If the Democrats Win...

Posted 2:27 p.m., Oct. 28, 2006

---

|

---

"It's not just a base game. What President Bush has really lost [since his re-election] is the support from independents."

-- Andrew Kohut
President, Pew Research Center
The National Journal
Sept. 30, 2006

It was in an email exchange several months ago with a friend, a devoted liberal, that the mainstream Democratic Party attitude toward the political center and its role in the coming election came for me into clear focus.

I'll not identify my friend, nor use his words verbatim, because I haven't sought his permission for that. And at any rate, he was merely repeating back to me, if I understand him correctly, ideas he had absorbed in his readings of the progressive magazine The American Prospect.

I started the exchange by forwarding to my friend a copy of a report, "The Politics of Polarization," written by William Galston and Elaine Kamarck and published about a year ago. It made the point that liberals, much more than conservatives, are reliant on independent and moderate voters to win national elections -- for the simple reason that liberals are so badly outnumbered.

For me, there were two key points from that report:

• "With three conservatives for every two liberals, the sheer arithmetic truth is that in a polarized electorate effectively mobilized by both major parties, Democratic candidates must capture upwards of 60 percent of the moderate vote -- a target only Bill Clinton has reached in recent times -- to win in a national election."

• "Jimmy Carter captured only 72 percent of the liberal vote in 1976 and won the presidency. John Kerry captured 85 percent of the liberal vote, and lost."

My buddy was unimpressed. To him, Democrats would be wasting their time if they catered to the center. The key for him was message. It was simply a question of sparking the base with a liberal argument so incandescent that independents will follow along simply because they appreciate the style, if not the substance.

I'm sure Arriana Huffington would wholeheartedly embrace this, as would many of my liberal friends. But I'm not buying. In a way, this attitude worries me almost as much as the prospect of Republicans retaining their hold on Congress at a time when change is so obviously and desperately needed.

If the Democrats win the Congress on Nov. 7 -- I am not fully convinced they will, but if they do -- my fear is that they will wrongly interpret their victory to mean that they have won the argument; that America will have become one big blue state. That could lead them to govern as though they have been handed a mandate that will not in fact be theirs.

And that will be a huge mistake.

The Survey Says...

In a random national survey of 1,200 adults conducted Oct. 19-22 for the Washington Post and ABC News, pollsters found that independents are poised to play a critical role in the upcoming congressional elections. Partisan Democrats and Republicans are sticking with their parties, but independents are leaning strongly toward the Democrats -- by a 59-31 percent margin. That's the largest margin of the year for any Post-ABC poll.

Much of that has to do with the war in Iraq, and the degree to which both Democrats and independents are pessimistic about the likely outcome of our little national adventure over there.

To put things graphically....

All of which sounds like my friend is right, doesn't it? Democrats have been beating the drum about the war, have expressed the fear that the war is not working, and believe the nation needs a course correction. That "liberal" message is connecting with independents.

What's more, independents and Democrats are almost equally likely to name Iraq as their most important campaign issue in the campaign: Both are about twice as likely as Republicans to single out the war.

So clearly the Democrats are winning the argument. They've broken through with their message, and a critical mass of independents have climbed on board. Right?

Woah, there, Nelly....

"Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so 'very enthusiastically.'"

-- "Independent Voters Favor
Democrats by 2 to 1 in Poll,"
The Wasington Post
Oct. 24, 2006

Translation: Dear Democrats, if you happen to win on Nov. 7, please don't take it personally.

Take a look at another poll, this one from last year. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press surveyed 1,523 adults from Sept. 8-11, 2005 (shortly after Katrina, it should be noted). That poll showed that Democrats had the edge on Republicans, in terms of attracting independent voters, on most of the major issues they were asked about.

• On healthcare, independents preferred the approach of Democrats to Republicans by 38 percentage points (56%-18%).

• On the envrionment, Democrats had the edge with independents by 37 percentage points (56%-19%).

• On "energy problems," Democrats had a 26 percent edge (46%-20%).

• On education, the numbers are similar. Democrats edge Republicans among independent voters by 21 points (48%-27%).

• At the time the numbers were smaller on the issues of the economy (Democrats, +11 points; 43%-32%), disaster handling (Democrats, +11 points; 39%-28%) and the Iraq war (Democrats, +14; 45%-32%).

• Only on the issue of terrorism did Republicans have the edge among independents, leading Democrats by 10 points (42%-32%).

Now, remember, the Post-ABC poll didn't ask these respondents what their top issues were, merely which party's approach was preferred among a laundry list of issues selected by the pollsters. The 2005 survey also apparently didn't ask questions about immigration, which has since surfaced as a major issue (though it peaked as a hot topic nationally several months ago).

Good News for the Dems?

It's important to note that this is year-old data, and it is possible that numbers might have shifted. It seems unlikely, given the trouble the Republican have found themselves in over the past year, that independents' attitudes toward the GOP would have become more charitable. But it also seems unlikely attitudes would have tilted in the past year dramatically toward the Democrats, with the possible exception of the war. So those numbers will do.

It looks like terrific news for Democrats all the way around. It's obvious, isn't it? Independents are in line with the views of the Democratic Party.

Aren't they?

Well, of course, the picture is never that simple. A more recent Pew survey shows why. This one, a survey of 1,804 Americans conducted between Sept. 21-Oct. 4, 2006, asked respondents to rank their top elections issues. It demonstrates that Democrats have a lot to think about, if they happen to win Nov. 7.

Remember, aside from the war in Iraq, independents are most firmly in line with Democrats on the issues of education and the environment. Important issues to be sure, but neither is among the topmost election issues, among independents or anyone else.

Independents are closest to Republicans on terrorism. And that actually is one of the top issues.

Here is the breakdown of top election issues, among all voters generally, and among independents. They rank as follows:

1. The situation in Iraq. This is ranked as the top issue among 51 percent of voters generally, and among 50 percent of independents. It is the top issue of 68 percent of Democrats, and 36 percent of Republicans.

2. Terrorism. This is the top issue by 37 percent of total voters, and among 33 percent of independents. Only 21 percent of Democrats agree, but 57 percent of Republicans feel the same way.

3. The economy. The top issue among 35 percent of total voters, and among 29 percent of independents. It ranks at the top for 39 percent of Democrats.

4. Healthcare. The top issue among 31 percent of total voters, and among 29 percent of independents. It ranks at the top for 39 percent of Democrats, many of whom, presumably, support universal coverage.

5. Immigration. The top issue among 24 percent of total voters, and among 27 percent of independents. Only 12 percent of Democrats agree.

6. Energy policy. The top issue among just 15 percent of total voters, but fully 22 percent of independents, the highest percentage among the three groups.

Respondents were apparently not asked about the environment or education. But in yet another Pew survey, this one published on Sept. 14, 2006, the environment doesn't rank at all among the top 16 "most important problems" cited by respondents. Education ranked no higher than ninth.

Note also that the issue on which independents most closely align with the Democratic Party's approach -- healthcare -- is listed as the top election issue by only 29 percent of independents. And it ranks third on their election-issue priority list, tied with the economy.

So, What Have We Learned?

This breakdown might at least partially explain why independents aren't overly enthusiastic about backing Democrats, even if they intend to vote for Democratic candidates in this particular election.

These groups' priorities simply don't align well on some of the most important issues -- especially on terrorism, immigration and energy policy. The greatest thing they have in common is pessimism about the war, not really an inspiring peg upon which to hang any longlasting relationship.

If the Democrats hope to forge any long-term alliances with their nonpartisan peers -- and it appears they have that opportunity now -- they need to offer independents more than commiseration about the Republicans' failed war policy.

None of this means that Democrats need to sell their liberal souls on the altar of moderation. Maybe on some issues, they have the better argument. But they'd better make that case well, offering up some real substance and real debate, if they hope to shepherd the independents to come their way to stay.

On the other hand, the Democrats might have to move farther to the center -- again with substantive policies, not just here today/gone tomorrow election-cycle rhetoric -- on some other issues. With the issue of energy policy, they might have a golden opportunity to make that kind of move while winning over moderates who see energy self-sufficiency not just as a liberal "green" issue, but as a potent national security matter.

(I think a fellow named Gore has been making some noise to that effect lately. But I digress....)

Democrats fail to bring the moderate center back into the fold at their own peril. Remember, as Galston and Kamarck suggest, liberal Democrats will need at least 60 percent of the moderate vote to win back the White House.

If the Democrats plan to ride on the shoulders of independents to win these midterms, then simply march back to their posts on the far left, well, they might succeed. At least one house of the Congress could be theirs. For two years.

But that won't be because they did such a bang-up job winning the argument. It won't be because they attracted all those outliers at the center by virtue of the shiny-brightness of their high-gloss message. It will be strictly because the Republican screwed up so badly that independents could no longer countenance them.

Democrats can be happy with that if they want, and go back to business as usual. Pyrrhic victories, too, can be sweet.

But of course, if they do that, Democrats can kiss the presidency in '08 goodbye. And they'd better pray to the secular humanist totem of their choosing that there are no more Ross Perots crouching out back behind the woodshed.

-- Kevin Featherly

---

|

---

Share with a friend:

---

Visit the Kevblog archive.

---

---