Democrats Closer To Independents In All Fifty States

Here is an eye-opening fact about the Survey USA 50-state tracking released today: in every single state, Independent approval of Bush was closer to Democratic approval of Bush than Independent approval of Bush was to Republican approval of Bush. That was the case in every state. Fifty out of fifty. Massachusetts and Utah. California and Alabama. New York and Idaho. In every single state in the country, Independents were more in line with Democrats than they were with Republicans.

In fact, in thirty-three states, the difference between Democratic approval of Bush and Independent approval of Bush was less than half the difference between Republicans and Independents. In twelve states, the difference was three times as great. Nationwide, Democrats were more than 25 points closer to Independents than were Republicans. The enormous gaps are not just in the Kerry states either, as you can see on this map:

(Yellow states = Independents less than two times closer to Democrats; Light blue = Independents more than two times closer to Democrats; Dark blue = Independents more than three times closer to Democrats; Black = Independents more than four times closer to Democrats)

There isn't a single corner of this nation where Democrats are not more in line with Independents than Republicans. That's a fact. That's fifty-state potential. That's a tidal wave.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Yes... but...
Do you know that?

Do the Independents know that they are closer to us then they are to them? And to go back to your earlier question... how can we make sure to get this point across so that they know it in the voting booth?

by Andrew C White 2005-08-17 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes... but...
This goes back to the Cindy Sheehan/Take back the family issue.  The Dems need to promote a narrative of caring about and protecting average families from unnecessary foreign wars that take their children; Dobsonite incursions into the privacy of family life and death; predatory GOP policies that fleece ordinary Amricans; fair taxes; better education; more affordable health care etc.
by Mimikatz 2005-08-17 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes... but...
That should read...

"Do they know that?"

by Andrew C White 2005-08-17 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes... but...
I have been a registered independent since 1972.
I know I am much closer to the Dems than to the Repubs.
I don't consider these fascists Repubs.
Probably will be changing my voter registration to Democrat real soon.  I don't think I'll ever vote Republican again.
by MistyBlue 2005-08-17 12:25PM | 0 recs
I was going to ask...
... where you got that data but I now see there is much more detailed data when you drill down by clicking on each state name.

Interesting, very interesting....

by Andrew C White 2005-08-17 11:31AM | 0 recs
Nevada
Can we PLEASE get a senate candidate in Nevada....
by blogswarm 2005-08-17 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Nevada
Bob,
This is off-topic, but I read an article on msnbc two days ago about a new PAC (Leave No District Behind) you're starting with the Rappaports.  It sounded pretty exciting to me, but few details were mentioned.  Are we going to be hearing about this from you?
by Fran for Dean 2005-08-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Nevada
I respectfully disagree.

It is much better to wait until 72 hours before the election and then start campaigning.  This successful strategy has delivered stellar results since 1996 and so why change?  It is CW that it is easy to beat somebody with nobody and if the voters learn Democratic positions on issues, as the above polls seems to indicate, they will always vote Republican; additional supporting evidence for this was recently given by the special election in the Ohio 2nd Congressional district.

Further, having paid and volunteer campaign staff recruited 'in district' deeply knowledgeable and experienced in issues and concerns of the local voters having any control over the advertising budget is always a waste of time, money, and effort.  And any grassroots support is to be shunned at all costs.  After all, if these two groups knew anything they would be living in Washington, D.C. and making money as political consultants.

Given the above, I think you must also conclude it is better to let the current system run its course.

by ATinNM 2005-08-17 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Nevada
Humor always does it better than straight talk. I like your post a lot. Thx for shining light on this in a different way.
by bruh21 2005-08-17 01:04PM | 0 recs
from the roots
It's gotta come from the 'roots because Harry Reid is discouraging it.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-17 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: from the roots
Ironically, "From the Roots" is also the name of the DSCC's blog
by Fran for Dean 2005-08-17 01:04PM | 0 recs
but but
I was told that Democrats are radical leftists and out of the mainstream.
by Fran for Dean 2005-08-17 12:05PM | 0 recs
Independents spread to the left of the Democrats
What's interesting in the map is the black states -- New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont.  States where GOP is pretty strong, and where there are a lot of progressives (Greens, etc.).

Assuming the GOP has been busy registering all the right-leaning independents who grew to such numbers in the 1980s, that leaves the more progressive independents, at least in some parts of the country.

by kofu 2005-08-18 08:24AM | 0 recs
More Details
Yes, on presidential approval the Independents are more in line with the Democrats than they are with Republicans. But approval and disapproval are determine by a myriad of reasons.

The question should be: why do Independents disapprove with the president? Are these individual issues they target the same issues Democrats list for their disapproval? And lastly, are these issues ones that Republicans approve of?

Once we find the issues we have in common with independents, we need to find a wedge issue to force the right away from the independents.

I wonder what these issues are, and what wedges we can find...

by T Dubya Ault 2005-08-17 12:26PM | 0 recs
I think...
...that there are a lot of people who hate Bush who won't vote for most Democrats.  That means we need the right canidate out there for pres.  The canidate's stances on issues don't matter as much as that canidate's political abilities, frankly.

As for statewide races (Governors and Senators) this is very good news indeed (because local Dem canidates can be more like the states they are elected from in tone and manner and stances on issues than a presidential canidate can), and probably even better for the House (if we can overcome the incumbency protection factors and districts that are gerrymandered into strong R seats).

by Geotpf 2005-08-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Jayhawks
Is Kansas within reach?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-17 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Jayhawks
Of what?
by Chris Bowers 2005-08-17 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Jayhawks
Nebraska?
by Andy Katz 2005-08-17 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jayhawks
Tipping to the D column
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Jayhawks
We have the Govorner. That's probably all we are getting.
by Chris Bowers 2005-08-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Interesting. . . .
that so many "dark blue" states are "red" states, like Oklahoma, Idaho.  Glad to see where my West Virginia ranks.  Hopefully this will help hold Byrd and win Capito's seat.
by Andy Katz 2005-08-17 01:11PM | 0 recs
Map
Hey Chris,

When you get time could you PLEASE take a cartography or GIS class. Your color schemes make my eyes want to commit suicide!

Check out Cindy Brewer's website at Penn State.

by adamterando 2005-08-17 01:43PM | 0 recs
If they only knew then what they know now!
Taking a look at the State-by-State approval ratings and it makes me think:
If they only knew then what they know now.

The states of NM, AK, NV, MO, and OH would, today, be added to the blue state column. Bush currently has more than a 15% deficit in the approve/disapprove column, more than enough to cover the margin of error and the Democrat and Independent defections because they just didn't trust, didn't like, or just got the heebiegeebies when thinking about Kerry. Kerry wins 299/241.

The more these states know about Bush, the less they like him. Iraq was not part of the war on terror, now it is, and the rest of his foreign policy is in shambles. Bush has no real Social Security Plan, nor other economic policy that can truly help the average american.

If the Republican noise machine hadn't been so successful, or had the Democratic noise machine been more effective, people could have / would have realized this last November.

Blame can be placed in many places and many excuses can be made, but the SurveyUSA study illustrates that lesson to be learned is:
The a more the electorate knows about what is really going on, the better position for the Democrats.

by MassachusettsLiberalinDC 2005-08-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: If they only knew then what they know now!
We didn't campaign in all 50 states.

This left no margin for error and hurt us down the ballot as Republican lies about Kerry often went unchallenged.

by wayward 2005-08-17 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: If they only knew then what they know now!
We should campaign in all 50, but we did campaign in NM NV MO & OH.
by MassachusettsLiberalinDC 2005-08-17 09:41PM | 0 recs
I drove from SoCal to Vegas to help in NV
Too bad it didn't work.
by Geotpf 2005-08-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Horrific Numbers:
Horrific Poll Numbers for Bush:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ ...ob_Approval.htm

Every single poll has shown that Bush's approvals have fallen to the lower 40s except Rasmussen Reports' Daily Tracking Poll. It has had President Bush hovering around the upper 40s (ex. 48, 47). However, today it has recorded Bush's lowest approval rating EVER in the tracking poll history.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ ...ob_Approval.htm

by LA Democrat 2005-08-17 02:27PM | 0 recs
Another variable
Does this analysis take into account more conservative Democrats? In some places the independents could be closer to their local Democrats without being as liberal as Independents in others states are, because the local Dems are more right leaning. Just a thought
by Bothwell 2005-08-17 03:47PM | 0 recs
hm if this is the case why can't we win???
or is this up to date numbers from this month? cause in 2004 they split 49-48 for Kerry.
by Liberal 2005-08-17 04:31PM | 0 recs
Yeah,
this is now, after the electoral bull$#!+ machines have wound down and the reflexive sense of partisanship has ebbed.
by catastrophile 2005-08-17 04:56PM | 0 recs
The question is...
...what is the Independent view of Democrats?

They may dislike Bush almost as much as we do, but do they like our guys enough to vote for them?

by LiberalFromPA 2005-08-17 04:38PM | 0 recs
Winning in 2008
If Democrats want a 50 state strategy, they need to nominate moderate to conservative Democrats.  Evan Bayh or Mark Warner would be acceptable.  If Democrats nominate Hilary, I can guarantee it will be only a swing-state strategy.  
by joopnl 2005-08-18 09:09AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads