at 500 billion per year, which is why many of them voted for Obama, who ran on a fiscal responsibility platform. "

Pretzel.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1105

400+ Billion from the Omnibus bill... another 200 billion from the stimulus and that is just the big stuff.

It's Obama's deficit and that's fine.. you shouldn't try and hide from it.

When the hell did the appropriations bill become the FY 2009 budget?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1105/show

OpenCongress Summary
This bill totals about $410 billion and covers funding for fiscal year 2009

I guess in your world, the money is distributed by magic fairies with money wands???

The budget was $400 billion? In which year?

The BILL was 410 billion being ADDED to FY 2009.

Appropriations is the act of distributing money approved via the budget process.

Senate Approves $410 Billion Bill to Fund Federal Government



It is not additional money.

Because the magic money fairies make money from their magic little wand!

It IS additional money. What was approved in the previous fall was that these departments COULD BE funded... the amount was never determined... further, the earmarks were added AFTER the fact and made up a huge % of the total.

You wonder why independents are turning away? Because of dishonesty like this.

Laughing your ass off doesn't change that that you're wrong (PDF).

"You wonder why independents are turning away? Because of dishonesty like this."

It's like a campaign against Democrats.

But keep running from Obama's ACTUAL record. I am sure that helps your cause a ton.

His 2009 budget estimated tax receipts at $2.7 trillion. Actual receipts were about $2.1 trillion. Furthermore, the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan were kept off-budget. TARP may figure in there too. Even the Republicans aren't bold enough to claim Bush left only a $500B deficit.

"LMAO"

Nut job Republicans actually claim that bush's final defecit was 418 billion which is less than 500B you claim they aren't bold enough to claim... However, most sources on this acknowledge that FY 2009 is uncountable because it is BOTH bush and Obama. Either side making specific claims are being disingenous.

600 billion alone of the FY 2009 defecit came from the Omnibus bill and the Stimulus. (400 billion for the Omnibus and 200 billion from the stimulus.)... and those were just the big two of the spending additions passed in FY 2009.

as Bloomberg reports that the deficit has actually declined in the first quarter of this year. Why Obama and the Democrats are not running on this fact is baffling to me. And the fact that you didn't know this, isn't surprising, given the lack of attention paid to it in the M$M. Only Keith Olbermann reported this:

Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html

<snip>

The U.S. government posted a smaller budget deficit in August compared with the same month last year, helped by rising tax receipts.

The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month, smaller than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time.

The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record. The Obama administration faces the challenge of trying to limit the shortfall while stimulating an economy with joblessness close to 10 percent.

“We’re seeing the revenue coming back,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida. “The cumulative deficit for the fiscal year is a bit smaller, but still fairly wide. It doesn’t signal a lot of improvement.”

Stocks and Treasury securities climbed. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 1.1 percent to 1,121.9 at the 4 p.m. close in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note, which moves inversely to prices, dropped to 2.75 percent from 2.79 percent late on Sept. 10.

</snip>

The bottom line is that these so-called Independents are ill-informed. They tend to be low-information voters. They don't pay attention to politics. They even pay less attention until it comes time to vote. But, the problem is that they do vote, unlike the Undecideds. The Undecideds are worse because they are totally disengaged with politics and tend to break for the challengers late in the game. They typically don't make up their minds until the very last minute, often in the voting booth. They are the ones that make the difference in close elections when there is an incumbent.

The problem with the so-called Independents is that they claim to be open minded. And they claim to be willing to vote for either party. Some of that is true, but evidence has shown that they are typically more right-leaning, more conservative in their philosophy. They voted for Reagan, but they may have also voted for Clinton. They definitely voted for Bush, but gave Obama a try as well.

But the problem with Independents and is the problem with Undecideds is that they don't have all the facts to help them make rational, informed decisions in the voting both. They are likely to be most influenced by the Corporate Media when deciding who to support, and they tend to buy into the narrative that government can't and shouldn't do much. Many of them voted for Obama out of sheer embarrassment with Republicans, but I believe that they tend to support Republican conservative ideals more than Democratic ones.

Which again, brings me to the question about deficits, and even the health care reform bill: the deficit has been reduced. And health care reform gave the insurance companies--NOT GOVERNMENT--more customers. Wouldn't that make Independents happy? Less government. Less deficits? No. Know why? Because they are misinformed. And the Democrats are not selling these points to the Independents: (1) that their taxes have in fact gone down; (2) that the deficit has gone down; (3) that the stimulus DID create some jobs and save many millions more jobs....and Republicans secretly are taking credit for stimulus-related successes; (4) that the health care reform bill has some good provisions that went into effect this past week.

But Democrats aren't losing because they are ineffective. They are losing because they aren't winning the war of words! They are allowing the Republicans to set the narrative, aided by the Corporate Media.

Reducing a deficit from 1.37 TRILLION to 1.26 TRILLION isn't even remotely close to solving the problem.

Look, I acknowledge that we have to spend our way out of this problem, but we already have a nearly out of control debt and adding a trillion a year isn't a good thing and distinguishing between 1.37 and 1.26 isn't something you pat yourself on the back for and call it day. It is barely a start!

And I still don't buy the argument that these people are well-meaning deficit hawks.

The Democrats passed PAYGO, did they not? Where were the Republicans? They voted *AGAINST* PAYGO!!

And sure, the marginal decrease in the deficit may not be much, but it is a move in the right direction.

I think you are being incredibly unreasonable here, and I'm not sure why. You expect for the deficit to just disappear in less than 2 years when it took 8+ years to create? That is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing!

And to be fair, the stimulus simply wasn't enough! Economists of ALL stripes have asserted that point. The stimulus wasn't enough, but that doesn't mean that it did absolutely nothing. Don't buy into the Republican meme, especially when a good number of them are deceptively campaigning on how they saved jobs and created others--WITH STIMULUS FUNDS--back at home in their districts, though they voted against the stimulus.

You're acting as if it did nothing. You are wrong. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal proves you wrong.

It is about the success or failure of the stimulus, nor is it about deficits per se.

This discussion is specifically about it not being "bizarre" that independents may be disappointed, ESPECIALLY those independents who were influenced by Obama's message of fiscal responsibility.

I PERSONALLY don't have a problem with the deficits under these circumstances and I agree the stimulus didn't nearly go far enough.

However, this thread is about a poll that shows independents turning toward conservatives and someone scratching their head wondering how that is possible. I explained that IF an independent was one of those for whom fiscal conservation was a HUGE issue, I could UNDERSTAND, without scratching my head, why they are turned off, especially since the deficit has ballooned under Obama and, by the standards that the administration put forth, the stimulus didn't work. (remember, they said that if we DIDN'T pass the stimulus unemployment would approach 10%)... well, we passed it and here we are at about 10%.

If fiscal discipline was one of my top issues, I would see this administration as a failure, since they have added immense amounts to the deficits without the results they promised.

Independents are typically Republicans, too embarrassed to call themselves as such.

My issue with you is that you seem to be getting some points wrong in some of your responses.

I also know many socially liberal, fiscal conservative independents who certaily aren't republicans, but feel Obama is their worst nightmare due to run away spending.

in order to stimulate an economy. That's Economics 101. So, not only did they fail Civics 101, they failed Economics 101.

For every story that you cite about liberals, conservatives, Libertarians, Independents, and whatnot being against spending, there are studies and reports from economists of ALL political persuasions that argue that the stimulus did not go far enough. In other words, we needed MORE, not less spending.

And further, it is indeed the case that there is a prevailing neoliberal philosophy that is now emphasizing clamping down on spending. Not only PAYGO, but the new commission on government fiscal responsibility. Liberals these days are sounding more and more like Republicans of yesteryear. And that's a good thing.

Poll after poll, survey after survey, has also demonstrated that while the deficit is important to voters, JOBS are #1 on that list. And many Americans don't care about the deficit in these economic times. They want SPENDING for JOBS, irrespective of political party or persuasion.

The problem with these so-called Independents is that they tend to be wedded to this "government can't do anything" mentality because that's the line that they've been fed for so many years.

For example, this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/congress-shouldn-t-tackle-deficit-until-unemployment-below-9-durbin-says.html

My opinion happens to be a little bit in the middle. I agree we need to spend our way out of this recession; however, I also believe this administration is wasting billions of dollars... a large part on the war on terror (afghanistan) which I believe Obama is smart enough to know is unwinnable but feels he MUST continue the war to save face with the hawks. Earmarks are at the highest level EVER, DESPITE the "reform" of having to post the request online and state a purpose.

There have to be cuts somewhere... significant cuts AND an additional revenue source. We are going to spend 400 BILLION on interest on the debt this year... MORE next year and it is only going to get worse and worse and worse unless we both cut spending and increase revenue.

So, yes, we need to spend money on job creation! However, there is billions being wasted (And I am not talking about "government waste").. I am talking about the US making difficult choices about what is most important.. fighting a nebulous global war on terror vs job creation at home... but I suspect we actually agree on this point.


So let's get down to the REAL problem and why independents are turned off, as I have explained in this thread... Using the guild lines this administration put forth.. the stimulus failed. They warned that WITHOUT the stimulus, we would hit 10% unemployment... well, we hit it WITH the stimulus. People now argue that their predictions were wrong and we WOULD HAVE hit 12-15% without it. Maybe that is the case.. but it remains a MAYBE. It's the same junk logic that gets people to believe the war on terror is working because we haven't had an attack since 9/11. Whenever you start trying to argue what COULD have happened or MIGHT have happened, you wind up being able to go anywhere you want, since there is not actual universal agreement among economics about how to solve our particular problem.

That will teach those non-leftist independents.

is to get out and vote and stop whining, that is unless you think Republicans will lose if Democrats stay home?

I'm on the left. My criticism was of people who are constantly whining. They are not the left. There are a lot of people on the left who aren't spending all their energy whining.

They voted for Obama really as a protest against Republicans. They also tend to be low-information voters. Very uninformed. But, they were always leaning Republican and conservative on a host of issues.

Same with Libertarians. They, too, tend to be Republicans in sheep's clothing!

They always were, but call themselves Independents, too embarrassed to embrace the Republican Party. They are conservative, and as we have seen, have always been low-information voters. That's why there is cognitive dissonance here...

independent's vote. Even though that might mean pissing alot of Dems off in the process. Sigh.... We need their votes.

How many people are really republicans who became angry or embarrassed after the republicans big loss in 2008 and began calling themselves independent?


A lot of conservative are calling themselves independents these day and I really think a lot of polls are muddled.

We shall see come election day, but some of these polls seem way off. For one, the Survey USA poll in my home state that had a republican leading by 9 points in a sea blue state. Rasmussen does that all time about a couple months out, but it's pretty unusual for Survey that I can remember.

The polls have since been reversed in my state by Survey and Rassmussen and the democrat is now leading, but it might be because so many people in this very blue state dismissed the poll seeing as this is an extremely liberal state.

I don't know many "proud" Republicans any more. But I know a lot of people who proudly voted for W twice who now claim they are "Independent."
Independent has traditionally been shorthand for moderate or centrist - it isn't any more. There may be Independents who are open to Democratic ideas, but there are a whole lot of Independents who are just Republicans embarassed by W.

with their own two eyes how the Republicans were spending. They saw how Bush II didn't veto one spending bill. Not one.

Enter the Democrats. The M$M and the Republicans started blaming Obama and the Dems as soon as Wall Street failed. The MO was to begin to set that narrative that all of this was/is Obama's fault.

He was the one who initiated TARP, not Bush, according to that narrative.

He was the one who initiated the Omnibus Spending Bills, which was laden with pork. WRONG! That spending bill was from the Bush administration.

People were confusing the Stimulus Bill (ARRA) with the Omnibus Spending bill, which is a set of 12 Appropriations bills that are voted on every fiscal year that keep the government in operation.

And now even Democrats in this same thread are blaming Obama and the Democrats in this thread, even though it was the Democrats who passed PAYGO, with every single Republican voting AGAINST it.

I repeat for the so-called "fiscal hawks": It was the Democrats who voted and passed PAYGO, not the Republicans.

The stimulus (ARRA) saved millions of jobs and did create 3 million. And, by the way, you got your tax cut!!!

The deficit is DOWN 13%, but for Obama, that's not good enough!

They gave Bush II 8 years to create the deficit and expect Obama to undo the damage in less than 2!!

For those of you who have difficulty understanding what that is 100% unreasonable, I've given up on you!!!

I don't know many "proud" Republicans any more. But I know a lot of people who proudly voted for W twice who now claim they are "Independent."

They also tend to claim that they are "Independents" who never really supported Bush, who also claim that they were just as pissed off at Republicans for spending. However, these same people voted Bush into office twice even when they saw how the Republicans were spending like sailors and Bush never vetoed a spending bill.

I think they are being incredibly disingenuous. Worse, they are fucking liars!

These are the same people that you hear calling into liberal talk radio shows claiming not to be a Republican or Democrat but proceed to demonize the Democrats ONLY!! They also tend to repeat this false meme that "BOTH PARTIES" do this or that; or, that "BOTH PARTIES ARE THIS AND THAT." That false comparison always pisses me off.

But as soon as they premise their "arguments" with "I'm an Independent," or, "I'm not with either party," you can rest assured that the rest of their tirade will be anti-Democratic Party or anti-Obama with NO outrage leveled at Republicans.

That's why I think they're full of shit. That's why I think the Teabaggers are full of shit. They claim to be angry at BOTH parties, but Democrats or like-minded folks aren't invited to their "party."

Until they explain where they were for the past 8+ years when all of this was happening, I will continue to hold that they are absolutely full of shit.

That he gets his "independent" ideas and anti-Republicanism from Rush Limbaugh. He also gets offended at my anticipating every argument he makes - claims he's a free thinker yet can only repeat Republican talking points.

I will say this for my friend - even when he was a Republican he harbored more Ron Paul-type libertarian beliefs. But from 2000-2008 he never held the current "George W Bush betrayed conservative principles therefore I'm independent" Tea Party B/S.

Funniest person I ran into in the "I'm Independent but really Conservative" crowd was a 21-year-old punk who loved Rise Against and the Dead Kennedys. Hello? Do you even listen to the lyrics?

Seems to be counter to the conventional wisdom being shouted from the media in regards to the tea party.

they now feel free to re-identify.