Pew polls

Here's a fascinating breakdown of the Independent voters, in regards to their make-up and their voting patterns over the past few cycles, done by Pew.

I wish that Pew would do another Mapping of the Political Landscape. The 2005 Political Typology is the fourth, following on previous studies in 1987, 1994 and 1999. They are certainly due.

Back to their most recent, and some findings:

  • The proportion of independent voters or non-partisans is now at 37%, one of the highest levels in the past 20 years of Pew Research Center polling. The share of independent voters has grown from 34% of registered voters in 2008.
  • The Democratic Party’s advantage in party identification among registered voters has narrowed from a 10-point gap last year to a five-point gap in 2010 as Democrats have lost adherents and the Republican Party has gained supporters.
  • There has been little change in voting intentions over the course of the year. Registered voters have been closely divided in their preferences, while Republicans have enjoyed an advantage among voters most likely to cast a ballot in November.
  • As in previous midterms, older independents are more likely to vote Republican than are voters younger than 50, and independent men are much more inclined to cast a GOP ballot than they were four years ago.
  • Obama’s job approval rating among independent voters stands at just 39%; 50% disapprove of the president’s job performance. Still, Obama’s rating among independent voters is higher George W. Bush’s in September 2006 (29% approve/57% disapprove).

I hear or read all the time, about folks that say that Obama's numbers will turn around once the economy does. Thing is, these are the same folks that were saying that his numbers (and the underlying fate of the Democrats) would turn around once they passed the corporate healthcare reform this past Spring. Funny how that happens. Always wrong; always a reason to compromise one more time; never works.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Here's the problem

There are deep and inherent problems with the Democratic party right now, chief among them is piss-poor leadership. What's worse is that the leadership has surrounded itself with enablers and insulated themselves in the DC bubble. Aravoisis wrote a nice piece on it today. What really annoys me is that there are a group of people, who just cannot bear to either criticize or hear criticism of the way this administration is doing things. It is one thing to pass a bad legislation in good faith, but quite another to pass a bad piece of legislation with the express desire of garnering opposition votes that fail to materialize ever. It's just like Charlie Brown.

by tarheel74 2010-09-23 04:10PM | 1 recs
The devil is in the details

I find it interesting, one single, simple detail Jerome posted here tacitly - he used the term 'CORPORATE' healthcare reform.

It was never supposed to be corporate healthcare reform, it was supposed to be healthcare reform with a national health service.

 

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-23 04:31PM | 1 recs
RE: The devil is in the details

Yea, that's what it wound up being-- a healthcare plan that mandates buying coverage from corporations. The shoe fits.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-23 04:39PM | 0 recs
RE: The devil is in the details

It doesn't fit. The corrupt Democrats are the ones who pushed corporate healthcare reform guys like max baucus and joe lieberman. The progressives, that are hurting as a result of their obstructive tactics in committee -were NOT going for corporate healthcare reform.

Its a misnomer to say that they were. The fact that it wound up being what it is, doesn't mean that's how it has to stay.

One. Single. Four Page Bill. Passed by Alan Grayson and the entire project lights up as real reform.  Cash buy in to medicare.

The house passes that, and the country has essentially - a national health service and the charge of corporate corruption and corporate reform, is lifted.

 

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-23 04:45PM | 0 recs
RE: The devil is in the details

Please don't be misinformed. As Russ feingold said the President got the bill he wanted. Not just him, even Harry Reid had complained that the WH did not do any heavy-lifting to pass a public option or meaningful health care. They relegated the bill to Baucus and "Obama's good friend" Grassley and we got this bill, riddled to loopholes and giveaways to PhRMA and AHIP.

Way back in June of last year, a team at Harvard Law School was asked to look to the MA plan and design ways to implement it nation-wide. Their finding is what we see, it's a good plan on paper but there is no way to regulate costs or insurance premiums, at least legally.

The only people who came out on the losing end are the middle class, who will be fleeced by the insurance industry unchecked, and the Congress that stuck it's neck out with a really good bill that the WH pretty much let sink without a second thought.

by tarheel74 2010-09-23 04:56PM | 1 recs
The Democrats

aren't willing to get their hands dirty and throw a few punches.  The Republicans have proven that they can mobilize their base, however misguided the reasons they use to mobilize them, and convince them that the way to solve the problems in Washington is to vote Republican this November.

The Republican Party, to me, also seems more homogenous than the Democratic Party.  Hardly do you ever hear of any Liberal Republicans, and you can hardly watch the news without the mentioning of conservadems or Blue Dogs.  The GOP isolates their support and targets them.  

Clearly the Republicans have an easier time pointing out the flaws of the Democratic Administration, than the Democrats do of highlighting the good parts of it.  

The dwindling support of the Independent voters is what will end up really hurting the Democrats this November, and come 2012 if those numbers don't improve.  Dems can't bank of the self-destructiveness of some Teaparty candidates to improve their chances, they need to grow a pair and follow through on some of their promises (and not half ass them).

by Chuckie Corra 2010-09-24 08:23PM | 0 recs
What a straw man

Since one of the people who has thought Obama's problems are primarily about the economy is Chris Bowers, maybe you can ask him.

Anyone who has looked at presidential approval from 82 to 84 and 91 to 92 knows that Recessions always hammer the President in Power.

Can you name more than two people in your example?

by fladem 2010-09-27 12:11AM | 0 recs
RE: What a straw man

I got into that with Bowers a bit at the AMP summit-- believe its on YouTube if you want to follow up. Basically, he agreed, that its really only a 2% differential with regards to the matter the economy and approval ratings, and the idea that its entirely about the economy (Obama's decline) has no factual basis beyond that number.

Anyone who's looked at Presidential approval for the last 6 Presidents, realizes that the matter of hyper-partisanship entirely dismisses the apples to apples comparison. Really, the only comparison that equates for Obama is the second term of GW Bush. Anything previous, and you are on apples to oranges comparison terms, given the extreme nature of the recently developed partisan divide.

I've gotten to the point where I dismiss out of hand as blissfully unaware anyone that brings up this sort of hopola of comparing Obama with Reagan, but I digress ocasionally and provide pointers too...

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-27 12:21AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads