Once again Gallup has found party identification with the two major political parties to be at historic lows:
PRINCETON, N.J. — In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.
If you include those who lean Democratic or lean Republican these are the results:
Last year, in addition to the 29% of Americans who identified as Democrats, another 16% said they were independents but leaned toward the Democratic Party, for a combined total of 45% Democrats and Democratic leaners among the U.S. population. Likewise, 26% of Americans identified as Republicans and an additional 16% identified as independents but leaned toward the Republican Party, for a combined total of 42% Republicans and Republican leaners.
Lest Democrats become too complacent how does that compare with 2008?
That three-percentage-point Democratic advantage matches what the party enjoyed in 2014, but is down from 2012 and 2013. The high point in Democratic strength was in 2008, a time when President George W. Bush was highly unpopular in the midst of the prolonged Iraq war and the emerging economic recession. That year, Democrats had a 12-point advantage in party identification and leaning.
That’s a very substantial difference.
As I’ve been saying for some time, the 2016 presidential election will hinge on turnout. Whichever candidate gets his or her voters out to the polls to actually vote and/or discourages her or his opponent’s voters from voting will be inaugurated president in January 2017.
Which candidates are most likely to accomplish that?
I think part of this is just a generalized abandonment of institutions. I have this sort of vague nub of an idea that connects this to computers, to a world where choice isn’t binary but almost endless. People used to identify with institutions partly by choice, but partly as well by necessity – economic, tribal, etc… And that sort of ‘default identity’ becomes less important in an environment where you can portray yourself however you prefer, and indeed alter your presentation as easily as uploading a new avatar.
I realized the closest thing I have to a tribal/group/institutional loyalty is to Apple. I’m an Apple guy who uses Chrome and shops Amazon and prefers Twitter to Instagram. Those are my institutions now, those are my real party loyalties. And why not? Apple works far better than the Democratic Party (or the church, media, academia, etc…)
Computers only indirectly, I think. Social media provide the illusion of proximity, of intimacy. Our social circles may be spread all over the country or even all over the world but our political circles are still geographic. But those social circles at some level are illusory. They’re qualitatively different from real flesh and blood relationships.
Today’s political parties are able to organize at the national level using social media but don’t have the boots on the ground to build real relationships and command real loyalties, something that must be done day by day, person to person. That’s a situation that’s ripe for anger and disappointment.
Given our current slate of candidates I don’t see anyone generating much positive enthusiasm. What I do see happening, maybe, is a lot of enthusiasm about keeping the other candidate out of office. Whoever can convince their team that the other candidate is evil incarnate and they should vote against that candidate will win. (Didn’t Louisiana have an election where they said “vote for the crook” because the opponent was Duke?)
Steve
Steve- yes, the bumper stickers read: “Vote for the Crook, it’s Important.”
My brother and his wife were told they had to remove their symbolic clothespins as they entered the polling place to vote for Edwin Edwards.
I agree with you that this election is going to hinge not only on turnout, but on turnout spurred by fear of the other. It’s going to get ugly, I think.
When the Saudis decided to bankrupt the US frackers, they had no idea of what they were starting, but this is no surprise coming from the geniuses who sponsor the terrorist groups that hate them.
The oil downturn is going to be here for some time. Supply and demand for oil does not work the way it works for iPhones or VHS tapes. It is similar to the housing market in that an existing supply can depress prices until it is sold off, but the housing builders keep building. They need income, but they only get paid when a new house is sold.
The Saudis have two products to sell – oil and sand, and they have driven the price of oil down to the price of sand. The oil money allowed them to keep the domestic citizens happy and peaceful. It also allowed them to export the unhappy and violent citizens, and the oil money was able to keep these terrorists and their activities focused elsewhere.
Without the oil money, the terrorist’s gaze will return towards Saudi Arabia and the much hated House of Saud. The House has nowhere to hide, and it is worthless militarily. If the Russian backed Syrian military routs ISIS from Syria, ISIS does not have many options, but controlling Mecca is necessary for the Caliphate. With one operation, they can accomplish two bucketlist items.
(So much for the tin-pot dictator being snookered by the elegant black man. Apparently, skin color has nothing to do with foreign politics. Who would have guessed?)
The House of Saud needs ISIS to re-focus and/or a champion to emerge. I suspect that the spat with Iran was the beginnings of an effort to get ISIS re-focused. ISIS will need to decide whether they want Iran controlling Mecca or not. The other possibility is to get the US involved in a Iran/Saudi war.
If you think the next president can start or stop WW3, you should vote accordingly, but do not be surprised if he/she is not omnipotent.
Dave:
The primacy of face-to-face relationships is fading, replaced by virtual relationships. There are numerous advantages to virtual relationships – both sides can play whatever role they like, the relationship can be easily abandoned, new people can be looped in or passively recruited, neither party is prisoner to their looks, their apparent class, etc… No one is time-tethered or geographically pinned down.
Something huge is happening in society. Hundreds of millions of people who used to look at and speak with and break bread with actual people now interact primarily with their device of choice. I have 18,000 “friends”on Twitter, 5000 on Facebook, etc… The relationships are shallow, tenuous and largely false, but not meaningless. Time devoted to my pretend friends leaves less time for people in real life, inevitably reducing the importance of those IRL relationships. The feedback loop for these virtual relationships is faster and more upside than downside, which can not always be said for relationships IRL. And if a virtual relationship goes south, hey, you just tap “Block” and that annoying person disappears.
The virtual relationship also overlaps significantly with real life relationships, and alters them in unexpected ways. I’ll give you an example from my daughter’s high school life: the gossip machine now runs all day long. You can leave school with cheerful farewells and an hour later find that people who loved you now hate you and vice versa.
I don’t think we’ve even begun to grasp how profound the change is. In just a decade or two our subjective relationship with time and space has been altered. Our relationships with each other are mediated by software and WiFi speeds. We’ve gained 24/7/365 instantaneous access to more-or-less all human knowledge. We’re pushed out into a broader, more interconnected world. And we’ve lost the ability to be lost. I think these changes are part of the malaise in this country, it’s not all economics or even the relative decline of the white male, it’s a deeper koyaanisqatsi. Institutions are dying, we’re atomized, disconnected from our previous notions of time and space. It’s all fine for a disconnected misanthrope like me, but I can see where, taken all together, it would be profoundly unsettling for most people.
There’s something happening here, if I may quote Buffalo Springfield. What it is ain’t exactly clear.
We may disagree on this. I think that just as “talking” toys do nothing to teach infants language regardless of their advance publicity there’s a qualitative difference between virtual relationships and face-to-face ones.
I agree with you to the extent that I think that the marginal cost of relationship management is decreasing. I think the belief that the new regime is the same as the old is suspect.
Michael,
Reading your comments as analysis I think they are mostly right. Reading them as advocacy I think they are mostly wrong.
The atomization of society is not something we should embrace as it necessitates the destruction of communities between the individual and government. Also, the power for individuals to avoid most anything, especially ideas and the people who have them, is not good for those individuals, communities or society as a whole.
Seydlitz89, the online moniker for a noted Clausewitz strategist and someone I know online in other forums, had this to say in back in November 2010:
That said, as a guy who has never lived for more that 4 years in one place for the last 25 years, I’ve developed a lot of life-long friends and modern technology allows those friendships to be maintained and grow. I do enjoy it and find it very useful for maintain flesh-and-blood relationships.