I am someone who used to be classified as a leftist, but am now classified incorrectly by others as "right wing." I am not "moderate." I am an independent thinker and I voted mostly Democrat until recently, switched to Independent at th end of the Obama administration. There is, however, a disadvantage to being officially classified as Independent on voter registrations in my state, as we can't vote in party primaries and the Republican Party barely exists here.
I usually do not identify with any of the descriptions of Independent voters that are offered in articles on this site or elsewhere. I vote for issues that I care about and candidates that I think might advocate for the policies I want to see implemented. I am very politically engaged.
I think that the woke movement is the worst thing that has happened to the U.S. in my lifetime, with respect to overall degradation of our country. The dissolution of our southern border is related to woke politics, although not entirely. The same is true of the crime problem. I don't know if this position is still labeled by Democrats as a "right wing culture war," but who cares?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been controlled for decades by the most extreme members of their parties and have rendered themselves unfit to provide candidates who represent the interests and needs of the majority of the American people, which includes me.
I check whatever party box is necessary to vote for my preferred candidate. The next day, I return to whatever party I generally lean towards. Swing voting is essential.
" . .while several more years of chaos, incompetence, and corruption like his first term. ."
I'm not sure you can just make this statement in a vacuum John. Could there have been anything but chaos in an environment where we saw unprecedented daily attacks on an administration, seemingly from everywhere (media (I'm sure you recall his press conferences, do you recall anything like those in prior administrations, certainly not in the Biden era), academia, the bureaucracy)? Was he not hamstrung by what we now know to be a politically motivated special counsel investigation? Are we that confidant that the two impeachments' were strictly based on outright corruption? The progressive machine, IMO, is a master of molding perceptions, as well as disciples to 'the ends justify the means' philosophy. They know the average citizen doesn't pay enough attention, so their strategy of relentless attacks was effective (for goodness sakes John, have you seen any of the questions in today's GED testing, they have questions referencing Trump, implying he is corrupt, what? GED testing. . ., the machine attacks from all angles, relentlessly) Wouldn't these things give any administration the perception of chaos, incompetence and corruption?
I find it a bit implausible, that if Mr. Trump would have had the same treatment that Mr. Biden received (until the deception of his cognitive ability could no longer be maintained) prior to the debate, that the perception of Mr. Trump would be much different. Most folks don't subscribe to blogs like this that attempt to dig deep, they mainly just see the pithy internet browser articles that are overwhelmingly negative to Trump.
So, yes, his first term was chaotic, certainly had incompetence and no doubt there was some corruption (show me a term that didn't have some, though did Trump have anything going on rising to the level of his son taking money from questionable foreign entities for no perceivable legit service or goods). But, when you say it casually like that, it comes off as uncritical thought at worst, biased at best, to me, anyway. Having biases, of course, is no crime, we just try to be aware of them.
". . not excessively online, right-wing culture wars."
Sir, respectfully, what is more important than protecting our children? I'm sure you are sick of hearing about trans issues, critical theory issues, parental rights issues, social media issues, ubiquitous porn issues, unfettered abortion, etc, etc, but my goodness, do you not sense a bigger point? If these 'right-wing culture wars' are not addressed, it will be our children that suffer most. Many of these issues are owned by everyone, everyone is culpable, which to me, makes them even more important to address. A mentally unfit society (greatly influenced by not addressing culture war issues), warped by an increasingly 'no fear of God' society, will not end well for anyone, atheist, agnostic or not. My bias is obvious, isn't it John? lol Yet, I will never deny that Jesus is the only Truth.
Let's mix it up John! What am I missing? Am I being too critical? I'd like to think I have enough humility to admit when I'm wrong, but pride is a potential issue in all of us. God bless.
Although independent, I am to the conservative side on social issues, against warmongering, hegemony for moral values. Trump to me is more an independent than staunch republican. He sticks his neck out for matters a republican wouldn't, yet is conservative in many things.
And Ruy, here's another. I submit to you that no one in your party has learned any lessons at all, and that you're in the equivalent of 1932 facing a long hard road.
This substack makes the error of thinking that independents are somehow in the middle, disgusted with both parties for partisanship. Yet, I am the right-wing version of this article. I abandoned the Republicans years ago because they weren't ideological enough and too tied to Wall Street. I stayed right leaning, never voting for a Democrat and sometimes voting for Republicans. Thus it remained until the coming of Trump and especially Vance. The next four years will see an existential struggle for the control of both parties. I may even reregister as a Republican so as to participate. Call me a wingnut but those are necessary to combat the moonbats. Squishes, of either variety don't have the stomach for it.
The article in that knee-jerk leftist publication The Nation is a prime example of what you and I have said about the futility of convincing extremist ideologues to support moderates in order to win elections and achieve most of their objectives. We can thank them as much as the MAGA crowd for Trump’s victory.
This is just one example as to why the Democrat Party is dead. The powers that be have no intention of even trying to regain sanity and speak to the middle.
Yes, the independent voter has long been a factor in deciding elections, and the number of voters claiming independent status over allegiance to either major party has grown faster than the two parties' support numbers.
But a more revealing measure for 2024 might be the percentage of voters casting straight-ticket votes for Republicans or Democrats. As a measure more of rejection of the Democrats progressive Left drift in 2024, I would guess Republican candidates fared better in straigtht-ticket voting.
Apologies for the cross-post, (I promise it will be the only one!) but seeing as Mr. Halpin is the publisher, I thought it important to put this here, as well as underneath the headline article today:
All this strategic and demographic analysis is all well and good, but I find it a little strange that a publication that calls itself the *liberal* patriot, which implies a concern with *liberalism*, has yet to publish an article that even tangentially touches on the most important aspect of this election, which is its relation to liberalism and liberal principles–because it is *not* just another, everyday election in this sense. The state of independents, or whether Harris ran as a centrist, are inquiries of rather miniscule significance by comparison.
Consider the following: that the country has just democratically re-elected a man who attempted to directly overturn one of the most important cornerstones of a liberal democratic system, which is the acceptance of the outcome of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. This is no longer conjecture–we have direct evidence of it from the information in the Smith indictment.
What does this reinstalling of an illiberal leader who does *not* respect the rule of law and the peaceful of transfer of power say about the state of liberal democracy in the United States? Much less the fact that he was reinstalled by a broad-based, racially diverse coalition of voters constituting over half the country, whose choice we are duty-bound–as liberals–to honor?
At the very least you should have *one* piece probing this question, and the most important inquiries that naturally follow from it, namely “Is it now true that people are either A.) unable to inform themselves about the illiberalism of certain political leaders, or B.) now prioritizing direct material concerns–like the price of groceries–over liberal principles?”, and “Does this open up the possibility that liberal institutions–the courts, the legislature, the press–may in turn be corrupted and overturned, without the public objecting?”
Yes, how the Democrats lost and why the Republicans won is an important topic to probe, but given that we are now seeing the usurpation of established liberal democracies by illiberal, autocratic strongmen all over the world–Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, (formerly) Bolsonaro in Brazil–it is surely far, far more important to probe the question of what is driving the acceptance of an illiberal strongman in the United States, one of the oldest and most powerful liberal democracies in the world, especially if one is, as a patriot, dedicated to the well-being of that democracy and the upholding of its principles?
Why are you talking as though this was a normal election? You are not focusing on the larger elephant in the room. Professor Snyder says Trump is about to deliver a decapitation strike to democracy. Republicans are passing a bill that would allow Trump to classify Democracy advocate groups as terrorists and to outlaw them. Where is the urgency people!
It's important to not treat Independents as a static block from year to year. Partisan affiliation shifts. The number of people identifying as Republicans has gone up, and the number identifying as Democrats has gone down. That means Independents likely became a more Democrat-leaning group. In past years, the reverse was true, and Republicans regularly won Independents.
The more independent voters, the better. It does not need to mean unengaged voters, just unindoctrinated. We haven't had a coalition government like what we're looking at in my lifetime, so making premature comments about its precariousness makes no sense. Radical Fundamentalist Rs and Ds are annoying and cannot be seen as party leaders but as party indoctrinators or party poisoners. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is nonsense. I'd love it if everyone were a swing voter. Sure, have a party preference, but then vote for the candidate closest to your values. And we do need debate, so voting for the same party or party supermajorities is counterproductive. That's nothing more than an echo chamber, hardly going to bring the results that actual debate brings.
I am someone who used to be classified as a leftist, but am now classified incorrectly by others as "right wing." I am not "moderate." I am an independent thinker and I voted mostly Democrat until recently, switched to Independent at th end of the Obama administration. There is, however, a disadvantage to being officially classified as Independent on voter registrations in my state, as we can't vote in party primaries and the Republican Party barely exists here.
I usually do not identify with any of the descriptions of Independent voters that are offered in articles on this site or elsewhere. I vote for issues that I care about and candidates that I think might advocate for the policies I want to see implemented. I am very politically engaged.
I think that the woke movement is the worst thing that has happened to the U.S. in my lifetime, with respect to overall degradation of our country. The dissolution of our southern border is related to woke politics, although not entirely. The same is true of the crime problem. I don't know if this position is still labeled by Democrats as a "right wing culture war," but who cares?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been controlled for decades by the most extreme members of their parties and have rendered themselves unfit to provide candidates who represent the interests and needs of the majority of the American people, which includes me.
I check whatever party box is necessary to vote for my preferred candidate. The next day, I return to whatever party I generally lean towards. Swing voting is essential.
Good analysis.
Not surprised that "independents" don't like national politics - outlets, including PBS, are blatantly bias.
I think local politics differ: when it comes to your home or community, my guess is independent are more invested.l
" . .while several more years of chaos, incompetence, and corruption like his first term. ."
I'm not sure you can just make this statement in a vacuum John. Could there have been anything but chaos in an environment where we saw unprecedented daily attacks on an administration, seemingly from everywhere (media (I'm sure you recall his press conferences, do you recall anything like those in prior administrations, certainly not in the Biden era), academia, the bureaucracy)? Was he not hamstrung by what we now know to be a politically motivated special counsel investigation? Are we that confidant that the two impeachments' were strictly based on outright corruption? The progressive machine, IMO, is a master of molding perceptions, as well as disciples to 'the ends justify the means' philosophy. They know the average citizen doesn't pay enough attention, so their strategy of relentless attacks was effective (for goodness sakes John, have you seen any of the questions in today's GED testing, they have questions referencing Trump, implying he is corrupt, what? GED testing. . ., the machine attacks from all angles, relentlessly) Wouldn't these things give any administration the perception of chaos, incompetence and corruption?
I find it a bit implausible, that if Mr. Trump would have had the same treatment that Mr. Biden received (until the deception of his cognitive ability could no longer be maintained) prior to the debate, that the perception of Mr. Trump would be much different. Most folks don't subscribe to blogs like this that attempt to dig deep, they mainly just see the pithy internet browser articles that are overwhelmingly negative to Trump.
So, yes, his first term was chaotic, certainly had incompetence and no doubt there was some corruption (show me a term that didn't have some, though did Trump have anything going on rising to the level of his son taking money from questionable foreign entities for no perceivable legit service or goods). But, when you say it casually like that, it comes off as uncritical thought at worst, biased at best, to me, anyway. Having biases, of course, is no crime, we just try to be aware of them.
". . not excessively online, right-wing culture wars."
Sir, respectfully, what is more important than protecting our children? I'm sure you are sick of hearing about trans issues, critical theory issues, parental rights issues, social media issues, ubiquitous porn issues, unfettered abortion, etc, etc, but my goodness, do you not sense a bigger point? If these 'right-wing culture wars' are not addressed, it will be our children that suffer most. Many of these issues are owned by everyone, everyone is culpable, which to me, makes them even more important to address. A mentally unfit society (greatly influenced by not addressing culture war issues), warped by an increasingly 'no fear of God' society, will not end well for anyone, atheist, agnostic or not. My bias is obvious, isn't it John? lol Yet, I will never deny that Jesus is the only Truth.
Let's mix it up John! What am I missing? Am I being too critical? I'd like to think I have enough humility to admit when I'm wrong, but pride is a potential issue in all of us. God bless.
Although independent, I am to the conservative side on social issues, against warmongering, hegemony for moral values. Trump to me is more an independent than staunch republican. He sticks his neck out for matters a republican wouldn't, yet is conservative in many things.
And Ruy, here's another. I submit to you that no one in your party has learned any lessons at all, and that you're in the equivalent of 1932 facing a long hard road.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/corporate-democrats-not-woke-activists-doomed-kamala-harris/
This substack makes the error of thinking that independents are somehow in the middle, disgusted with both parties for partisanship. Yet, I am the right-wing version of this article. I abandoned the Republicans years ago because they weren't ideological enough and too tied to Wall Street. I stayed right leaning, never voting for a Democrat and sometimes voting for Republicans. Thus it remained until the coming of Trump and especially Vance. The next four years will see an existential struggle for the control of both parties. I may even reregister as a Republican so as to participate. Call me a wingnut but those are necessary to combat the moonbats. Squishes, of either variety don't have the stomach for it.
I enjoyed reading your analysis of voter registrations and predictions of 2024.
Why do you persist in calling John Halpin Ruy? It's rude.
The article in that knee-jerk leftist publication The Nation is a prime example of what you and I have said about the futility of convincing extremist ideologues to support moderates in order to win elections and achieve most of their objectives. We can thank them as much as the MAGA crowd for Trump’s victory.
https://www.ajc.com/opinion/opinion-democrats-should-stay-woke-and-not-abandon-progressive-values/CBZB3JCR6NDR3KVPG2K7PEO2DY/
This is just one example as to why the Democrat Party is dead. The powers that be have no intention of even trying to regain sanity and speak to the middle.
Yes, the independent voter has long been a factor in deciding elections, and the number of voters claiming independent status over allegiance to either major party has grown faster than the two parties' support numbers.
But a more revealing measure for 2024 might be the percentage of voters casting straight-ticket votes for Republicans or Democrats. As a measure more of rejection of the Democrats progressive Left drift in 2024, I would guess Republican candidates fared better in straigtht-ticket voting.
Dig a little deeper. In North Carolina I registered as "Non-affiliated." That's another option, which includes "Independent".
Apologies for the cross-post, (I promise it will be the only one!) but seeing as Mr. Halpin is the publisher, I thought it important to put this here, as well as underneath the headline article today:
All this strategic and demographic analysis is all well and good, but I find it a little strange that a publication that calls itself the *liberal* patriot, which implies a concern with *liberalism*, has yet to publish an article that even tangentially touches on the most important aspect of this election, which is its relation to liberalism and liberal principles–because it is *not* just another, everyday election in this sense. The state of independents, or whether Harris ran as a centrist, are inquiries of rather miniscule significance by comparison.
Consider the following: that the country has just democratically re-elected a man who attempted to directly overturn one of the most important cornerstones of a liberal democratic system, which is the acceptance of the outcome of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. This is no longer conjecture–we have direct evidence of it from the information in the Smith indictment.
What does this reinstalling of an illiberal leader who does *not* respect the rule of law and the peaceful of transfer of power say about the state of liberal democracy in the United States? Much less the fact that he was reinstalled by a broad-based, racially diverse coalition of voters constituting over half the country, whose choice we are duty-bound–as liberals–to honor?
At the very least you should have *one* piece probing this question, and the most important inquiries that naturally follow from it, namely “Is it now true that people are either A.) unable to inform themselves about the illiberalism of certain political leaders, or B.) now prioritizing direct material concerns–like the price of groceries–over liberal principles?”, and “Does this open up the possibility that liberal institutions–the courts, the legislature, the press–may in turn be corrupted and overturned, without the public objecting?”
Yes, how the Democrats lost and why the Republicans won is an important topic to probe, but given that we are now seeing the usurpation of established liberal democracies by illiberal, autocratic strongmen all over the world–Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, (formerly) Bolsonaro in Brazil–it is surely far, far more important to probe the question of what is driving the acceptance of an illiberal strongman in the United States, one of the oldest and most powerful liberal democracies in the world, especially if one is, as a patriot, dedicated to the well-being of that democracy and the upholding of its principles?
Why are you talking as though this was a normal election? You are not focusing on the larger elephant in the room. Professor Snyder says Trump is about to deliver a decapitation strike to democracy. Republicans are passing a bill that would allow Trump to classify Democracy advocate groups as terrorists and to outlaw them. Where is the urgency people!
No extra commentary needed. I agree with all of this.
It's important to not treat Independents as a static block from year to year. Partisan affiliation shifts. The number of people identifying as Republicans has gone up, and the number identifying as Democrats has gone down. That means Independents likely became a more Democrat-leaning group. In past years, the reverse was true, and Republicans regularly won Independents.
The more independent voters, the better. It does not need to mean unengaged voters, just unindoctrinated. We haven't had a coalition government like what we're looking at in my lifetime, so making premature comments about its precariousness makes no sense. Radical Fundamentalist Rs and Ds are annoying and cannot be seen as party leaders but as party indoctrinators or party poisoners. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is nonsense. I'd love it if everyone were a swing voter. Sure, have a party preference, but then vote for the candidate closest to your values. And we do need debate, so voting for the same party or party supermajorities is counterproductive. That's nothing more than an echo chamber, hardly going to bring the results that actual debate brings.