WaPo - Overselling the importance of independent voters

[TomCADem]

A new meme is out that Trump might do better than polling suggests because he might be able to reach out to independent voters. However, whether it is Bernie or Hillary, this might oversell the importance of the independent vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/overselling-the-importance-of-independent-voters/2012/11/19/1c04b598-3294-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_blog.html

The Wall Street Journal, for instance, offered this headline Nov. 5: “Votes of Independents Could Be Key.” The article noted that Mitt Romney had a seven-point lead among independent voters, in a WSJ-NBC News poll, and it quoted a pollster as saying the finding posed a problem for President Obama: “You are really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”

So what happened? Obama lost independents by a margin of 45 percent to 50 percent — and he still won the election handily.

Indeed, in 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee, won the “independent” vote — 54 percent to 45 percent — and also lost.

* * *
In other words, in 2012, independents were more likely to be Republican-leaning voters. Perhaps these are tea party aficionados. Or maybe they are Republicans who were dissatisfied by the GOP nominee. But in any case, Romney was winning the votes of people who would have been in his camp in the first place. So that’s why capturing the independent vote still left him short.

[floriduck]

1. The difference in the impact of Indies is the candidate.

Obama to Kerry and their opponents is day to night difference. But I'd expect that from WaPo.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Writing-off 44% of the electorate is the height of stupidity.

and will guarantee a Trump presidency.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[silvershadow]

3. They can afford the stupidity this year- they have The Triangulation Candidate to run against.

How convenient for them.

[brush]

5. That 44% does not vote as a monolith

Many are right-leaning conservatives who will vote repug.

Many are moderate and left-leaning sensible voters, many of who, not wanting Trump to be the one to pick the next 3 SCOTUS justices, will vote for the Dem nominee, most likely Hillary Clinton.

So relax, no one is ignoring the independents, we just know that all of them will not be voting for Trump to spite Clinton for allegedly writing them off.

[JoePhilly]

6. + 1 ... Trump will win the Tea Party independents, and very few others.

[99th_Monkey]

7. We know Bernie does WAY better w/ Indies than Hillary

..is the point.

[brush]

8. Maybe he does better with some indies

Maybe.

Many, as I said are right-leaning and wouldn't think about voting for Sanders.

Many are moderate and left-leaning who don't want a repug appointing the next SCOTUS justices.

They won't be voting for Trump.

Some will stay home, vote for Jill Stein or write-in Sanders. Those people are unreachable so you move on and let them do what they want.

[99th_Monkey]

10. You are majorly misinformed

FYI - Sanders garners as much as 25% of the REPUBLICAN vote in his home state of Vermont.

And even Nate Silver -- who Hillary fans love to cite -- admits that Sanders does much "better
with independents". http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

[brush]

11. Why would getting repug votes be something to bragg about?

And I stand by my comments on independents. Some will vote for Trump, some for Clinton and some will do whatever they want.

The only way some will vote for Sanders is by write-in because he's not going to be on the ballot — hows that for being informed?

[Aerows]

12. If I was running for office

I would want every single vote I could get, regardless of how the voter self-identified. That is what good politicians do, after all, is get as many votes as possible!

[99th_Monkey]

14. Apparently Hillary has no problem with attracting Republicans

She's proudly forming-up a "Republicans for Hillary" group for just that purpose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/hillary-clinton-to-form-republicans-for-hillary-group-to-exploit/

And in other news, "INDEPENDENT VOTERS HEAVILY FAVOR SANDERS IN INDIANA"
http://www.inquisitr.com/3060870/independent-voters-heavily-favor-sanders-in-indiana/

Simply asserting a falsehood reportedly does not make it more true, and suggests a serious
case of denial

[brush]

15. Yeah, sure. Guess you Sanders supporters should know about denial . . .

like he still has a chance to get the nomination.

[99th_Monkey]

16. While Hillarians get your gloat on, Sanders keeps winning more delegates

yah yah I know, "the math".

The reality is, the primary is still in progress. and Sanders fully intends to
keep on truckin', all the way to a contested convention in Philly.

[brush]

21. Dream on.

[ljm2002]

23. If getting Republican votes is nothing to brag about...

...then surely, going after big Republican donors is nothing to brag about either?

[AgingAmerican]

28. Hillary's GOTV efforts have been entirely attempts at wooing the GOP

So you tell us....

[uponit7771]

18. He doesn't do better with democrats

[ContinentalOp]

17. Read your own link

Republicans including leaners = 41%. Democrats including leaners = 49%. That leaves actual third party voters and swing voters at only 10%. And what do you want to bet their attitudes still split roughly 50/50 along partisan lines. Those are just the ones who didn't want to admit that they lean one way or the other, or diehard greens, libertarians, etc. who never vote for either major party. Figure half of that 10% is roughly left leaning, and 2 or 3% are consistent third party voters. Actual swing voters who might possibly vote for a democratic candidate are probably only a few percent of that chunk.

[unblock]

4. polarization means that turnout matters more than the "undecided"

this was explained in a study and some articles a number of years ago as polarization was becoming more pronounced.

there are fewer and fewer genuinely undecided voters. even among "independents", many are rather left-leaning or rather right-leaning. in other words, only a small percentage of voters can actually be made to change their minds, at least compared to previous elections where winning the independent vote meant everything.

nowadays, there's much more juice in goosing turnout from your base. how many of that 40% base will actually come out an vote for you? the difference between a motivated base and an indifferent base can easily dwarf the percentage of independents a candidate can actually sway. never mind that the borderline independents are much less likely to actually vote as their position is not a strong one. you might win them in the opinion polls but if they don't get to the ballot box, what does it matter?

moreover, motivating your base is much more reliable and cost-effective, and it can build a mandate for governance, as opposed to the compromises and hedging you might have to do to appeal to independents.

[NurseJackie]

9. I think that most "independent" voters are actually partisan voters who don't like labels ...

... they call themselves "independent" for the vanity of it. They probably want to be seen as careful and thoughtful "free thinkers" that are not beholden to any rigid standards or rules.

I get the impression that they think it puts them in a better negotiation position and that the party which actually aligns more closely with their belief system will weigh their vote (and preferences) more heavily.

In reality, as we saw in NY ... their "independent" status actually PREVENTS them from participating, and although they thought they were giving themselves MORE clout and pull, they just made themselves LESS relevant.

They're not dumb voters... they're just full of themselves, in my opinion.

[uponit7771]

19. +1

[99Forever]

13. You'd think a "news" organization would know that there are more independents...

... than there are Democrats OR Republicans. And that number grows larger every day.

Write off the independents!!!!!!!!!

BRILLIANT FUCKING STRATEGY.

[uponit7771]

20. No need to write them off just not overvalue them seeing they've not made that big of a difference

[w4rma]

22. It looks like they're fishing for ways to write off the progressive vote, to me. (nt)

[TomCADem]

24. Romney$ Voters Were Hardly Progressive

In fact, the article noted in 2012, they generally skewed to the right. Many Tea Partiers do not identify as Republicans. Finally, the point of the article is what is more effective? Getting members of the party to turn out or to try to get the independent vote?

[Blue_Tires]

25. epic kick

[krawhitham]

26. Are they going to unskew the polls again?

Sure was funny the last time, and it is made Mitt the POTUS did it not?

[CobaltBlue]

27. TomCADem—Amazon's Jeff Bezos's 'Washington Post' is utter garbage.