Sanders Isn’t Doing Well With True Independents

[hack89]

A lot has been made of Bernie Sanders’s appeal with independent voters during the Democratic presidential primary. He has won people who identify as independents in state after state, while Hillary Clinton has won people who identify as Democrats. Some Sanders backers have argued that this will translate to the general election; they point to general election polls that show Sanders doing better against Donald Trump than Clinton is.

The problem with this analysis, however, is that most independents are really closeted partisans, and there is no sign that true independents disproportionately like Sanders.

Most voters who identify as independent consistently vote for one party or the other in presidential elections. In a Gallup poll taken in early April, for instance, 41 percent of independents (who made up 44 percent of all respondents) leaned Democratic, and 36 percent leaned Republican. Just 23 percent of independents had no partisan preference. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received the support of no less than 88 percent of self-identified independents who leaned Democratic, according to the American National Elections Studies survey. These are, in effect, Democratic voters with a different name.

But that we’re talking about Clinton’s need to win over Democratic-leaning independents rather than true independents is a hopeful sign for her campaign — these voters have tended to stick with the Democratic Party. If Clinton can lure these Sanders voters back into her tent, she’ll probably lead Trump by somewhere around 5 percentage points nationally, instead of the 2 percentage points she leads him by now. My guess is that she’ll probably win many of them over, considering that a large portion are normally reliable Democratic voters. This year is so crazy, though — who can really say?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/

[Skinner]

1. "538 is in the tank for Hillary" in 5... 4... 3... 2...

1...

[Bread and Circus]

19. If Independents are "closeted partisans" then let them vote in open primaries

The open primaries we all pay for with our taxes.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Like true Scotsmen?

Question: Why are the 44 percent of independents who consistently vote Democratic not registered as Democrats?

Ay, there's the rub.

[hack89]

3. Not sure that registration is significant when compared to actual voting behavior

some people resist labels but their beliefs are more in line with one party over the other.

[Garrett78]

7. There are a few reasons.

I suggest reading this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

[firebrand80]

4. Exactly

The fact is that the pool voters that could swing an election - nonpartisan voters in swing states, is quite small. Any Democrat not outside the mainstream should win, especially against a candidate as weak as Trump.

Democrats currently have a clear electoral advantage in Presidential elections, the key is to (a) identify your voters, and (b) get them to the polls.

This is the primary reason I'm starting to believe that the goal of Clinton's VP pick should be to placate Bernie voters.

[cali]

5. Lol. True independents

[Garrett78]

9. It's a valid distinction, even if word choice could be better.

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

[JackRiddler]

23. Categorical hairsplitting.

"Closeted partisans" = people who wish they had a better fucking choice but usually take what they see as the lesser evil.

"True independent" = ideal category that corresponds to no one in reality, and if you think about it would be a creature both frightening and boring. A blank slate. An idiot who can't even name the parties. Etc.

The only definition that could be valid on empirical grounds is just what the term means in the electoral context: someone not registered with a party. Otherwise obviously no two of them will be exactly alike.

Point is, Sanders has an easier time picking up support beyond the automatic voting base for Democratic candidates, and motivating people who might not vote. Call them by whatever label you will.

[Garrett78]

6. As I've posted more than once, "independents" aren't who many on DU think they are.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

[LiberalFighter]

17. You are correct.

In my state, voters don't declare their party affiliation. But their voting history is public and it also shows which primary elections they vote if they do.

Too many times I have had discussions with others claiming to be independent and they vote for the person. But every time I heard that I would later find out that their voting history refuted that claim. There were other clues from the discussion that clearly indicated they were Republican. And amazingly, it was always those that opposed the particular Democratic candidate.

IMO the only true independent are those that don't vote.

[Orsino]

8. And true Scotsmen aren't allowed to vote for him.

Pesky Constitution.

[Skwmom]

10. Has the all knowing 538 ever considered that this is the year when a lot of true independents are

born. Of course not. Things always remain the same.

[hack89]

11. Wishful thinking is not their forte

but it is safe to assume that Bernie is not a transformation politician and his revolution is a game changer. The Democratic party will change enough to absorb the majority of his supporters while ignoring the radical fringe.

[Garrett78]

13. Never mind what you think about 538, what they're saying is confirmed by numerous studies.

For example: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

[Scootaloo]

12. But how is he doing among one-legged Armenians suffering the heartbreak of psoriasis?

Once you narrow the field enough you can reach damn near any statistical outcome you want.

[Garrett78]

14. But that isn't what's being done. Most independents are party loyalists.

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/


While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.

Rising polarization—and the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politics—has had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

[Scootaloo]

16. That's exactly what's being done

A result is desired. The means to achieving that result is to narrow the parameters, exclude competing results, until you finally get the result you want. You then declare that fraction the "true" example of the overall group, and hail them as the most meaningful data.

'Course, even when you pare down the grouping of independents down to that tiny sliver of people who either through studied neutrality or weird negligence show no party leanings, they still favor Sanders. H'whoops. But they don't favor him as much as independents overall, so that justifies using a title skewed negative to Sanders.

You don't have to lie to engage in propaganda. You just have to know how to manipulate information towards the result you want.

[Garrett78]

18. You're making too much of the word choice.

The point is that there are very few swing voters among the "independents." The vast majority of independents are party loyalists. Your obfuscation aside, survey after survey bears this out.

Independents preferring Sanders over Clinton has no bearing on who they'll support in the general election.

[Scootaloo]

21. No, I'm explaining to you why the word choice was made

But do keep missing the point

[hack89]

15. We are talking about 44% of the electorate divided into three groups

that is a very broad swath of American voters.

[JackRiddler]

24. A winner. Thanks.

[icecreamfan]

20. Sure, independent isn't a very helpful categorization of 44%, but why isn't 538 talking about this

[img][/img]

I can't find any talk on 538 about ABCs poll finding Clinton down 20% from Obama's exit polling numbers.

[ram2008]

22. Who the hell cares about "true independents"

He's winning swing voters, Hillary is not. That's what counts.

[hellofromreddit]

25. If you judiciously corral your sample parameters, your stats can say whatever you want.

IOW, this article is meaningless unless Enten's idea of "true independents" applies somewhere outside of his editorial.

[hack89]

27. He explains exactly what true independents are

Did you look at the Gallup poll?

[seabeyond]

26. Libertarians, Baggers, young and white men. No, not true independents. We have an other

running in our Democratic primary. He slipped by us. He runs that way too. Thank god it is not a true Democrat running this crappy campaign. We are better than this. Always.