We live within a two party system, but we are not a two party electorate. And that may end up biting us Democrats in the butt if we continue to think that it is.
Gallup reported back in January that only 26% of Americans identify as Repubicans, and — more pertinent here — only 29% identify as Democrats. According to Gallup, “Americans' attachment to the two major political parties in recent years is arguably the weakest Gallup has recorded since the advent of its polls.”
The rest, obviously, are, by definition, independent. We, here at Daily Kos, have as our stated goal, as Democrats, to elect Democrats. I would not be here if I did not agree. Yet, we are in a decided minority. In our epistemic bubble, we act as if we can elect the next President with only those 29%. We can’t. Follow the demographics below to see why.
Republic 3.0 published a very telling report 2 years ago, back when more people (45%) self-identified as Democrats, and 33% identified as Republicans. It showed where the Independents actually are, or were, in 2014.
If you take a look at the graph on the below, only 8% at the time self-identified as a “Republican with a home.” More to the point I’m asserting, only 12% self-identified as a “Democrat with a home.”
So where are the other 80% of the electorate?
A full 21% were apparently left of the Democrats, with the sentiment that there was “No party for a liberal.” and 22% were right of the Republicans, and felt that there was “No party for a conservative.” Only 20% were Moderates, self-described as “stuck in the middle. and, 17% were either “bi-political” or “confused.”
What does this mean?
“The Myth of the Independent Voter,
- It means that in 2014, even though only 12% felt like they were a “Democrat with a home,” 33% rest of the nation, out of the other 88% — whether they of the self-identified as “liberals without a party,” or “moderates,” or whatever else — also identified as Democrats anyway, to get to that 45% plurality. Gallup, 2 years later, noted that “…. another 16% said they were independents but leaned toward the Democratic Party, for a combined total of 45% Democrats and Democratic leaners among the U.S. population.” As of January, though, however the unaffiliated may “lean,” still only 29% identify as Democrats.
- It also means that in order to win the election, we need self-Identified “liberals without a home,” “moderates,” and also, some of those who are “confused” or “Bi-political.”
The author of the Republic 3.0 article attempts to make the case that since only 5% of the electorate are both “moderate” and “politically independent” at the same time, therefore concept of the independent voter is a myth. He fails to understand his graph. Instead, what is clear is that, as I wrote above, we live in a two party system, but we are not a two party electorate. People have been salivating over the possibility of people running who are neither Democrat nor Republican, as only 20% of the voting population feels at home within their respective parties. And, surprise, both parties had primaries with strong showing from candidates who are neither Democrat nor Republican.
This brings me to Hillary Clinton, and her supporters.
Hillary Clinton has had a strategy for the election, likely, since 2008. She knows that she has very high “negatives,” in large part because she has been such a target for the GOP, and in part, because of self-inflicted wounds. So this was her plan:
- Make sure that everyone knows how important it is to keep the GOP out of the White House.
- Use her connections, influence, the Party Establishment, and whatever it takes to get the nomination.
- Make sure everyone knows that, once she has the nomination — like her or despise her — that the only way to keep the GOP out of the White House is to vote for her.
It’s really that simple — her strategy, that is. But not the reality.
As so we get the phenomena of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Both are running against their respective party establishments. One appears to have won, and the other appears to have lost.
The reality is that there are disaffected voters across all spectra, who are not at home in either party but who have no choice but to vote for one of the two, and who are willing to follow charismatic leaders who either want to “Make America Great Again” because they are not feeling it, or believe that “The system is rigged.”
This brings me to Bernie Sanders, and his supporters.
So many of us here on DK, died-in-the-wool Democrats, have expressed anger at Sanders supporters who have the audacity not to like, or trust, Hillary.
We seem to feel that they have an obligation to support her.
We seem to feel that they have an obligation to agree with us and to do what we want them to do.
Or what we tell them to do.
We forget that many of them are not “Democrats with a home.”
We forget that while Hillary tends to win the closed primaries, among the 29%, Bernie tends to win the open primaries.
We forget that many people are drawn to Bernie because they believe, as he likes to state, that we have a “rigged system.” They will look at what happened in Nevada, as an example. Whatever you the reader believe happened or didn’t happen, someone who believes the system is rigged will see it as an example of that sort of “rigging.” We see what we look for, and, unfortunately, the Democratic Party of Nevada did not do themselves any favors by avoiding transparency and creating the appearance of impropriety, as far as many of Bernie’s supporters are concerned.
We make the mistake of believing that people who will support Bernie but not Hillary are all Democrats, and so will lock-step to do what we require them to do.
We make the mistake of believing that Trump’s negatives are so high, he can’t win, forgetting that Hillary’s negatives are almost as high, and that Trump will do everything he can to bring them higher.
We make the mistake in believing that, because Hillary has the support of the majority of 29%, or possibly even 45%, that this is enough to win the presidency against such charisma. We forget that her negative ratings are above 55%. Fortunately, so are Trump’s, though, if you believe Fox, Hillary's negatives are actually higher.
Reagan won because he was able to run against Carter, and the baggage of his 4 years in office, and because he, in so many words, was going to make America great again. The populist won.
George W. Bush won — sort of — because he, too, was more populist than Gore.
Both Trump and Bernie are far more populist than Hillary. The candidate that is most populist, in presidential elections, tends, more often than not, to win.
Hillary has a lot of baggage.
We ignore all of this, within our own epistemic bubble, at our own peril.
