CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 26 February 2012
“The Democrats’ activist-supporter ideology gap is more than twice that of Republicans.”
Democrats Must Chase Independents to Win
Far more Americans favor Democrats over Republicans. For decades, the number of Americans identifying as Democrats or calling themselves independent but leaning Democratic has far exceeded the share of Republicans and Republican leaners. That gap has persisted, even in landslide Republican years like 1984 and 1994.
So why don’t Democrats perform better in national elections? Why have Democrats won only four of 10 presidential races since 1972?
A new report for Third Way, the moderate Democratic group, posits an answer: the ideological disconnect between liberal party activists and moderate party voters. In “Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters,” Todd Eberly, a political scientist at St. Mary’s College in Maryland, examined data from the American National Election Studies and focused on the striking divide among Democrats.
In the 10 presidential elections since 1972, Democratic activists — those who attended a campaign event and donated money — rated themselves an average of 3.06 on a 7-point liberal-to-conservative ideological scale, with 4 being “moderate.” By contrast, those who merely identify as Democrats or lean that way were significantly closer to the center, an average of 3.77.
This “ideological gulf,” Eberly argues, coincides with — and helps explain — decreased party loyalty. Since 1970, Democratic-leaning independents have increased from fewer than one in five members of the Democratic coalition to one in three. This shifting composition makes a difference.
First, the Democratic-leaning independents are far more likely to switch loyalties and vote Republican than are their pure Democratic counterparts. This may seem obvious, but consider: Republican leaners were far less likely to defect than were Democratic leaners.
For example, in the 2002 House election, 46 percent of those who had identified themselves as Democratic-leaning independents two years earlier voted for Republicans; just 26 percent of Republican-leaning independents switched to vote Democratic.
Second, the Democratic-leaning independents have different views than those who call themselves Democrats. As Eberly reports, they are “less supportive of government intervention in the economy, more likely to believe that the government has gotten too involved in things people should do for themselves, and express higher levels of support for cutting Social Security spending.”
Eberly’s conclusion: “There may be more money and passion among activists on the left, but there aren’t enough voters there to secure consistent electoral victory for Democrats. The true wealth of voters in the Democratic coalition resides in the vital political center and that’s where the Democratic Party will find the path to sustained electoral dominance.”
The key here is the word “sustained.” There is a long-running debate among strategists in both parties about whether the path to electoral success lies in turning out the base or appealing to independents.
In a recent paper for the Center for American Progress, Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin make the demography-is-destiny case — that the rising share of minority voters, in particular, “clearly favors Democrats.” This argues, they say, for a strategy of energizing the progressive base, not questing fruitlessly after independents.
Perhaps so, in the short run. But I’d argue that some of President Obama’s recent choices, such as rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline or his original stance on mandating that religiously affiliated institutions provide contraceptive coverage, risk alienating at least as many voters as they inspire.
Over time, however, the base approach assumes that minorities, especially Latinos, are hard-wired to the Democratic Party, and it fails to take adequate account of the growing loosely connected component of the Democratic coalition.
Then again, Republicans seem determined to save Democrats from themselves. “Republicans should not look to this report as good news for the GOP,” Eberly wrote. “If the GOP continues to trek to the right, they will reach a point where moderate Democrats no longer view the GOP as an acceptable alternative in elections.”
Eberly’s data show that Republican activists and Republican voters are much more ideologically compatible. The Democrats’ activist-supporter ideology gap is more than twice that of Republicans.
And where Democrats, both activist and everyday voters, have stayed in essentially the same ideological place over the years, Republican activists and Republican supporters have shifted markedly rightward. For example, Republican activists have moved from close to moderate (4.53) in 1972 to decidedly conservative (5.50) in 2008.
In short, Democrats are a distinctly purple party with blue leadership. Republicans are a uniformly red party becoming redder by the year. Those clashing palettes frame the parties’ very different challenges.
Democrats need to align liberal activists with more moderate supporters. Republicans must attract enough moderate voters without alienating an increasingly conservative base.
The Democratic mission is more achievable — if, that is, the party chooses to accept it.
© , Washington Post Writers Group
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Ruth Marcus
Ruth Marcus is a columnist and editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy. Marcus has been with The Post since 1984. She joined the national staff in 1986, covering campaign finance, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court and the White House. From 1999 through 2002, she served as deputy national editor, supervising reporters who covered money and politics, Congress, the Supreme Court, and other national issues. She joined the editorial board in 2003 and began writing a regular column in 2006. A graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School, she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2007. She lives in Maryland with her husband, Jon Leibowitx, their two daughters, and the world’s cutest dog.
Top Stories
By Tara Culp- Ressler
15 comments on "Democrats Must Chase Independents to Win"
February 28, 2012 8:18am
Hmmm - strange that nobody is talking about election fraud, largely perpetrated by the right wing. Also, nobody is talking about fascist control of the media, and therefore the mindset.
I detest this article and all that it stands for. We are circling the drain, and all the phony-ass liberals can think of to do is to shift to the right, which is where the drain is located. A pox on all of you. I would have expected better from Nation of Change.
February 27, 2012 9:51am
The more Democrat voters seek "sustained dominance" the more unsustainable our planet becomes for human survival, and the less likely our children will have a future worth having... if the dominating Democrats leave them any future at all.
What was the result when "progressives" succeeded in getting more of the corporate party's deeply depraved Democrats elected?
ANSWER: WellPoint determined that actual and affordable healthcare was not an option; Goldman Sachs determined economic policy; Countrywide determined foreclosure policy; General Electric determined unemployment policy; Exxon determined future energy policy; Monsanto determined food "protection" policy; Haliburton determined environmental fracking policy; GA-ASI determined foreign policy... and those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and Nature have been granted absolute immunity, while prosecutors persecute the innocent who have exposed their crimes.
Jill Stein for President:
http://www.jillstein.org
Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:
http://chenangogreens.org
February 27, 2012 8:39am
Imaging going beyond being party voters to community voters:
Proposal:
Federal Election Reform of 2012
Why: to secure
Uncompromised members of the 2012/14
House and Senate and 2016 Presidency.
How: by providing
Opportunity for a broader range of candidates,
Public funds not distributed by party affiliation means
Donor identity unknown to the candidates, for
Representation of more constituents, a
New framework for solving problems, and
Voter involvement in America’s recovery.
By:
$5.00/year IRS checkbox donations sent to revised
Federal Election Commission program or NGO provides
5% to agency for Administration and Special Elections and
Quarterly distribution to these candidates in proportion to
Registered Voters for each Congressional seat to all
U.S. Registered Voters with limited FCC free
Public Service Announcement time by commercial
Common carriers for publicly funded-only candidates.
Make some noise and
Vote with your money.
February 27, 2012 8:36am
Au contraire!
"If (we) want something done," perhaps we ought to consider the Jeffersonian notion of teaching ourselves how politics really work and taking over that process, in a directly democratic fashion that does not rely on a Democratic Party that, on almost all fundamentals, is merely an extension of the DemoPubliCratiCan machinery of corporate control.
At the very least, the so-called 'voice of the 99%' should have some slotted space for critique of the present system, in which, one can document copiously, both wings of the DPCC machine have been "going after the big-donor corporate interests. They've been pandering to big-oil, pharma, banking, and others for years." If "Nation of Change" is merely an extension of the NYT and WaPo machinery, which favors Democrats and "our Republican friends" as Mr. Dionne put it in another article here, it is a DemoPubliCratiCan machination in its own right, a phenomenon that has zero to do with supporting the information, organization, and development needs of the 99%.
So is "Nation of Change" just another set of flacks for the 'left wing' of the DPCC? Inquiring minds want to know.
February 26, 2012 10:40pm
Both parties have always had to court the independents. Republicans have been better about going after the big-donor corporate interests. They've been pandering to big-oil, pharma, banking, and others for years.
February 26, 2012 10:23pm
Here's what Obama and Demos accomplished in 2009-2010: Small Business Jobs Act, Education Jobs Act, Medicaide Assistance Act, HIRE Act, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Auto Bailout, and extended umemployment insurance. If you want something done, vote Democrats into Congress and the White House!
February 26, 2012 9:57pm
Hey all!
Today's net, or 'catch,' at "Nation of Change" is fairly typical; if anything, with two real grassroots reports the simple facts of which demand a radical interpretation--"Ex-Marine...Now Faces Imminent Eviction" and "Charter Schools Collect Almost $400,000 in 'Discipline' Fees"--today's dozen pieces come closer to fulfilling the promise of the masthead--"progressive journalism for positive action"--than has normally been the case.
Anthony Gucciardi's report is also excellent, and at least the piece from "Yes!" magazine ends well. Then, readers wade through the remaining pieces, of which this one is, if not typical, at least fairly representative.
The problem with Ruth Marcus is not her intelligence--she's "a sharp cookie," as my grandma used to say. Nor is she confusing in her elocution--she's a dandy communicator. Nor is she decidedly reactionary, trogliditic, or otherwise vicious in her ideation--she's obviously a middle-of-the-road proponent of America's 'Democratic' rung of its two party system.
But that's just the problem. Anyone who even bothers to scratch the surface of U.S. political history comes to realize--very quickly--that the vaunted 'two-party' system has a much greater likelihood to squelch actual participation and other measures of democracy(with a small 'd')than it does of promoting the struggles which democratic politics must constantly engender. The founding fathers acted with precision in inaugurating a two-party system in order to have a manageable take on factions, one, and to make exceedingly unlikely that propertyless majorities might undermine the wealth of their 'betters.'
Thus, whatever the merits--clear exposition and persuasive use of data--and demerits--superficiality and a lack of wrestling with the empirical reality of voting and such--of her ideas, the whole premise is at best a flawed approach to achieving "progressive journalism for positive action." Put simply, nothing in the Democratic Party makes hope for 'positive action' out of its imprimatur much more likely than a fool's bet.
The "Washington Post," for which Marcus writes, is full of such 'liberal' non-sequiturs for any sort of 'progressive' media, journalism, etc. The two-thirds of "Nation of Change" today, and more on average over time, that adheres to the kind of rubric that Marcus brings, just won't 'cut the mustard' in terms of even a vague kinship to 'progressive journalism for positive action.'
So where are the other featured writers? I have sought access to the masthead. A commenter above has a much clearer concept of ideas that might provided "progressive journalism for positive action," in his www.republicratjunta.com. Similarly, my http://www.sermcap.wordpress.com has in any one article more of an authentic flavor of "progressive journalism for positive action" than appears here in a week or more.
In regard to this issue of politics and parties, here's a tiny sample of what I'm talking about, from a lengthy feature about two years old(http://www.justmeans.com/Greens-Reds-Blues-Sustainable-Business/35400.html).
"I refer to the vaunted model that proposes that American politics revolves around a 'Two Party System.' Although this notion is so clearly a facade for something else, a faux accounting for the entire scene, I have not followed up my awareness of the contradiction with anything akin to a comprehensive dissection. I've preferred to work at the grassroots, on the one hand, and to analyze such other political economic phenomena as the energy industry or the military industrial complex instead.
But I have noticed this intriguing contradiction and have frequently promised to look into it at some point in more than a completely cursory way. This piece is a first step in that direction. It begins with what I have always believed was an early, conscious creation of upper class Americans (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, to be specific), simultaneously a blocking mechanism against unwanted majorities and what ended up being a facilitation of the propensity to factionalism that favored continued hegemony by the 'right sorts' of rulers.
I refer, as most followers of history will already be aware, to 'Federalist Papers Number Ten,' James Madison's brilliant exegesis on how to deal with factions. Inasmuch as he is a 'founding father,' and hence 'hallowed be his name,' many readers may gag a bit at digesting the next tidbit. A primary purpose of this guidebook to representative government was to defang in advance the serpentine potential for offensive majorities to do things unfavorable to men of property and substance.
'(T)he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. ...divide(d)... into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation.'
How to protect the propertied 'minor' party was especially the motivation for Madison and Hamilton. Minority factions were not of too much concern, for obvious reasons. Majorities who might combine against the rights of property 'must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.'
An extensive republic that eschews direct democracy is the main stoppage to such potential. But Madison also alludes to the aggregation of jurisdictions within the Federal system. By fiddling with those internal borders, he feels sure, ways will become clear that prohibit or impede majorities who might undermine the rule of property.
He is pretty transparent. 'The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. ...A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.'"
"We are the 99%" is supposedly our rallying cry. We don't need the flipping DemoCratiPubliCan phalanx in any form to take care of us, like helpless children might pray that a profligate parent might take care of them in their powerless state.
What we need is precisely what Madison most feared. Ruth Marcus sides with Madison; we don't need that.
Where are the voices for 'positive action' that don't start by giving away the store? Inquiring minds would like to know.
February 26, 2012 5:34pm
The real issue, as I explore in The Republicrat Junta (http://www.RepublicratJunta.com), is that "both" parties are pedaling the exact same lie, that is, that the Republicans represent the interests of conservative Americans, and the Democrats represent the interests of Liberal Americans. The real truth is not difficult to discern: Both represent the same interests - big corporate entities that fill their corrupt pockets with cash. Where they differ is ONLY in the specific lies they utter to get themselves elected. After that, it's "screw the people" and serve the 1%. They focus on issues that will rile you up during the elections, then off they go to serve their patrons - and YOU will NEVER be part of that exclusive club.
February 26, 2012 3:29pm
Vote anything but GOP or Democrat!
Independents can change the political landscape.
February 26, 2012 3:17pm
I am one independent who wouldn't consider voting for a Republican. They have shown themselves to be so out of touch with what the average American wants and needs. They ignore the electorate and go for their own agenda which appears to be supporting the 1%. I am not crazy about the Democrats either. I usually just vote against the Republicans which does not feel right. I wish we had more parties to chose from like the other developed countries so we would not have such polarization.
February 26, 2012 3:10pm
I agree with the premise; certainly the Far Hard Left runs the risk of alienating some voters.I disagree with the analysis which follows. If the scale runs from 1 to 7, I figure moderate Republicans must be somewhere between 4 and 5. Santorum and the Tea Party have to be 9 ...
February 26, 2012 3:03pm
Adjusting a party platform to appeal to a target market is a cynical ploy for cynical times, but let's say that it works. What will happen if Democrats regain the majority in Congress in 2012? Can we expect any better than what they delivered in 2008? I am curious to see how many votes the Democrats lose in 2012, not to Republicans, but to progressive third parties (given a press that pretends there are only two choices).
February 26, 2012 10:27pm
In2009, 2010, Obama and Congress passed Small Business Jobs Act, Education Jobs Act, Medicaid Asistsance Act, HIRE Act, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Auto Bailout and extended unemployment insurance. Ifyou want something done, get Democrats in Congress and the White House.
February 26, 2012 1:11pm
Not this INDEPENDENT! Too old to fall for the same tricks. We need a Greenpeace, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Reich type of people to head a new INDEPENDENT PARTY, call it THE 21ST CENTURY AMERICANS. We cannot use 18th Century political issues (Democratic bait and switch) or Stone Age political issues (GOP bait and switch), reckless spending on militarizing the society and killing people all over the world and expect different results. We have been hijacked by a bunch of irrational lunatics who have been dragging the country into their insanity. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
February 26, 2012 11:53am
Maybe we should vote for a person and not a party. Maybe we should eliminate the "side choosing" because it is childish and has no results. Maybe if we could vote for a person, maybe we would be in a better America.