Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter
Ron Brownstein's article in National Journal today tracks independents' discontent in recent polls, and concludes that we're at a unique point in American history. Voters in the middle are really upset with the political system and our parties, such that predicting what it will mean in 2012 and beyond is pretty hard to do.
The polls he cites:
- On Wednesday, Gallup reported that a 46 percent to 39 percent plurality of Americans said they opposed the agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling. Among independents, the reaction was much worse: just 33 percent approved, while 50 percent approved.
- A CNN/ORC poll conducted on Monday and released on Tuesday, just 14 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Congress is handling its job, while 84 percent disapproved. That was not only the lowest level of approval, and the highest level of disapproval, that the CNN poll has recorded.
- Among independents, Congress’ approval rating in the new CNN poll stood at just 11 percent. That’s significantly worse even than the results in an October 2006 CNN survey conducted shortly before the wave that swept Democrats to control of both chambers
- Among independents, Obama also hit a new low of just 37 percent. That’s a 15 percentage point decline from his 52 percent share of the vote among independents in 2008.
- Just 36 percent [of independents in a recent United Technologies/National journal poll] expressed confidence in the capital’s ability to produce progress; 63 percent were dubious. Among white independents, the numbers tilt even further: only 26 percent expressed confidence, while 73 percent saw little reason for optimism.
He offers various viewpoints on whether a 3rd party candidate could arise. I think the odds are unlikely. Independents these days are independent because they don't want to get behind a party. They want to be free to vote for whomever they choose.
Be that as it may, Brownstein closes with this useful insight:
Such enduring shifts in political advantage have punctuated most of American political history: Democrats in 1800, 1828, and 1932, and Republicans in 1860 and 1896 each engineered decisive shifts in voter allegiance that allowed them to hold both the White House and Congress for most of the next generation. But since 1968, neither side has managed such a breakthrough or built such an abiding connection with voters. Over the past four decades, the result has been to make divided control of Congress and the White House much more common than at any previous point in American history. Lately, that instability has been compounded by more rapid turnover in control of the House and Senate.
This may sound like an odd parallel, but I think what we're seeing is a secular version of what evangelically-oriented Christians have known for since about 1968: official organizational affiliation matters a lot less to people today than finding groups of people who share your values.
Over the past generation, churchgoers have shown a pronounced preference for nondenominational churches that uphold certain beliefs and values over loyalty to particular denominations. Unaffiliate "mega-churches" have exploded, while denominational churches have dwindled.
Discontented voters are not going to get behind a 3rd party for the same reason nondenominational churchgoers wouldn't get behind a new "Nondenominational Denomination." They're going to get behind the Rick Warren-like presidential candidate (for instance) who speaks their language and casts a vision they can relate to along with solutions they agree with. The party matters less to more and more people.
The GOP needs a candidate that speaks to this group more than any other. The advantage Republicans have right now is that independents dissatisfactions track more with Republican values: outrage over spending, an interest in limiting the government, a focus on job creation.
Comments