Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Jamaaliver]

People just identify as independent to feel smart...

The two-party system has effectively stymied our democracy. But most people aren't enlightened enough to even see it.

[dckingsfan]

They need to have a solid defense against the right wing talking points.

The solid defense against right wing talking points is ***NOT*** to cave to them!

Bernie Sander is a Socialist
Nancy Pelosi is a Socialist
Joe Biden is a Socialist

It literally does not matter at all what policies people are putting out. Republicans are going to call it whatever they want regardless of how accurate that descriptor is. Castro making his policies more appealing to conservatives so they won't call it Open Borders or Socialism is completely asinine because they will do it anyway.

This again goes back to what I've been saying the last few pages: the ship has sailed on changing people's minds. Either you've bought into conservative propaganda or you haven't. What matters is driving turnout among the people who already agree with you. Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Let's agree with you here for a moment. The ship has sailed - no one can be convinced.

Therefore: D volunteers - just stay home - people have already made up there minds. No need to prep on the issues. Just leave those folks that are teetering in the middle and are misinformed.

I wonder if you have ever walked precincts? So, which state do you live? Do you work voter registration? Which candidate do you support? Or - do you just sit at home and say no one can change?

[dckingsfan]

Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Link? Study? Or is this more fake news?

[gtn130]

They need to have a solid defense against the right wing talking points.

The solid defense against right wing talking points is ***NOT*** to cave to them!

Bernie Sander is a Socialist
Nancy Pelosi is a Socialist
Joe Biden is a Socialist

It literally does not matter at all what policies people are putting out. Republicans are going to call it whatever they want regardless of how accurate that descriptor is. Castro making his policies more appealing to conservatives so they won't call it Open Borders or Socialism is completely asinine because they will do it anyway.

This again goes back to what I've been saying the last few pages: the ship has sailed on changing people's minds. Either you've bought into conservative propaganda or you haven't. What matters is driving turnout among the people who already agree with you. Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Let's agree with you here for a moment. The ship has sailed - no one can be convinced.

Therefore: D volunteers - just stay home - people have already made up there minds. No need to prep on the issues. Just leave those folks that are teetering in the middle and are misinformed.

I wonder if you have ever walked precincts? So, which state do you live? Do you work voter registration? Which candidate do you support? Or - do you just sit at home and say no one can change?

No, I'm literally saying the voter turnout is what matters, so generating that turnout is massively important.

[Jamaaliver]

Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Link? Study? Or is this more fake news?

More likely, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Or worse, is actively lying.

This is why you can't trust partisan sources who pledge undying fealty to a particular political party.




January 2018:

Last year, 42% of Americans, on average, identified as political independents, erasing the decline to 39% seen in the 2016 presidential election year. Independent identification is just one percentage point below the high of 43% in 2014. Twenty-nine percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.


With a nearly record-high proportion of Americans identifying as independents in 2017, it follows that identification with the two major parties is near the historical low for each.In fact, the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats ties 2015 as the lowest in Gallup's trend for that party. Republican identification (27%) is two points above its low of 25% in 2013.

[dckingsfan]

The solid defense against right wing talking points is ***NOT*** to cave to them!

Bernie Sander is a Socialist
Nancy Pelosi is a Socialist
Joe Biden is a Socialist

It literally does not matter at all what policies people are putting out. Republicans are going to call it whatever they want regardless of how accurate that descriptor is. Castro making his policies more appealing to conservatives so they won't call it Open Borders or Socialism is completely asinine because they will do it anyway.

This again goes back to what I've been saying the last few pages: the ship has sailed on changing people's minds. Either you've bought into conservative propaganda or you haven't. What matters is driving turnout among the people who already agree with you. Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Let's agree with you here for a moment. The ship has sailed - no one can be convinced.

Therefore: D volunteers - just stay home - people have already made up there minds. No need to prep on the issues. Just leave those folks that are teetering in the middle and are misinformed.

I wonder if you have ever walked precincts? So, which state do you live? Do you work voter registration? Which candidate do you support? Or - do you just sit at home and say no one can change?

No, I'm literally saying the voter turnout is what matters, so generating that turnout is massively important.

Do you think that those that are trying to turn out the vote have to answer questions? (Yes, that is rhetorical - you can ignore it like the previous questions).

Let's leave it at this - we both want the same outcome.

[gtn130]

More likely, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Or worse, is actively lying.

This is why you can't trust partisan sources who pledge undying fealty to a particular political party.

Yeah, man, you caught me. I'm LYING. This has all been an elaborate ruse in the name of partisanship.

The argument you're making here, though, is completely irrelevant. I understand that a huge % of people self-identify as Independent. My point has been and continues to be that these people are more partisan than they claim to be and ultimately vote along party lines, especially today in a hyper-polarized political environment.

Some more information on this topic here and here.

It's just a laughable idea that moderate independents are swinging the election when Donald ****ing Trump is President. That's obviously and empirically NOT true.

[gtn130]

The real, true partisan here is Jamaaliver who evidently is quite mad that I don't think Trae Young is good

[verbal8]

Sorry, this doesn't prove your point other than if we have another Obama we would crush it.

Why shouldn't we expect at least Obama-level political talent from the nominee?

Any of these strike you as Obama-level? If so, that's the one to vote for. I am still trying to figure out which one to work for...

Biden (25)?
Warren (16)?
Sanders (12)?
Harris (11)?
Buttigieg (6)?

It is still early. I think you can make an argument that Warren, Harris or Buttigieg are on par with Obama in terms of political skill.

Keep in mind, it is very likely that the best of that group would be the one to emerge. Also I think it would take incredible political skill for someone in the trailing pack to end up with the nomination. If say Steve Bullock or Castro were to come out to nowhere it would be a feat of incredible political skill. Another sign I see of the strength of the field is Beto failing to gain traction.

I do have some concerns about Biden or Sanders as the nominee. Sanders would to me be a sign the Dems are trying to out-rage the GOP and I don't think that is a winning strategy. Biden could fall into a trap of weakly running for a 3rd Obama term without being Obama. However I don't think that approach wins him the nomination. I think his path to the nomination is effectively running against Trump for basically a year and a half.

[pancakes3]

in a vacuum, i don't think having a large number of independents is a bad thing, but in the context of Trump sitting in office, the fact that there is a plurality of the nation who are "on the fence" and "need convincing" is f'ing depressing.

but i also don't think someone identifying as independent means they're on the fence. it could just be that they're republicans but are also nevertrumpers so they don't feel like identifying as republican at the moment.

also re: canvassing, i think that's got to have diminishing returns as we move forward. information is as readily available as ever and we don't need people to go door-to-door to spread the good word. in a pre-internet world, i get it, but now? how do you even insulate yourself to the point where you don't know the rough outline of what's going on?

sure people can stand to be educated more on the policies, but you're not going to get that from a doorway conversation either. not anymore than what facebook/twitter is going to teach.

[verbal8]

in a vacuum, i don't think having a large number of independents is a bad thing, but in the context of Trump sitting in office, the fact that there is a plurality of the nation who are "on the fence" and "need convincing" is f'ing depressing.

but i also don't think someone identifying as independent means they're on the fence. it could just be that they're republicans but are also nevertrumpers so they don't feel like identifying as republican at the moment.

also re: canvassing, i think that's got to have diminishing returns as we move forward. information is as readily available as ever and we don't need people to go door-to-door to spread the good word. in a pre-internet world, i get it, but now? how do you even insulate yourself to the point where you don't know the rough outline of what's going on?

sure people can stand to be educated more on the policies, but you're not going to get that from a doorway conversation either. not anymore than what facebook/twitter is going to teach.

I think canvasing drives turn-out more than convincing people or providing them additional information.

Also I think most people are on a "turn-out spectrum". Regular voters in a presidential election might be 95 to 85% chance. Casual or less engaged voters might be 40 to 60% for a presidential election and 20 to 30% for midterm or local election. If make personal contact, you are likely to move things in the direction of your preference.

[dckingsfan]

in a vacuum, i don't think having a large number of independents is a bad thing, but in the context of Trump sitting in office, the fact that there is a plurality of the nation who are "on the fence" and "need convincing" is f'ing depressing.

but i also don't think someone identifying as independent means they're on the fence. it could just be that they're republicans but are also nevertrumpers so they don't feel like identifying as republican at the moment.

also re: canvassing, i think that's got to have diminishing returns as we move forward. information is as readily available as ever and we don't need people to go door-to-door to spread the good word. in a pre-internet world, i get it, but now? how do you even insulate yourself to the point where you don't know the rough outline of what's going on?

sure people can stand to be educated more on the policies, but you're not going to get that from a doorway conversation either. not anymore than what facebook/twitter is going to teach.

I think canvasing drives turn-out more than convincing people or providing them additional information.

Also I think most people are on a "turn-out spectrum". Regular voters in a presidential election might be 95 to 85% chance. Casual or less engaged voters might be 40 to 60% for a presidential election and 20 to 30% for midterm or local election. If make personal contact, you are likely to move things in the direction of your preference.

Well, part of the process is that you get their cell phone numbers to remind them to vote. But also, many aren't registered or need to update their voter registration. If it is hard - they just won't do it. Bringing the information to them makes it easier.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2019/02/20/322464/heres-why-voter-registration-groups-are-fighting-texas-attempted-voter-purge/

[pancakes3]

sure it's helpful to get out the vote. i was just commenting on changing hearts and minds of undecided voters

[Pointgod]

Independents are mythical and do not matter as a voting bloc.

Link? Study? Or is this more fake news?

More likely, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Or worse, is actively lying.

This is why you can't trust partisan sources who pledge undying fealty to a particular political party.




January 2018:

Last year, 42% of Americans, on average, identified as political independents, erasing the decline to 39% seen in the 2016 presidential election year. Independent identification is just one percentage point below the high of 43% in 2014. Twenty-nine percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.


With a nearly record-high proportion of Americans identifying as independents in 2017, it follows that identification with the two major parties is near the historical low for each.In fact, the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats ties 2015 as the lowest in Gallup's trend for that party. Republican identification (27%) is two points above its low of 25% in 2013.

I’m with gtn on this. The way these poll questions are asked are kind of pointless without actual voting records to compare against. An Independent that votes with Republicans 80-90% of the time is for all intensive purposes a Republican. I seriously doubt that there are Independents that vote parties into office equally.

What I do know is that Democratic policies are extremely popular with the majority of the country and some of them are popular even with a majority of Republicans. So where’s the disconnect? Here’s one explanation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/16/democrats-policies-are-more-popular-but-republicans-are-more-ideologically-unified/?utm_term=.aeec6ba31e5b

[dckingsfan]

If we are a D through and through or an R through and through we or course want to dismiss that our party has fewer and fewer people that are dependable voters. That each election cycle it is the same - you either get out the vote or you lose to the other side. That you have to convince the middle in each election cycle. That just doesn't play to our narrative that we (insert party) are clearly better.

What the Post's article neglects is the sinusoidal wave of Rs and Ds at the federal level. Each group has been ineffective. This has then alienated folks from their own parties to become independent (convince me that you aren't just offering more of the same). You can also see that independents have a lower view of both parties with approval ratings in the teens. So, even when they are voting for a party, they are holding their respective noses.

I could list a tedious series of failures by both parties that got us to this place. Why should anyone trust either party at this point in time?

So back to gtn's original comment that triggered this diatribe. "Independents just want to appear smart". I would say it is more like: "Independents just don't want to appear stupid and endorse either failed parties".

To that end above (bold), you need to:
1) register new voters
2) convince those voters that they need to actually get to the polls
3) try to convince the other side not to vote

To do that you have to have a message and counter to the other side's narratives. Simply going with the "the other side is bad" and you don't have to do the above work is a false premise and was illustrated well in the Clinton campaign.

[gtn130]

dc, my comments about independents aren't really about you or jamaaliver or any politically engaged person who would be posting about politics on message boards. I know you personally voted for Hillary in 2016 and have voted R in the past. You are an exception to what I'm saying here. My point is that there are very few people who are actually like you, and I think you tend to superimpose your own thinking onto huge swaths of people who simply aren't thinking about things the same way you are.

The vast majority of people who self-identify as Independent still wind up voting for the same party every time. Everyone likes to believe they are too smart for partisanship and they are objective and rational thinkers, yet every presidential election is split along party lines despite 42% of voters claiming they're independent.

Most people are completely apolitical and just vote based on their own identity and which party they believe best aligns with that. The people who would actually care about political outcomes because they need essential government services often don't even vote.

[dckingsfan]

dc, my comments about independents aren't really about you or jamaaliver or any politically engaged person who would be posting about politics on message boards. I know you personally voted for Hillary in 2016 and have voted R in the past. You are an exception to what I'm saying here. My point is that there are very few people who are actually like you, and I think you tend to superimpose your own thinking onto huge swaths of people who simply aren't thinking about things the same way you are.

The vast majority of people who self-identify as Independent still wind up voting for the same party every time. Everyone likes to believe they are too smart for partisanship and they are objective and rational thinkers, yet every presidential election is split along party lines despite 42% of voters claiming they're independent.

Most people are completely apolitical and just vote based on their own identity and which party they believe best aligns with that. The people who would actually care about political outcomes because they need essential government services often don't even vote.

Fair enough...

but when I am out doing voter registration - the thing I find is that the Independents aren't voting the same way each time. This is anecdotal evidence. But is doesn't allow me to view those findings where independents are a "lock" to vote for one party or the other. What I am finding is those independents are becoming more and more disenfranchised from both parties.

And then there is the remedy. Get out and get folks to vote. And be prepared for the right wing talking points and be willing to gently present another side. And this is a weird country that way - many politics are local (or state). So, when you do chat with them find out why the vote one way or the other. Sometimes they like their local politician (town or city council) and then transpose that to the federal level. Sometimes (like you) you transpose it the other way around. And when you are talking to those folks - never insult them.

My 1/2 cent on how to get Trump out...

[dckingsfan]

So, from out discussions I decided to try something (not sanctioned). I asked folk if they were registered as usual. But then instead of asking if they were going to vote - I asked them what they thought about the two parties. At least half were disenchanted. To those I then asked if they thought either party was doing any good. Then if it was worth voting for either party.

An amazing number of those folks that weren't registered then didn't take the voter registration information packet. I am usually able to convince most to vote with a different tactic.

I haven't completely figured out what this means.

Fascinating.

[pancakes3]

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist-poll-americans-not-sold-on-trump-or-democrats

post-racist-tweet poll shows that the racist tweets don't make a difference in changing hearts and minds and that the independents are still such ~*principled voters*~ who are ~*focusing on the issues*~

[I_Like_Dirt]

So, from out discussions I decided to try something (not sanctioned). I asked folk if they were registered as usual. But then instead of asking if they were going to vote - I asked them what they thought about the two parties. At least half were disenchanted. To those I then asked if they thought either party was doing any good. Then if it was worth voting for either party.

An amazing number of those folks that weren't registered then didn't take the voter registration information packet. I am usually able to convince most to vote with a different tactic.

I haven't completely figured out what this means.

Fascinating.

It's tough to say. Realistically, though, I think GTN isn't totally wrong here. Is a person really an independent if they only ever vote for one of the two major parties and the only other option they realistically act on is to either not vote or protest vote with someone like Jill Stein? That's not particularly independent, overall. It's quite possible there would be more independents if there were more than 2 parties but as it is, realistically there aren't many.

I'd also suggest that disenfranchisement isn't necessarily outside of historical norms. History may yet prove me wrong with some sweeping new data over the next decade but this doesn't strike me as being some fundamental shift like, say, the adoption of the private ballot. Motivation to vote comes in waves, to be sure, but it's held within a certain range for a while now and appears to still be holding in that same range. I do think part of what is changing is still social media. Part of it is the lens you perceive things through, but far more importantly it's the lens prospective voters see things through which totally changes the outlook. There are a lot of particular directions that might go but it's going to be crucial that we maintain perspective to tell the difference between what we're seeing and how we're seeing it.

Low voter turnout probably hurts the Democrats, though. Anyone who's willing to even consider voting for Trump is going to vote and is going to vote for Trump. Whether a person is identified as an independent or a Democrat is a bit of an unnecessary aside, in my view.