The future of the GOP brand

[DSeid]

@adaher

No, I don’t think 2014 is a predictor of 2016. But 2012 isn’t either. Clinton will not be bringing the Obama coalition with her anymore than John Kerry did. If she wins it will be because she won independent voters.

And yet the data, already cited, is so far showing that she is doing as well or better in most of the same demographics as he did. But yes, she will also do better at attracting some White male working class voters that have been swinging to the GOP, and more White women too (and it must be noted that while Obama won the women’s vote overall handily, a majority of White women had voted for Romney … not as big of a majority as White men, but still a majority).

[BrainGlutton]

@iiandyiiii

And the mythologizing of “independent voters” continues. 2012 demonstrated that many or most “independent voters” still lean strongly towards one part or the other.

And they’re not all centrists anyway; some are to the right of the Pubs and some are to the left of the Dems.

[adaher]

Yet somehow they swing from election to election.

[DSeid]

“Independents”, “Centrists”, and “Swing voters” are not the same sets.

In other words, these one-time GOP-identified voters are now identifying themselves as independents. This is what helps to explain how Republicans can win the independent vote and still lose an election.

More important, however, is the misconception that these voters are embracing an "independent " status because they want their party to pursue a more moderate agenda, or to move to the middle instead of catering to the extreme. In fact, there is evidence that they are abandoning their party labels for the exact opposite reason: they see the party as moving too far from its core values. … those who call themselves “independent” may actually be closer to the views of the core GOP or core Democratic policy positions than even those who identify themselves as a party member. … many may be leaving because they see the party as getting too moderate or insufficiently aligned with its core values. …

[adaher]

I was referring to the fact that independents can go to either party. If they were almost all partisan then they’d always favor one party or the other.

[DSeid]

Read the link man. Most DO almost always favor one party or the other (and mostly GOP as they mostly are formerly of GOP ranks). Less than one in four “independents” actually are potentially swing voters.

[42fish]

@adaher

Then why did the Democrats suddenly develop a problem with midterms while Obama was President?

[QUOTE=me]
They didn’t suddenly develop a problem. The mid-term elections usually go against the party in the White House.
[/QUOTE]

@adaher

He did answer it, and he’s right. Now someone go tell Democrats…

Cute little 180 you’re doing there.

[ElvisL1ves]

@iiandyiiii

And the mythologizing of “independent voters” continues. 2012 demonstrated that many or most “independent voters” still lean strongly towards one part or the other.

That does leave the key “swing voter” contingent, still a large one. The thing that aggravates me most is that our elections are so often decided by the voters who are the least engaged, least committed, least informed, and least interested.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@ElvisL1ves

That does leave the key “swing voter” contingent, still a large one. The thing that aggravates me most is that our elections are so often decided by the voters who are the least engaged, least committed, least informed, and least interested.

Absolutely. The best name for the swing voters is Disaffecteds. They are not Independent in any normal sense of the word, even any normal political sense.

[elucidator]

Except that they vote. Lots of people don’t. By the time I’m done heaping my scorn on them, there isn’t a lot left.

[DSeid]

@ElvisL1ves

That does leave the key “swing voter” contingent, still a large one. The thing that aggravates me most is that our elections are so often decided by the voters who are the least engaged, least committed, least informed, and least interested.

Not so large but very critical. The Pew analysis cited in the op puts them at about 13% and Gallup at about 10 to 12%. (The Pew one comes up with 48% as Dem/Lean Dem, and 39% Republican and Lean Republican. The most recent Gallup numbers 47 to 41%).

adahar’s formulation was pretty much right: victory likely requires at least two of the three:[ul]
[li]Getting good turn-out of those who usually vote for you if they vote. (47 to 48% of all for the Democratic side and 39 to 41% for the Republican side)[/li][li]Not provoking good turn-out of those who usually vote against you. (Switch above. Duh.)[/li][li]Winning enough of the swing voters … the persuadables. (10 to 13%)[/li][/ul]

Now party ID + leaners is smaller for the GOP but they do tend to get good turn out of them consistently, including in mid-term years.

Still it means they need to accomplish one or more of the other two fairly well to win a national election. More so than do the Democrats with a larger group of those with party ID + leaners. In fact if the Democratic side has a good turn out of their base + leaners they can win even if the GOP also has a good turn out and they marginally lose the swing vote.

So who are the swing voters expected to be in 2016?

The WSJ’s take is that many White working class males are more up for grabs than they have been, young white women and women with less than a college education are also in play.

Of course what matters in a presidential election is the balance between those three in the critical potential swing states …