Honestly, I don't really care who wins the Democratic New Hampshire Primary. Honestly, I don't really care who wins the Democratic nomination. I think all the candidates are good people, good Democrats, and have the potential to be great presidents. But, honestly, they are all so far down on the list of who I wanted to see as Democratic nominee (behind Feingold, Gore, several other folks who didn't run, Biden, and Dodd) that I just can't get that passionate about any of them, although I'm leaning Edwards. But I don't really care.

What I care about is restoring America's reputation around the world. What I care about is seeing that America has leadership that knows that civil liberties cannot, must not, be sacrificed for "war on terror" or we've already lost that war. What I care about is making sure that the global economy works for everybody, everywhere. In short, what I care about is making sure that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, wins in November.

I want to believe that this is what everyone here cares about, but during this primary campaign I've had reason to doubt this. The closer we got to votes actually being counted, the more heated the debate became, and the more and more I saw the phrase "If candidate X wins, I won't vote" or "If candidate Y wins, I'll vote for a third party" or "If candidate Z wins, I'll vote for the Republican". Now some people might read this stuff and think it is just written in the heat of the moment. Some may read it and think it's just sour grapes. Some may read it and reply "Good riddance, you lousy piece of Naderite scum!" I read it and think, "I need to change their mind". Not because I love candidate X or Y or Z, but because I love America, and I don't want to see this country after another four years of Republican rule.

So, this diary is the beginning of a project I'm going to dedicate my free time to from now to November, to ensure that all voters realize the importance of voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, in this election. I hope to do this, and I hope others will do this as well, not by bashing any third party candidates that may run, not by calling anyone who is considering not voting for the Democratic nominee insulting names (i.e. "lousy piece of Naderite scum"), not by putting down any of the unsuccessful Democratic primary candidates, but rather by emphasizing the importance of this election. I want to persuade folks into recognizing that no matter who gets the Democratic nomination, there are differences that matter between the two parties, and the Democrats need every vote they can get.

There's more...

Rasmussen has new numbers on partisan self-identification that, over the last few years, show both a clear Republican decline and a clear Independent rise (May 2007 results results are based on 15,000 interviews per month, all other results are three months quarterly averages, based on 45,000 interviews):

Partisan Self-Identification, 2004-2007

Date	Democrats	Indy / Other	Republicans
May 07	36.3%	32.9%	30.8%
Mar 07	37.5%	30.7%	31.8%
Dec 06	37.7%	30.0%	31.3%
Sep 06	37.0%	30.7%	32.3%
June 06	36.6%	30.1%	33.3%
Mar 06	36.5%	29.4%	34.1%
Dec 05	36.6%	29.4%	34.0%
Sep 05	36.4%	28.5%	35.1%
June 05	37.2%	27.8%	35.0%
Mar 05	37.3%	26.9%	35.8%
Dec 04	38.7%	24.2%	37.1%
Sep 04	38.0%	26.1%	35.9%
June 04	37.2%	28.1%	34.7%
Mar 04	37.9%	27.6%	34.5%

This corresponds with the long-term trend of increasing voting registration outside the Democratic and Republican folds:

Long-term voter registration trends, % of all registered voters

Year	Democratic	Republican	Indy / Other
2004	36.8%	28.0%	21.7%
2000	36.3%	27.8%	19.6%
1996	35.9%	26.9%	15.8%
1992	36.6%	25.4%	12.7%
1988	37.6%	25.6%	10.5%
1984	40.2%	24.0%	10.2%
1980	40.0%	22.4%	8.2%
1976	41.5%	21.6%	6.8%
1972	44.4%	24.7%	4.7%
1968	45.8%	26.1%	3.2%
1964	49.4%	24.2%	1.7%
1960	48.3%	27.2%	1.6%

(Note: some states do not have partisan registration, thus explaining why these numbers never really come close to 100%)


This appears to be rock-solid evidence documenting the rise of Independent voters nationwide and long-term. However, it is important to keep in mind that not all Independents are the same. Most, but not all, self-proclaimed Independents will, when pushed, identify with one of the two major parties. Interestingly, Pew shows, in the image on the right, that the number of self-proclaimed independents who refuse to identify with one of the two major parties has remained constant in a range of 12-15% of the population since 1990.

So, while the number of people self-identifying as Independents without being pushed has gone up since 1990, after Independents are pushed the number of "true" Independents has remained constant. Further, exit polls from every presidential election since 1976 show that that percentage of self-identified Independents has remained in a narrow range of 23-27% of the electorate since 1980. In fact, Independents peaked as a percentage of the electorate in the post-watergate election of 1976, at 41%. So, while the number of people registering to vote as something besides Democrats or Republicans has increased dramatically since the mid-1970's, the number of voters who self-identify as Independents in presidential elections has now changed much. This probably the result of gradually decreasing turnout among Independents, and the tendency for independent self-identification to drop in presidential election years.

Overall, what this data shows is that while there is, in fact, a slow drift away from the two parties, Independents are not a rising force in American politics just yet. While there is a general tendency toward decreasing identification with, and participation in, the Democratic and Republican parties, Independents have still not turned away from the two-party system. It is possible that the increasing tendency of Americans to register with other parties (or with no parties), and that their increasing tendency to not identify with either major party unless pushed represents the first stage is a shift away from the two-party system. However, until third party candidates start performing at higher levels, the change is not particularly significant and that longer term trend cannot be proven. Right now, most Independents actually are either Democrats or Republicans, they just don't like calling themselves such. In fact, third party performance is actually declining. While that may change in either a few years or a few decades, I for one am not holding my breath.

With the exceptions of 1992 and 1996, years for which I could not find data, here is the cumulative third-party performance in US House races since 1990:

2006: 2.3%
2004: 2.4%
2002: 3.1%
2000: 3.8%
1998: 4.9%
1994: 3.7%
1990: 4.1%

(Sources here and here). Despite extensive punditry discussing supposed voter dissatisfaction with both parties as the result of excessive polarization (or something), an analysis of trends in actual election results shows both voter turnout increasing and third-party performance stagnanting. Third-party electoral performance is lower now than it has been in decades. Despite the media cult of bipartisanship, "polarization" between the two major parties actually increases participation in the two-party system. And yet, despite actual numbers, we are still subjected to brain farts like this from Howard Fineman:

There's more...

This week, I have twice blogged (see here and here) about my hope that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination, because I believe he would be relatively easier to defeat in the general election than either John McCain or, especially, Rudy Giuliani. Now, given new polling evidence from Rasmussen, let me also encourage current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to join into the race (4/2-4/3, 800 LVs):

Two-Way Races
Clinton: 47%
McCain: 46%

Giuliani: 48%
Clinton: 47%

Three-Way Races
Clinton: 46%
McCain: 37%
Bloomberg: 9%

Clinton: 46%
Giuliani: 37%
Bloomberg: 9%

Without question, a Bloomberg run would be a major blow to the Republican ticket. According to these polls, he draws roughly 90% of supporters from people would be be otherwise inclined to support Giuliani or McCain. I don't know exactly whose support he receives, but the most likely group are the wide swath of Republican-leaning independents who, until recently, actually self-identified as Republicans. It is in this way that a Bloomberg run could not only be useful in helping Democrats win forty states, but in further dislodging disaffected, former Republicans over the long-term.

Last year, Jonathan rightly excoriated Al From of the DLC for attended a dinner designed to explore a Bloomberg run for the Presidency in 2008. However, and I'm sure I am giving From way too much credit for even speculating about this, maybe he was just there as a form of subterfuge in order to convince Bloomberg to run, thus guaranteeing a Democratic victory in 2008. I'd be down with that. I mean, after looking at these numbers, I am personally inclined to say, "go for it Mike!" Hell, if Bloomberg ran, and Romney was the nominee, we could score over 500 electoral votes.

So, apparently whether or not Bloomberg runs is dependent upon the nominees of the two major parties. From Newsweek:

Privately, Bloomberg and political adviser Kevin Sheekey are meeting with pollsters and consultants to assess the mayor's chances as a third-party, independent candidate. "There is no Bloomberg campaign," Sheekey tells NEWSWEEK. "But we have certainly reached out." At a dinner last year with Al From, founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, Bloomberg was candid and self-deprecating, wondering what chance a 5-foot-7, divorced Jew has in the celebrity-sweepstakes presidential contest.

The answer is that it depends on who the nominees are for the two major parties, and how much cash Bloomberg is willing to spend. The money part is easy for a self-made media mogul. "He could spend $500 million in a campaign and not even think about it," says From. But he'd probably do it only if buyer's remorse sets in among the voters. Because the primary process is so front-loaded this cycle, the winners will be known in early February, leaving nine months until the election for voters to get antsy. "He won't say anything until March of next year," says a former aide privy to the early discussions who didn't want to be named talking about them. "The guiding philosophy is who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, and the mood of the country once they know who those two people are."

For starters, it can't be emphasized enough that Al From was at a meeting last year designed to coax a billionaire Republican to run for President against a Democratic nominee. Couple this with their insistence that more Republicans support their positions than Democrats, and how the DLC is still often quoted in the media as a voice within the Democratic Party or how the Democratic congressional leadership allows Third Way to be the main educating force for new Democratic members on the Hill is beyond me. The Democratic Party is held hostage by those who wish to defeat it.

Leaving that aside for the moment, I have to wonder what nominees Bloomberg would feel compelled to run against. Surely not McCain, Giuliani and Clinton, since those three are all "cult of bipartisanship" heroes of the LieberDem, DLC-nexus circle that would support Bloomberg. Obama? Maybe, but he does strike a cord of unity rhetoric and Lieberman was his mentor in the Senate for a bit. Romney? Maybe, but I imagine ultra-rich, northeastern owners of media empires would stick together. Edwards? Seems a bit more likely, even though he does have "DLC golden Boy" roots pre-dating his time as a populist crusader.

Basically, I'm not sure why the DLC-nexus is so unhappy with the potential field that they would consider backing someone like Bloomberg in order to stave off a coming era of extremism. This entire election seems to be bearing them the fruits of two decades of seed work, as it is the most DLC-friendly field of candidates ever. Maybe it is because I hate the politics of unity and purpose, but I can't imagine a scenario where they would be shut out of the process, especially considering the fundraising free-for-all that will be the 2008 general election.

And who in God's name would be Bloomberg's base anyway? As the Daily Show put it when it came to the Geffen flap, I think it constitutes those people who care what billionaire plutocrats have to think. In the end, I think that explains why the DLC is still interested in Bloomberg despite the leanings of the rest of the field: that is their primary constituent base these days.