Independent Hope

*from The Economist (I plan on posting a reaction sometime over the weekend, so stay tuned!)

A declaration on independents
Feb 14th 2008

Independents are back from the wilderness and ready to determine the outcome of the presidential election

Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher

ONE of the most interesting political videos on YouTube features a young Obama supporter, Derrick Ashong. A camera-wielding interviewer collars Mr Ashong in the street and starts to pepper him with questions. The interviewer assumes that his victim's casual appearance—he is wearing a baseball hat, a shell necklace and is chewing gum—betokens an equally casual approach to politics. “Do you have any specifics?” he demands aggressively. “What are their policies?” Mr Ashong delivers a series of carefully argued replies that could form the basis of an editorial in a serious newspaper. The interviewer is increasingly abashed. But, having delivered his defence of Barack Obama, Mr Ashong concludes the interview by saying “I'm independent. I'm not a Democrat. I might vote for McCain.”

Independent voters have been marginalised over the past decade. Armies of partisans have marched over the political battlefield. Elections have been much more about energising the faithful than reaching out to wavering voters. The 2004 election was the electoral equivalent of the Somme—trench warfare between the blue army and the red army enlivened by the occasional daring raid.

There are growing signs that this era of American politics is coming to a close. George Bush, America's polariser-in-chief, has an approval rating of little more than 30% at a time when Arnold Schwarzenegger, an advocate of “post-partisanship”, scores double that. Colin Powell, no mean judge of the American mood, has declared that he will vote for the presidential candidate who can “do the best job for America”, whether that candidate is “a Republican, a Democrat or an independent”. Michael Barone, the co-author of the indispensable “Almanac of American Politics”, speculates that we are moving from an era of “trench warfare” to an era of “open-field politics”.

Over 30% of Americans call themselves independents—more than call themselves Republicans and about the same as call themselves Democrats. These independents are younger and better educated than the average American. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labour and Big Government but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming.

Over the past decade or so, independents have been forced to act like either “soft” Republicans or “soft” Democrats—reluctant conscripts into one or other of America's armies. But in this election the opposite is happening—more and more partisans are thinking and acting like independents. Polls show that at least two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. A Washington Post poll last year showed that 77% of voters would consider voting for an independent.

By a chapter of accidents the Republicans have ended up with their one presidential candidate ideally suited to attracting independents. The party's thumping in the 2006 mid-term election was almost entirely due to its waning fortunes among independent voters. Conservatives pulled the Republican lever in the usual numbers. But independents voted for Democrats by 57% to 39%. John McCain is thus a gift from heaven.

The very qualities of Mr McCain that infuriate Republican loyalists endear him to independents. He has frequently clashed with Mr Bush, a man whom independents loathe. He has wrestled with special interests in Washington, and repeatedly gone into battle with his own party, particularly over immigration reform. Mr McCain has demonstrated his strength among independents: he led the field among them by ten points in New York, 23 points in California and 31 points in Illinois.

This gives him a chance of pulling off a surprise upset in the general election. Most analysts expect the Democrats to carry all the states John Kerry won in 2004, plus Ohio, which has shifted to the Democratic column. But Mr McCain might scramble these calculations by winning New Hampshire, where more than 40% of the electorate are independents and where the Arizona senator is almost an honorary citizen. That would give him a 270-268 victory in the electoral college.

A case for Obama?

This suggests Democratic primary voters need to pay close attention to independents. The polls suggest hard-core Democrats would be happy either with Hillary Clinton or Mr Obama. But there is no doubt who does better with independents. Until this week, Mrs Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as-usual.

In contrast, Mr Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents—frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide. And independents have not disappointed him. Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Mr Obama has a 62% approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate.

This should weigh heavily on the minds of the Democratic “superdelegates” (office holders and party elders who have an ex officio vote in the convention) if they are called upon to break a tie in the delegate race. Mrs Clinton's biggest problem is not that she is being out-campaigned by the silver-tongued Mr Obama. It is that she seems to belong to the previous era of American politics—the one of battling political machines. Republicans have accidentally stumbled through to the next age of politics, although the message has not yet reached the backwoods wing of the party. The big question now for many Democrats is whether their party can do likewise.