Will Obama or Romney do better with the "independent" vote?

Politics & Elections
1

Looking at 2011 version of the Pew Political Typology, American adults, sorted by their political opinions and voting behavior, now fall into nine typology groupings of roughly equal size in the population, including four distinguishable significant groups of “independents”:

The Bystander (10% of adult population, 0% of registered voters) vote is one you can’t get, by definition. “Defined by their disengagement from the political process, either by choice or because they are ineligible to vote. They are highly unlikely to vote (61% say they seldom vote, and 39% volunteer that they never vote; none are currently registered to vote). Most follow government and public affairs only now and then (42%) or hardly at all (23%).”

The Libertarians (9%/10%) won’t vote for Obama; they might vote for Romney, but they might well vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul or stay home. “Highly critical of government. Disapprove of social welfare programs. Pro-business and strongly opposed to regulation. Accepting of homosexuality. Moderate views about immigrants compared with other Republican-oriented groups.”

The Post-Moderns (13%/14%) are “Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection. Favor the use of diplomacy rather than military force to ensure peace. Generally positive about immigrants and their contributions to society.” Obama could win these. (In fact, he’s a very post-modern fellow, he is.)

The Disaffecteds (11%/11%): “The most financially stressed of the eight typology groups, Disaffecteds are very critical of both business and government. They are sympathetic to the poor and supportive of social welfare programs. Most are skeptical about immigrants and doubtful that the U.S. can solve its current problems. They are pessimistic about their own financial future. . . . A majority believe that the government is wasteful and inefficient and that regulation does more harm than good. But nearly all say too much power is concentrated in a few companies. Religious and socially conservative.” A group that mistrusts government but wants more welfare programs, that is socially/religiously conservative but mistrusts business elites, could go either way in this election. They’ll be the battleground.

(There are also, of course, “independents” to the right of the Pubs (Constitution Party, America First Party, Tea Partiers, general sympathizers with the hard-paleocon POV); and “independents” to the left of the Dems (Greens, Socialists, Working Families Party, progressives generally); but they are not numerous enough to show separately in this analysis. For the most part they will be included within the “Staunch Conservatives” and “Solid Liberals” groups respectively, and will vote for Romney and Obama respectively or stay home.)

Overall, I say Obama will fare better than Romney with “independent” voters. What do you say?

2

Wouldn’t a lot of post-Moderns also be to the left of the Democrats (like a lot of the posters here)?

3

I don’t think so.

In voting behavior, they’re 26% Democrat; 33% “Indep-lean Dem”; 19% “Indep-no lean”; 16% “Indep-lean Rep”; 7% Republican. Not to the left of the Dems at all – as before, I’d say all those left of the Dems would fall under the “Solid Liberals” category:

4

Not in Florida.

Romney leads with independent voters by a 44-36 margin, with men by a 50-37 margin and with whites by a 56-33 margin, according to the poll.

5

What precisely is meant by “independent voters”, there, Oakminster? Is that people in the categories the OP laid out, or is that including things like Tea Partiers who don’t call themselves Republicans because Republicans are too liberal?

6

Looking at the “Staunch Conservatives” category:

That’s the Tea Partiers, all right. Libertarians they ain’t.

Compare and contrast the Main Street Republicans:

There’s Romney’s real base, I should think, the ones who will vote for him without holding their noses. But the Staunch Conservatives will at least vote for him.

7

In this cycle the post-moderns are the most interesting of the groups to me. It seems as though they might be turned off by Obama’s militancy in Afganistan, Libya, Africa, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. (probably add Syria to that before its over but I digress). Also they seem to agree with conservatives that “the government can’t do much more to help the needy”. This is where someone like Gary Johnson could possibly add to his libertarian base.

8

Perhaps – and perhaps the next time they do the Pew Typology it will emerge that some or many Post-Moderns have shifted over the Libertarian grouping – but, neither Johnson nor Paul is going to play even a measurable spoiler-role in this election; it’s Obama vs. Romney vs. stay home, those are the only voting behaviors that will matter.

9

To say a stay-home citizen who doesn’t vote “matters” more than a 3rd party vote is strange to me but suit yourself. If anything they achieve the same thing. 3rd parties pull votes from people who wouldn’t otherwise vote or major party voters. If post-moderns see Johnson as an acceptable alternative to Obama, he will have trouble getting independents as a whole, which is the subject of this thread, no?

10

I think it depends on who independents think represents them more: An Ivy League lawyer academic or a management consultant / private equity billionare.

11

200 million dollars makes him a billionaire?

12

Neither does, really, but the Ivy League lawyer academic comes nearer.

13

I think the election of 2000 taught post-Moderns the folly of voting for someone to the left of a Democrat who can actually win.

14

:confused: There was no way Nader could actually win.

15

That’s “A democrat who could actually win”, I think, meaning Gore.

16

10% of the nation will vote for Gary Johnson? HAW! These people will vote for Romney. Libertarians are nothing more than Republicans in drag.

17

I don’t know. As a former consultant myself, Romney’s Bain experience really speaks to me.

18

What am I his accountant?

People throw the term “billionaire” around to mean “really really rich dude” like they did with “millionaire” back in the day. Even though there are only about 1200 billionaires in the world.

19

My mistake, I never heard “billionaire” used in that way… Ever… By anyone…Except, maybe, on MSNBC.

20

Still don’t get it. If more had voted for Gore, he would have won and we would be better off now. Where’s the “folly”?