As an Independent, my problem with parties is that they pick a position for you, and you don’t have a voice. They also demonize the other party, some of whom are my friends. For me, party loyalties are like the old saying about churches “pray, pay and obey” without the prayer part. Anyway, I think in-depth interviews more than surveys could lead to some helpful information.
This is informative and not overly surprising. Most Americans assume, most of us, regardless of label, Party registration, or the lack thereof, are moderate. Now please tell us, where we find politicians with the same leanings?
For example, consider the Open Border. Many Texans, Dem or Rep, regularly attend church. Texas Churches noticed the Open Border first. They requested donations for migrants, before anyone else in the US really mentioned the issue. They needed clothing, toys, linens. . .
At the beginning, it was assumed by Texans of both Parties, cleaning out their closets or hitting the Dillards clearance racks for donations, the situation was temporary. No one could imagine, either political Party would allow it to continue.
As the flow at the Border not only continued, but picked up steam, it eventually became national news. Yet only 1 or 2 Dem politicians would even admit it was a problem, let alone demand its' end. That went on for 3.5 years, until pollsters informed Dems, the Border would be their political Waterloo. Suddenly a few Dem pols were slightly concerned, and eventually the sea of humanity slowed.
On the Right, many would note the Iran War is something few moderates support, especially 6 months in. Yet no one seems overly concerned, once again, major US policy might not reflect the will of the vast majority of the American people.
So if the majority of Americans are moderate, but the neither Party is moderate, where does a voter turn? Or is every US election now doomed to be a Sophie's Choice, with the only options, bad and worse.
Excellent work. An important next step would be to report the specific policy preferences of these moderates to enable us to work together where possible to win elections and achieve our common goals.
Not in my case, I have actively followed politics my entire adult life and that active following if politics is what led me directly away from both parties.
The parties are a hindrance and a crutch, and they create far more weakness within this country than strength.
Perhaps once, but these days with both parties being overly influenced by their nuttier fringes, a lot of politically active people have simply decided that both parties suck.
Opposite for me. Before Trump I paid little attention to politics and voted along party lines. Once he got elected I decided I needed to be more informed and started reading, listening to political podcasts, etc. THAT has made me Independent. Plus the fact that I have Trump as President and Katie Wilson as Mayor of my city means I see both sides of the extremes of each party. No thanks. I expect I’ll be a Moderate Independent from here on out.
as far as I can tell, this survey doesn’t ask any questions about what anyone means by the word “moderate”. there is thus no reason to assume that any of those people surveyed mean the same thing by the word. All it shows is that if they look at the crazy people on the contemporary left, and then look at the crazy people on the contemporary right, most people conclude they don’t like either side, and thus prefer the label “moderate“.
The problem with unaffiliated persons is that they don’t for the most part participate in the political process - working at the polls, vetting candidates, etc. - in ways they have backed out of democracy, which makes keeping a republic difficult.
And yet, this is still about politics. Where is the survey determining the number of people who don't give a damn and wish political parties would just leave them the hell alone?
"The survey shows 81 percent of Americans just want to watch the game without a stupid political ad trying to manipulate their emotions to vote a certain way."
I frequently change the channel and watch an entirely different show, rather than sit thru the umpeenth showing of a political ad that only a moron could love.
I think this is useful research, but two things in the data leave me wanting to go much deeper.
The first is the meaning of “moderate.” I’m not yet convinced that category tells us very much about what actually distinguishes independents. It may simply be where people end up when they do not fit comfortably into the standard liberal/conservative packages.
I’m a good example. If forced to place myself on a liberal–moderate–conservative scale, I would probably choose moderate because neither liberal nor conservative describes me. But I am not actually moderate in any consistent ideological sense. I oppose the death penalty, and I oppose abortion. Those are strong positions that fall on different sides of the conventional political spectrum.
Even where my position may look moderate, the underlying reasoning may be different. I may favor an initial compromise because I see it as a practical starting point: implement something workable, learn from the results, and then adjust. The compromise is not the objective; it is part of the problem-solving process.
So I would be very interested in knowing what is actually contained inside that “moderate” category—true centrists, people with strong but cross-cutting beliefs, people who resist ideological packaging, pragmatic problem-solvers, politically disengaged voters, or something else.
The second thing that really jumps out at me is the racial composition. Black voters are 13% of the overall population in the table but only 1% of independents, while Latino representation is essentially unchanged at 10% versus 11%. That is such a large difference that I would want to understand what is driving it. Is it historical party identification, registration patterns, the underlying voter-file methodology, or something else?
Those two questions seem especially important if the larger goal is to understand independents more accurately. Right now, “moderate” may be concealing more than it reveals, while the striking difference in Black representation may be pointing toward something quite important. Both seem worth getting underneath before drawing broader conclusions about who independents are.
I think you have this backwards. It’s not so much that the politically unaffiliated are traditionally moderate as it is that the center left and figuratively sober right are currently politically homeless.
I’m still not sure exactly where you are going with this stack. At the end of the day “Independent” is just another label that can mean many things. Technically Bernie Sanders is an “Independent”, John Fetterman (D) and Susan Collins (R) are far more willing to cross party lines.
At the end of the day I’d describe an “independent” as someone who’s:
- More concerned with policy than party
- Is more than happy to accept something they don’t like to get something they do
- Firmly believes half a loaf is better than no loaf.
If this stack winds up being about how we can get people working together again for the good of the country and pointing out where politicians are doing that regardless of whether or not there is a D, I or R after their name then I’m all in and will pick up a paid subscription. If it’s just about how team I can defeat team R, because team D is too nuts to get it done then I’ll quietly move on.
Thanks, Norm. I'm trying not to put my thumb on the scale for any one segment of the vast independent world. I personally agree with you about the importance of working together on common problems, but there aren't many people currently in office who want to do that. There are also a lot of independents who truly do not like and do not want to support either Ds or Rs. They want more choices, their own caucus, and more leverage over the two parties. Which is respectable. I am trying to cover the range of views at this point the best I can. Plus there's still a lot that is unknown and evolving in this world so I want to watch as it develops over next two years. Appreciate the feedback.
John, I did a quick AI review on the political attitudes of Independents. Here is a summary.
"Independent voters are highly pragmatic, ideological moderates who prioritize healthcare, economic jobs, and affordability over rigid party lines. According to data from Gallup and CNN, a record high of 45% to 47% of American adults now identify as political independents, making them the largest single bloc in the electorate"
I can send you full resonse if we can find a way to do it. Too long to post here.
Dennis is just another name for someone who personally attacks people who disagree with him rather than treating them respectfully, and working together to achieve common goals. In terms of achieving our common goals Dennises are a bigger problem than moderates.
From a non-committed individual who has been called out for being a weathercock. Good whichever way the wind takes them. I'm not attacking anyone, just stating the facts of what a "moderate" really is.
If I am reading correctly, you are saying you are the moderate you are referring to. If so, I apologize for my previous comment. For the first time in my life I did not vote for either presidential candidate in the last election. I am a geriatric life long left leaner who felt that neither party representated my views on war and the economy and both were in the pocket of the billionaire class. And I too was chastised by my liberal/progressive friends who refused to admit the flaws of their own party. And lost for that very reason.
As an Independent, my problem with parties is that they pick a position for you, and you don’t have a voice. They also demonize the other party, some of whom are my friends. For me, party loyalties are like the old saying about churches “pray, pay and obey” without the prayer part. Anyway, I think in-depth interviews more than surveys could lead to some helpful information.
Yes, very good point. It’s a diverse crew and surveys alone will probably never capture their complex views and sentiments.
This is informative and not overly surprising. Most Americans assume, most of us, regardless of label, Party registration, or the lack thereof, are moderate. Now please tell us, where we find politicians with the same leanings?
For example, consider the Open Border. Many Texans, Dem or Rep, regularly attend church. Texas Churches noticed the Open Border first. They requested donations for migrants, before anyone else in the US really mentioned the issue. They needed clothing, toys, linens. . .
At the beginning, it was assumed by Texans of both Parties, cleaning out their closets or hitting the Dillards clearance racks for donations, the situation was temporary. No one could imagine, either political Party would allow it to continue.
As the flow at the Border not only continued, but picked up steam, it eventually became national news. Yet only 1 or 2 Dem politicians would even admit it was a problem, let alone demand its' end. That went on for 3.5 years, until pollsters informed Dems, the Border would be their political Waterloo. Suddenly a few Dem pols were slightly concerned, and eventually the sea of humanity slowed.
On the Right, many would note the Iran War is something few moderates support, especially 6 months in. Yet no one seems overly concerned, once again, major US policy might not reflect the will of the vast majority of the American people.
So if the majority of Americans are moderate, but the neither Party is moderate, where does a voter turn? Or is every US election now doomed to be a Sophie's Choice, with the only options, bad and worse.
Excellent work. An important next step would be to report the specific policy preferences of these moderates to enable us to work together where possible to win elections and achieve our common goals.
Moderates are and always have been apolitical. They haven't chosen a party affiliation because they don't follow politics enough to have an opinion.
Not in my case, I have actively followed politics my entire adult life and that active following if politics is what led me directly away from both parties.
The parties are a hindrance and a crutch, and they create far more weakness within this country than strength.
Perhaps once, but these days with both parties being overly influenced by their nuttier fringes, a lot of politically active people have simply decided that both parties suck.
Opposite for me. Before Trump I paid little attention to politics and voted along party lines. Once he got elected I decided I needed to be more informed and started reading, listening to political podcasts, etc. THAT has made me Independent. Plus the fact that I have Trump as President and Katie Wilson as Mayor of my city means I see both sides of the extremes of each party. No thanks. I expect I’ll be a Moderate Independent from here on out.
Accidentally deleted this reply:
My one and only post on Substack explains why I consider myself Independent.
https://loriwilbur1.substack.com/p/where-are-my-people?r=nua66&utm_medium=ios
Very nice post! (Minus the frustration, of course.)
as far as I can tell, this survey doesn’t ask any questions about what anyone means by the word “moderate”. there is thus no reason to assume that any of those people surveyed mean the same thing by the word. All it shows is that if they look at the crazy people on the contemporary left, and then look at the crazy people on the contemporary right, most people conclude they don’t like either side, and thus prefer the label “moderate“.
Yes, fair point. It’s a limitation with a lot of surveys or other modeling. Someone should fund a big study on the topic!
The problem with unaffiliated persons is that they don’t for the most part participate in the political process - working at the polls, vetting candidates, etc. - in ways they have backed out of democracy, which makes keeping a republic difficult.
And yet, this is still about politics. Where is the survey determining the number of people who don't give a damn and wish political parties would just leave them the hell alone?
"The survey shows 81 percent of Americans just want to watch the game without a stupid political ad trying to manipulate their emotions to vote a certain way."
I frequently change the channel and watch an entirely different show, rather than sit thru the umpeenth showing of a political ad that only a moron could love.
I think this is useful research, but two things in the data leave me wanting to go much deeper.
The first is the meaning of “moderate.” I’m not yet convinced that category tells us very much about what actually distinguishes independents. It may simply be where people end up when they do not fit comfortably into the standard liberal/conservative packages.
I’m a good example. If forced to place myself on a liberal–moderate–conservative scale, I would probably choose moderate because neither liberal nor conservative describes me. But I am not actually moderate in any consistent ideological sense. I oppose the death penalty, and I oppose abortion. Those are strong positions that fall on different sides of the conventional political spectrum.
Even where my position may look moderate, the underlying reasoning may be different. I may favor an initial compromise because I see it as a practical starting point: implement something workable, learn from the results, and then adjust. The compromise is not the objective; it is part of the problem-solving process.
So I would be very interested in knowing what is actually contained inside that “moderate” category—true centrists, people with strong but cross-cutting beliefs, people who resist ideological packaging, pragmatic problem-solvers, politically disengaged voters, or something else.
The second thing that really jumps out at me is the racial composition. Black voters are 13% of the overall population in the table but only 1% of independents, while Latino representation is essentially unchanged at 10% versus 11%. That is such a large difference that I would want to understand what is driving it. Is it historical party identification, registration patterns, the underlying voter-file methodology, or something else?
Those two questions seem especially important if the larger goal is to understand independents more accurately. Right now, “moderate” may be concealing more than it reveals, while the striking difference in Black representation may be pointing toward something quite important. Both seem worth getting underneath before drawing broader conclusions about who independents are.
I think you have this backwards. It’s not so much that the politically unaffiliated are traditionally moderate as it is that the center left and figuratively sober right are currently politically homeless.
I’m still not sure exactly where you are going with this stack. At the end of the day “Independent” is just another label that can mean many things. Technically Bernie Sanders is an “Independent”, John Fetterman (D) and Susan Collins (R) are far more willing to cross party lines.
At the end of the day I’d describe an “independent” as someone who’s:
- More concerned with policy than party
- Is more than happy to accept something they don’t like to get something they do
- Firmly believes half a loaf is better than no loaf.
If this stack winds up being about how we can get people working together again for the good of the country and pointing out where politicians are doing that regardless of whether or not there is a D, I or R after their name then I’m all in and will pick up a paid subscription. If it’s just about how team I can defeat team R, because team D is too nuts to get it done then I’ll quietly move on.
Thanks, Norm. I'm trying not to put my thumb on the scale for any one segment of the vast independent world. I personally agree with you about the importance of working together on common problems, but there aren't many people currently in office who want to do that. There are also a lot of independents who truly do not like and do not want to support either Ds or Rs. They want more choices, their own caucus, and more leverage over the two parties. Which is respectable. I am trying to cover the range of views at this point the best I can. Plus there's still a lot that is unknown and evolving in this world so I want to watch as it develops over next two years. Appreciate the feedback.
John, I did a quick AI review on the political attitudes of Independents. Here is a summary.
"Independent voters are highly pragmatic, ideological moderates who prioritize healthcare, economic jobs, and affordability over rigid party lines. According to data from Gallup and CNN, a record high of 45% to 47% of American adults now identify as political independents, making them the largest single bloc in the electorate"
I can send you full resonse if we can find a way to do it. Too long to post here.
Thanks, I’m planning to review some of the literature and research on policy views soon.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with on this.
Moderate is just another name for a fence sitter who votes with the polls. Can't make a decision on their own.
I appreciate you guys working this out without things going off the rails. Nice job!
Dennis is just another name for someone who personally attacks people who disagree with him rather than treating them respectfully, and working together to achieve common goals. In terms of achieving our common goals Dennises are a bigger problem than moderates.
From a non-committed individual who has been called out for being a weathercock. Good whichever way the wind takes them. I'm not attacking anyone, just stating the facts of what a "moderate" really is.
If I am reading correctly, you are saying you are the moderate you are referring to. If so, I apologize for my previous comment. For the first time in my life I did not vote for either presidential candidate in the last election. I am a geriatric life long left leaner who felt that neither party representated my views on war and the economy and both were in the pocket of the billionaire class. And I too was chastised by my liberal/progressive friends who refused to admit the flaws of their own party. And lost for that very reason.