Independents favor cooperation, are dissatisfied with political system

[alp227]

President Obama and Mitt Romney are waging one of the most partisan campaigns in recent memory, energizing their bases with heated rhetoric and harsh tactics. But among political independents, some of the most prized voters in the electorate, speaking more softly about the other side may be a key to winning their support.

Independents make up about a third of all voters. They constitute about half of those who are uncommitted in their choice for president. And they are one of the most mischaracterized groups in the electorate.

Independent voters are not a monolithic bloc. Nor are many of them truly independent in their voting patterns, according to a new study by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly two-thirds of Americans who describe themselves as independents act very much like partisan Republicans or partisan Democrats.

Still, one clear factor that separates them from Democrats and Republicans is a near-uniform call for greater cross-party cooperation. Seven in 10 independents say they favor compromise between the parties rather than confrontation, according to the survey. Just as many say they are dissatisfied with the country’s political system.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/independents-favor-cooperation-are-dissatisfied-with-political-system/2012/08/20/3a96fcc2-e722-11e1-a3d2-2a05679928ef_singlePage.html

[alittlelark]

1. 7 in 10 independents are Low info voters...

That's what I got from this.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

2. Have to agree.

"Seven in 10 independents say they favor compromise between the parties rather than confrontation, according to the survey. Just as many say they are dissatisfied with the country’s political system."

I have to agree. Give me cooperation and sane, intelligent, mature behavior on both sides. But that means both sides compromise, not this endless moving of our side to the right because we're the only ones trying to actually make things work. We have one party which is trying to do its job and run the country and another which is only trying to break things. That's the ultimate problem.

[alp227]

3. Correct. Once upon a time, a Republican president (Eisenhower) actually had SENSIBLE policy!

Like in his letter to his brother where he wrote: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Or the 1956 Republican platform that successfully re-elected Eisenhower: "...the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding."

Check out Thom Hartmann reading those parts of the '56 platform that would be considered more Democratic/liberal today (starts at the 4:00 mark after the background report on CPAC if you want to skip right to the speech):

[emilyg]

4. Agree.

[limpyhobbler]

5. We shouldn't co-operate away our core values.

It's not ok to co-operate on issues like cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits.

[alp227]

6. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...

you would not hear of that party again in our political history." --Pres. Dwight Eisenhower (R!)

[limpyhobbler]

7. That's a great quote. Too bad they present it as "saving" social security to fool people.

[alp227]

8. And that quote is why Bush backed off his plan to privatize SocSec!

[freshwest]

9. I don't believe in Indepedents, they seem like this mythical group that want to be pandered to until

The last minute. I've seen a ton of GOP who get embarrassed after some huge GOP disaster and then scream, "I'm not GOP, I'm Independent."

As soon as the GOP finds another brand to cover hide their crimes, they're not Independents. They call themselves that until that gets exposed.

Democrats have not run a vicious campaign. The truth is not vicioous. Claiming that the POTUS is foreign born, destroying the nation and lying is vicious.

Democrats would do well to go after new voters instead wasting time on this fickle group. IMHO, an Independent is a Republican who's ashamed to admitit and just waiting for a new GOP hero.

[LeftishBrit]

10. 'Greater cross-party co-operation'

How do you get that when the Republicans evidently want to dominate everything? 'Co-operation' under such circumstances would be like the co-operation between the Owl and the Panther in Lewis Carroll's poem:

I passed by his garden, and marked, with one eye,
How the Owl and the Panther were sharing a pie:
The Panther took pie-crust, and gravy, and meat,
While the Owl had the dish as its share of the treat.
When the pie was all finished, the Owl, as a boon,
Was kindly permitted to pocket the spoon;
While the Panther received knife and fork with a growl,
And concluded the banquet by eating the Owl.


I've been experiencing 'cross-party co-operation' for over 2 years, in a country where the right are not QUITE as extreme and uncompromising as in yours. Nonetheless, it's been a disaster for the country - almost as right-wing and more incompetent and badly-organized than a typical Tory government- and the LibDems have committed political suicide by getting involved in it. I realize that these 'independents' are not necessarily advocating actual coalition; nevertheless co-operation is unlikely to work between Dems and Republican, and the ones who give up both their principles and their political survival are likely to be the Dems under such circumstances.