Why Independents Hold the Key

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Why Independents Hold the Key
December 4, 2007; Page A2

Presidential campaigns, like sports events, play out amid a blizzard of statistics. But if you have to keep in mind just one number, make it this one: Almost 45% of New Hampshire's voters are officially registered as "undeclared" -- that is, they are independent voters. These independents, able under New Hampshire rules to vote for either party in the nation's first primary on Jan. 8, may represent the most important group of voters in the land. They are likely to determine, among other things, whether John McCain's candidacy can be revived, whether Barack Obama can sustain whatever momentum he gets out of Iowa's caucuses, whether Mitt Romney actually is best-positioned to win the Republican nomination and whether Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa will turn out to be just a flash in the pan.

More than that, New Hampshire independents are a reflection of the growing number of independent voters nationwide, who have been trending toward Democrats in the past couple of years. Their behavior in New Hampshire will be a good clue about how independents will behave in the general election in 2008. "They're the ones who hold the wild cards," says Tom Rath, a longtime Republican activist in New Hampshire now working for Mr. Romney. "They tell you a lot about the general-election electability of a candidate." Important as these New Hampshire independents are, though, their behavior is nearly impossible to predict right now. It is likely to be heavily influenced by the outcome of the Iowa caucuses just five days earlier. Their unpredictability, in fact, makes the campaign a game resembling 3-D chess.

(snip)

In the 2000 campaign, it appeared that many New Hampshire independents were poised to vote in the Democratic primary to back former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, who had tailored an antiestablishment campaign to appeal to them. But when then-Vice President Al Gore thumped Mr. Bradley in the Iowa caucuses, many of these independents decided Mr. Bradley was a lost cause. So they readily crossed over and voted in the Republican primary for Sen. John McCain, the other 2000 candidate who had cultivated a maverick persona and targeted his message directly at independents. That propelled Sen. McCain to a dramatic victory, ending Mr. Bradley's hopes and nearly derailing the Republican candidacy of then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Now Sen. McCain, his national campaign struggling, is trying to use New Hampshire's independents to catch lightning in a bottle again. He's running ads aimed straight at them, stressing, among other things, his crusades against pork-barrel spending. But the McCain appeal has two problems. The first is that his stance in support of the war in Iraq doesn't go down well with many independents. The second is that the Democratic campaign is starting to look exciting enough to lure away many of these independents. If Sen. Hillary Clinton were to win in Iowa, she might well appear to be on her way to winning almost everywhere else, considering the lead she enjoys in other states. Independents may decide the more meaningful vote would be in the Republican primary, which appears far more fluid.

(snip)

Oh, and a footnote: One other person watching the behavior of the New Hampshire undeclareds closely will be New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the one person who could yet launch a truly independent presidential campaign that would go after such voters head-on next year.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119673557559612712.html (subscription)

[aquart]

1. Love a good distortion in the morning.

72 million Democrats.

55 million Republicans.

42 million independents.

Democrats need 13 million independents and no Republicans. Republicans need 30 million independents.

In a three-way split, the winner needs a minimum of 57 million. Which means that if all the independents and all the Republicans team up, which is what the WSJ is fantasizing, the spoiler wins! Because that would be 97 million against 72 million Dems. Or, even better, the Dem candidate is Hillary who is hated by the Dems (so how does she become their candidate? Oh, never mind.) and all the Dems vote for Bloomberg, too! 169 million votes for Bloomberg!

Except Bloomberg is too liberal for most Republicans. Too short, too divorced, too Jewish. So he's gotta attract the Dems! 114 million! Except for most Democrats having a really nasty attitudes toward spoilers.

57 million votes isn't enough if Democrats stand firm. There are 72 million of us, no matter how much the WSJ pretends we don't exist.

Oh, and Bloomberg already said, NO.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Bloomberg's studying up on foreign policy. He's got himself a guru

from the old Clinton administration to help him cram. Don't really need that for the mayor's office or philanthropy--only need it for one thing.

[DCKit]

3. Without the MSM injecting doubt and confusion, elections would be much harder to steal. n/t

[question everything]

5. The emphasis was on NH Independents

and, I have to admit, that it bothers me that they can vote in any primary.

I know that other states tried it, including CA but then it was successfully challenged.

In that one time when it was in effect I did vote in the Republican primary. I voted for the weakest candidate against Barbara Boxer.

Primaries and caucuses are for the ones who declare their association with a certain party. It is not for "independents" who are more than happy to shift the balance of power, as the examples, above, show.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Gerald F Seib is the writer. What the f are his credentials?

Independents have been a key to winning elections for a long time.

Is Seib some dumb ass newbie that doesn't know snow from rain?