Independent Voters of Iowa

The Big Confusion

We hear it all the time, “how did he do among independents?” or “she lost among moderates, the independent voters.” In a recent New York Times piece, columnist David Brooks divided the electorate into liberals, conservatives, and independents.

This view mistakes a lack of party affiliation for ideological innocence.

For all intents and purposes, moderates are just what they appear to be: an ideological group that is not as liberal as liberals and not as conservative as conservatives. They are a fickle group – read “swing group” –whose policy views can fall anywhere in the wide middle between ideological extremes and make up about 40% of the electorate.

On the other hand, somewhat less than a third of likely voters, who call themselves independents, belong to a group of people who are not affiliated with either party. This is a whole different animal. Almost two thirds of independents are moderates. The rest are either liberals or conservatives, and they are twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative as liberal.

An extreme example of how independence can be different from moderation can be seen in third parties. Rather than a refuge for moderates who are tired of ideological bickering, recent third parties are more ideologically consistent – and many would say more extreme – than the two main parties. It is not a coincidence that Doug Hoffman in the 23rd congressional district in New York ended up on a third-party ticket. His party officials chose a moderate-to-liberal Republican to run for an open seat in Congress, yet Hoffman struck a responsive chord among conservative Republicans and also very conservative independents.

Many liberals have gloated about the fact that Republican self-identification is lower than that of Democrats. Curiously, conservative self-identification is far more common than a liberal one. Recent Gallup estimates put it at as high as 2:1 ratio. At the same time, a growing contingent of independents is mysteriously moving to the right. The most plausible explanation is that the Republican Party is leaking some conservatives to independents. This weakens the Republican Party, to be sure, but it also makes it harder for Democrats to win over independents.

In respect to ideology, Democrats are more satisfied with their own party than Republicans. To Democrats, ideology and party are, at this moment in history, largely interchangeable. They might assume that the same is true of Republicans or even conservatives, but it’s not.

In our November 4 survey, we asked a pair of questions: “Do you think that the Republican Party is too conservative, or not conservative enough?”, and “Do you think that Democratic Party is too liberal, or not liberal enough?.”

It turned out that Democrats and Republicans have different views of their respective parties. Only about a third of Democrats think that their party is not liberal enough, with about 22% saying it is too liberal. Democrats appear to be delivering what most of their members want.

A lot has been written about the “civil war in the GOP.” The soap opera of NY-23 is a case in point, but there will likely be more – in California, Florida, Kentucky and Connecticut Senate primaries to name just a few.

According to the view most often heard from the left, right-wing extremists are trying to hijack the Republican Party by imposing rigid tests of ideological purity. This will, they suggest, make the base of the party so small that it won’t be able to appeal to independents.

The problem with this view is not all independents are moderates, and some of them are likely the very people “hijacking” the Republican Party. There exists a real possibility that making the Republican Party more conservative will expand its base by luring some of the independents into the fold. Conservative backlash that forced Dede Scozzafava from the race is essentially a process that tries to bring the Republican Party and its base into an ideological alignment that already exists among Democrats.

Liberals, as well as moderate Republicans urging the move to the middle, are correct that such a change would not come without a cost. The very process of realignment, as NY-23 illustrates, is a political risk. In addition, realigning Republican Party ideology with that of its base can also come at the cost of losing support among moderates.

Some of those moderates are already Democrats, but there also exists a group of moderate independents who will keep hanging in the middle even if all conservative independents became Republicans. They are the ones genuinely upset with the “smallness of our politics” and they are the ones Obama really cannot afford to lose.

(John Zogby is president and CEO of Zogby International, a global polling and market research company. Zeljka Buturovic has been a research associate at Zogby International since 2008. She holds a doctorate in psychology from Columbia University)

-John Zogby & Zeljka Buturovic



Independents Are A Sleeping Giant

By Alex Hammer

As you’ve heard, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”

We’ve shortchanged ourselves as a nation by ceding our collective non-partisan, solution-oriented strength to those with partisan interests.

It’s not that we have the government we deserve, but rather the government we have allowed.

Here is where we all come in — independents and moderates and non-partisan sleeping giants of the world. Look at the links on this Web site, as only one example; all of the centrist, moderate, and/or independent voices, strong voices, in this country.

These links lead to other links, other voices, and still others.

Here’s a question: What would happen if we started to take back our country one blogger at a time?

One powerful voice at a time.

More effective yet, what if we networked our influence? What could our country look like then?

Maybe the government we allow would rise up to become the government we truly deserve.

New media, and social media, are sources of potential great new political power. The major political parties have dominated the mainstream press but as bloggers and citizens we now have our own “presses” and the ability to network as we choose.

Also, while established major party candidates and interests can and do build up large Twitter and Facebook networks, they have to increasingly compete with non-partisan individuals, and potentially groups, as well.

Although you can be sure that established interests (not only political but also corporate, media, etc.) will invest large sums in an attempt to co-opt and dominate these new media, there is the potential for a great democratization effect from these tools.

Here’s another question: In my home state, Maine, we have more Independents (registered, unenrolled) than either Democrats or Republicans, and yet we do not have even a single, Independent, non-party elected state representative or state senator in the entire legislature. How representative a democracy is that?

What does it look like in your state?

Twenty-six per cent of Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election votes in New York City this past week — well over 140,000 votes — came on the Independence line and not on the Republican line.

Think about that for a minute, and why the national media keep it “hush hush.”

Independents are a sleeping giant in this country.

And we’re starting to stir.



Independents Ire For Incumbents
Whether it was Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew, or Quinnipiac, the poll results were the same last week: anti-incumbent sentiment in this country is approaching the critical mass required to just “throw the bums out”.

The latest Pew Research Center poll shows that the popularity of incumbents with the voting public at levels not seen since they gave Democrats control of Congress in ’06 and their historical removing them of that control in the ’94 Republican revolution. Barely half, 52%, currently want to see even their own representative re-elected, a number that is even lower than the 55 and 58 percent for the ’06 and ’94 cycles respectively.

Even more troubling for Democrat incumbents is the revelation that self described Independents who plan to vote Republican next fall are 24% more enthusiastic (56 to 32) about voting than their Democrat leaning counterparts. (Perhaps not ALL those Tea Party attendees were astro-turf, Nazi nut jobs after all?)

Qunnipiac University’s polls show trouble in both Ohio and Connecticut as Republican challengers made alarming inroads against Democratic incumbents.

Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index has Obama still at a miserable negative 10% with overall approval/disapproval stuck at 50/49. In a possible predictive national mood for 2010, 60% of the voters in New Jersey felt that most of Republican Chris Christie’s support came from those voting AGAINST the incumbent Corzine rather than FOR Christie.

Adding to the prospect of a voter revolt next year is the new Gallup poll showing Congressional approval among independents at a 2009 low with those same independents stating (at least for now) they are leaning Republican by a whopping 52 to 30 percent.

None of the numbers from last week bode well for the President and his party. But Republicans should not become overconfident. It was Independent voters that gave Barack Obama his historic victory last year, it will be those very same voters deciding his fate next year.

As both parties prove themselves more concerned about their own political power than the wishes of the voters that gave them that power, anti-incumbent sentiment will continue to grow and anger will continue to seethe. Anger that if not addressed will result in a tsunami of voter resentment washing onto the shores of Congress come next November.

A glimpse into that resentment comes from a friend’s response to a recent National Republican Senatorial Committee’s mailing requesting he donate to the cause. This is his reply:

“Why should I send you my hard earned money? With all your perks, wages, and benefits, you can spend your own money!
I spent 21 years in the U.S. Navy and now work full time to support my family. Both parties spend more time on “fact finding vacations” and squabbling with each other and too busy adding pork to bills to read them.
NEITHER party deserves my money or support!
You have to earn it – What have you done to earn it – NOTHING!

It is exactly that sentiment reflected in the polls today and the sentiment that will manifest itself in the voting booth next fall.

Message to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Boehner: Ignore at your own political peril.
-Geoff Caldwell



We Are Angy, And Both Parties Are To Blame
My fellow Writers’ Group member, the Rev. Rudolph T. Juárez, recently wrote a piece (“Propaganda is dangerous,” Oct. 29) describing his dismay at the vitriolic rantings of political commentators on radio and television.

He is probably correct that commentators have lately become more acrimonious. However, Father Juárez made no attempt to explain why this might be so.

These commentators are not coming out of a void — they say what people want to hear. Millions of people listen to them because both Republicans and Democrats are becoming angrier and more desperate.

Why is this? Because we understand that other people are using government to control us, and people hate to be controlled by others.

This hatred of subjugation is a universal human trait, and is felt even more acutely here in America, which was founded on the ideas of freedom and self-determination.

When government takes away our ability to make our own decisions (even “for our own good”), we become angry, frightened and sometimes violent.

Unfortunately, government now controls most areas of our lives, so any proposed policy changes directly and personally affect us. This makes every change a high-stakes issue, with the losers being exploited.

And both major parties are culpable.

Republicans have been the driving force behind most of our recent wars. People are forced to pay for wars that they believe are unjust and that sacrifice our citizens. Result: angry protesters.

These wars lead to many violations of our civil liberties — to keep us safe from terrorists, drugs, etc., of course. Result: outrage and fear of government abuses.

And although Republicans claim to be pro-free market, they are actually pro-business; bailouts, corporate subsidies, regulations that favor some businesses over others — all unfair burdens on the rest of us. (Real “free markets” allow businesses to succeed and to fail freely.) Result: more hostility.

The Democrats promote what, to most Americans, are socialist schemes to redistribute citizens’ honestly earned income to those who did not earn it (including to the growing “leeching class” of government employees). Americans are generous givers to charity, but forced charity is simply theft. Result: smoldering resentment of exploitation.

Americans also understand that Democrats’ aggressive attempts to take over the health care industry will have us standing in line at the figurative post office to beg bureaucrats, hat in hand, for treatment exceptions that might save our lives. Is this how free people live? Result: dread of subjugation and desperate fears for our very lives.

And both sides are responsible for the relentless growth of regulations to keep us safe, at the cost of our money and our freedom to buy, say and do what we want. Result: poverty and frustration.

The good news is that the solution to the acrimony is simple and easy: We just need to stop trying to control others.

This means trusting people to do the right thing, even though they won’t do so every time. Trying to force others to live the way we ourselves think is best is a recipe for strife.

Even better news: Freedom is great for the economy, won’t burden our children with debts or kill them in wars, and won’t ultimately destroy our nation.

The bad news is that this will not likely happen. The leaders of both parties will continue to increase the size and scope of government, continuing the downward cycle of ill effects: increased cost of living, higher taxes, rising poverty, subjection to bad laws, loss of self-determination, increased crime, breakup of families, anger, despair, desperation, violence.

Our country will become paralyzed and weak from rancorous internal discord (would that we could learn from the ancient Greeks!). Will civil war follow?

Perhaps at the low point, some part of our nation will start afresh, having re-learned the importance of individual freedom.

But we have a long ride until then. Father Juarez, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.

-Beth Cody



Independents Voters Overwhelmingly Object To Culver’s Agenda
By: Craig Robinson
The Iowa First Foundation is once again sharing the results of its latest statewide poll that was conducted between July 23rd and July 26th. The poll was conducted by Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based public opinion and marketing research firm. Hill Research has worked on a number of Iowa projects, and its political clients include governors from multiple states, numerous members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and State legislators and legislative caucuses.

The Iowa First Foundation is headed by former 2002 Republican gubernatorial nominee, Doug Gross, and former Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, Richard Schwarm. The Iowa First Foundation is a 527 organization that works to advocate for certain issues and influence the selection of candidates. It is working on a project to (1) develop profiles of winning Republican candidates, (2) develop issues and themes of a winning Republican coalition, and (3) implement strategies for building a winning Republican coalition.

Yesterday afternoon, the Iowa First Foundation released a portion of the results of their most recent poll. Just like in TheIowaRepublican.com poll, the Iowa First Foundation poll paints a disturbing picture for Governor Chet Culver and his re-election team as they enter into the election year.

One of the more intriguing questions asked is whether or not people feel that Governor Culver is responsible for the fiscal problems the state is facing.

Question: Some experts say the state faces a budget deficit of up to one billion dollars. How much responsibility does Governor Chet Culver bear for the budget deficit? Is he very responsible, somewhat responsible, or not very responsible for the budget problems?

Twenty-six percent of respondents said that Governor Culver is very responsible, while fifty-eight percent of those surveyed said that Culver was somewhat responsible. That means eighty-four percent of likely voters believe that Governor Culver is responsible for Iowa’s budget’s problems. This particular question gets to the core issue that Governor Culver will have to overcome if is to be successful in his re-election bid.

While most people like to discuss the Governor’s approval numbers or head to head match-ups, it is more important to identify why Governor Culver has performed so poorly in recent polls. It is very clear that, while Iowans seem to like Governor Culver as a person, when it comes to his performance as Governor, they find him to be inadequate.

The next question in the Iowa First Foundation’s poll asked about how to best stimulate the economy.

Question: Which of the following two statements comes closer to your view about how state government should respond to the recession?

Option One: Investing in programs and projects that protect and create jobs, and making key investments in our communities, even if it means borrowing money or raising taxes to pay for it.

Option Two: Make tough, painful decisions about cutting spending now, to avoid raising taxes; make sure that people aren’t burdened with a massive debt that will slow the economic recovery

Thirty-one percent of respondents said that option one, investing in programs like Culver’s I-Jobs borrowing plan, comes close to how they would respond to a recession. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they would rather make painful spending cuts to avoid raising taxes. What is shocking is that, when you break down the results by party, more Republicans, Independents, AND Democrats prefer cutting spending rather than borrowing money.

Democrats: 46% Borrow/Invest – 48% Cut Spending
Republicans: 24% Borrow/Invest – 72% Cut Spending
Independents: 18% Borrow/Invest – 79% Cut Spending

Independent voters make up the largest bloc of voters in Iowa. Governor Culver’s trouble with that critical group of voters may haunt him throughout his re-election campaign. One would expect a vast majority of Republicans to respond negatively to Culver’s agenda, but the independents surveyed are even more fiscally conservative than Republican respondents were.

There is little that Culver can do to reverse the course he has chosen in dealing with the state’s fiscal problems. Governor Culver has already borrowed $830 million for infrastructure improvements, and he has also refused to be proactive in dealing with the budget deficit for the fiscal year that ended on June 30th. Making matters worse, the budget that Governor Culver will have to hammer out during the next legislative session is already in the red by almost a billion dollars.

The Iowa First Foundation also asked some specific questions about gay marriage.

Question: The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. If there was a state Constitutional Amendment election, would you vote for or against a measure in Iowa’s constitution that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Sixty-one percent would support a constitutional amendment supporting traditional marriage, while 32% would oppose the measure. Republicans (80%) and Independents (58%) overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage, but surprisingly 47% of Democrats also support the constitutional amendment. In fact the issue was tied among Democrats, with 47% supporting an amendment, and 47% opposed the measure.

Again, more bad news for Governor Culver. Not only did Culver fail to do anything following the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, he actually flip-flopped on the issue. Culver was a proponent of traditional marriage as a gubernatorial candidate, but when the court issued its decision, he went along with it. Most times, candidates flip-flop on an issue to be where the majority of the public is on an issue. Culver flip-flopped to side with a minority of Iowans.

The Iowa First Foundation also asked a specific question regarding Bob Vander Plaats’ proposed executive order that would temporarily stay the Court’s decision.

Question: Suppose a governor issued an Executive Order temporarily overturning the Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage, and the Order created a constitutional crisis because some officials obeyed the governor’s order while others still obeyed the court decision. If you knew a crisis like that would occur, would you favor or oppose a governor issuing an Executive Order overruling the Iowa Supreme Court on gay marriage?

Forty-three percent of those surveyed would support an executive order, while 49% oppose.

Republican: 54% Support the executive order, 38% oppose.
Independents: 43% Support the executive order, 48% oppose.
Democrats: 32% Support the executive order, 59% oppose.

Excellent question. While many in the media have been dismissive of Bob Vander Plaats’ executive order position, the Iowa First Foundation poll shows that Iowans of all political persuasions support the idea despite the fact that it could create a constitutional crisis.

The Iowa First Foundation also asked if people about their position on abortion.

Question: On the issue of abortion, would your views be labeled pro-choice, or pro-life, or is that not an important issue for you?”

Forty-nine percent of respondents identified themselves as pro-life, 31% said they were pro-choice, and 13% said that the issue wasn’t important to them.

Republican: 68% pro-life, 16% pro-choice, 10% not important.
Democrat: 39% pro-life, 42% pro-choice, 13% not important.
Independent: 39% pro-life, 37% pro-choice, 18% not important.

TheIowaRepublican.com and Iowa First Foundation polls were both conducted by well known, highly respected polling firms. Both polls paint a similar picture about Governor Chet Culver’s position as he enters into his re-election campaign. Culver is on the wrong side of all of these important issues of the day.

There’s just no getting around that fact that Chet Culver is in serious trouble.

The Iowa First Foundation will also release name I.D., favorability, and approval ratings for GOP gubernatorial candidates. The group also plans to release head-to-head match-ups between GOP candidates and Governor Culver. TheIowaRepublican.com will have full coverage and analysis of the Iowa First Foundation poll.
-TheIowaRepublican.com





A Declaration Of Independents In 2010
Independent candidates are poised to run serious campaigns for governor in at least a half-dozen states, a development that threatens Democratic fortunes in some of the bluest and most progressive-minded states in the nation.

In New Jersey, where Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine is seeking a second term in November, polls suggest an independent candidate is carving a sizable portion of voters out of his hide.

In two other reliably Democratic states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, well-known politicians running as independents could significantly undermine Democratic chances in 2010, if not flat-out win. Credible third-party candidates are also mulling over bids in a handful of other states that have open seat governor’s races next year — including Minnesota and Maine, both of which have a recent history of electing third-party governors.

November will provide the first test of whether these candidates are getting traction. That’s when New Jersey voters will go to the polls to choose among Corzine, Republican Chris Christie and independent Chris Daggett, a moderate former Republican who once worked as deputy chief of staff to Gov. Tom Kean.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey released last week, Daggett is trailing in third place with 13 percent of the vote — well behind the two major party nominees but a significant portion for a non-major party candidate.

More important, the survey found that Daggett is capturing 15 percent of the Democratic vote, compared with just 7 percent of the GOP vote, in a race where the embattled Corzine can’t afford to lose much Democratic support.

“It’s Democrats who are disgusted with Corzine but who can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Christie,” noted Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

Daggett attributes his showing at least in part to frustration with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

“The level of distrust of both parties is very high,” Daggett told POLITICO. “You’ve got an opportunity for an independent candidate to run a different kind of campaign.”

The volatile political environment, some strategists say, is fertile ground for nontraditional candidacies.

“My guess is when there is a pox on all of your houses, people in some states are more willing to vote for an independent,” said one top Democratic strategist who is a veteran of governors’ races. “It’s a piss-poor environment, and a number of people are looking for someone new.”

The unique contour of the current election landscape is another reason for the spate of viable third-party candidacies. Vermont GOP Gov. Jim Douglas’s recent decision not to seek a fifth term in 2010 means that more than half of the 39 governorships up for election this year and next will be open-seat races with no incumbent running.

For Democrats, who must defend 21 of their 28 governorships, the problem is especially concentrated. They are defending more governorships than Republicans, against the backdrop of a midterm election — and midterms are historically more hostile to the party in power.

Tim Penny, a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota who failed in a 2002 Independence Party bid for governor, said that independent candidates have special appeal in left-leaning states that are unhappy with their Democratic choices but unwilling to vote for a Republican.

“It seems that there is some disaffection among people who would normally think of themselves as Democrats,” said Penny, who compared the situation this election cycle with 1992, when independent Ross Perot siphoned off Republican voters in the presidential race, enabling Democrat Bill Clinton to defeat incumbent George H.W. Bush. “I think you’re going to see independent candidates being a threat to Democratic incumbents.”

For Democrats in Rhode Island, where the party has been shut out of the governor’s office for 14 years, the independent candidacy of former Sen. Lincoln Chafee is viewed as a serious blow to their chances of winning the open governor’s seat.

Chafee, a former Republican senator running in a state Barack Obama won in a landslide, has been critical of both parties — even going so far as to take a shot at President Obama, whom he endorsed in the 2008 presidential race, for not reaching out to congressional Republicans.

Since entering the race earlier this year, Chafee, a persistent thorn in the side of the GOP since he bolted in 2007, has aggressively portrayed himself as a candidate who offers a fresh “third way” approach to politics.

“There’s real opportunity for a new way,” Chafee told POLITICO.

Emily DeRose, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Governors Association, dismissed Daggett and Chafee as little more than Republicans masquerading as something different and said they would have little ability to draw Democratic votes on Election Day.

“These GOP candidates are disguising themselves as independents because the Republican brand is still so toxic,” said DeRose. “They can’t hide their records, though.”

In strongly Democratic Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat facing a tough reelection battle, the serious third-party challenge comes in the shape of a former party colleague — state Treasurer Tim Cahill.

Cahill, who switched to become an independent earlier this year, hasn’t been shy about singling out Patrick for blame over the state’s dire fiscal situation.

“I’ve been sounding the alarm for 18 months about revenues,” Cahill told a group of business leaders in Boston earlier this month. “Unfortunately, the message has not been heard on Beacon Hill or by the executive branch.”

While Cahill ran second to Patrick in a recent poll and could conceivably defeat him in a general election, it’s also possible that his centrist positioning could end up inadvertently assisting the governor by providing a way station for disaffected Democrats who might otherwise have voted Republican.

Cahill’s odds of winning are long — no independent candidate has ever been elected governor of Massachusetts. But the same cannot be said of three other states, where independent and third-party candidates have had a recent record of success.

In Maine, Minnesota and Vermont, all with wide-open governor’s races, insiders expect viable third-party candidates to make bids.

In Minnesota, where Dean Barkley served as the chairman of Jesse Ventura’s successful 1998 Reform Party campaign for governor, there is talk of a Barkley candidacy in 2010. In the 2008 Senate race, Barkley won 15 percent while running on the Independence Party line.

In Maine, where independent Angus King won two terms as governor in 1994 and 1998, Peter Vigue, a prominent construction company executive, is talking up a prospective independent bid. Nearby Vermont could see a repeat bid by Anthony Pollina, running on the Progressive ticket. Pollina won 22 percent in his 2008 run for governor — and captured more votes than the Democratic nominee.

The last time heavily Democratic Vermont had an open governor’s race in 2002, an independent candidate played a significant role in the outcome — a GOP victory — by winning 10 percent of the vote.

“I think all states are unique to a certain degree, but some states are more unique than others,” said Bill Hillsman, a strategist for Daggett who also worked on Ventura’s successful campaign in Minnesota.