Ask any Democrat who they least wanted to see win the Republican nomination for president and you'd likely hear one name, "John McCain." Ask any Republican who they least want to see win the Democratic nomination for president and the answer would likely likely be "Barack Obama." The reason is simple. Both McCain and Obama appeal to a key group of voters that each party needs to win in November: independents.
Long term Gallup Poll data on party affiliation indicates that the percentage of Americans who call themselves independents has grown substantially since the 2004 election. Back in November of 2004, 38 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans, 27 percent as independents, and 35 percent as Democrats. Last month, a new Gallup Poll showed only 28 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans, 38 percent as independents, and 34 percent as Democrats. These statistics suggest that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans has dropped an astonising 10 percent since November of 2004. During the same time period, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as independents has grown by about the same amount, 11 percent. The percentage of voters who call themselves Democrats has remained about the same since 2004.
Back in 2004, 48 percent of independents told Gallup that they leaned Republican and 48 percent said that they leaned Democrat. Those numbers have also changed dramatically. Last month's Gallup Poll showed only 39 percent of independents leaning Republican. A majority, 52 percent, of independents said that they lean Democrat.
Clearly, the Republican Party will be waging an uphill battle for independent votes. Nominating John McCain is one way for the Republican Party to appeal to those key independent and moderate voters. But will it be enough?
If the race does come down to McCain versus Obama it will be interesting to see which way most independent voters go. Certainly, the two candidates differ on a number of issues that should help independents make up there minds.
On Iraq, McCain and Obama are worlds apart.
From Obama's campaign website:
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
From McCain's campaign website:
"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country."
McCain's strong support for the war in Iraq could end up costing him come November. A recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of independents, 53 percent, now believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. Only 40 percent of independents believe it was not.
On abortion, McCain and Obama also opposite positions.
From McCain's campaign website:
"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat."
From Obama's campaign website:
"Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women's right to choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventative services to reduce unintended pregnancies."
If you are an independent, did or will you vote for McCain or Obama in your states presidential primary or caucus?
If the election comes down to McCain and Obama, which will you support? Why?
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of David's past correspondent articles by clicking here
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
Of course, as soon as she is eliminated, the same people will go to work smearing Obama.
It looks like McCain is going to win the Republican race. Their process...mostly winner-take-all...is designed to reach an early consensus that can be controlled by the big money political machine that controls Republican politics.
The Democratic selection process is...well, more DEMOCRATIC, which has prolonged the suspense. I happen to think this is healthy, giving more people a chance to make a good showing. But Republican politics is big-money-machine politics, and most people seem to know that. That is why they are deserting the GOP in droves.
Bush has inflicted a grevious wound to his party. They will not win control of Congress or the White House in November. They are a defeated, demoralized bunch, and rightly so. They supported the lunatics who have run our country into the ground...economically, morally, politically...and in every other way I can think of.
Now it's the Democrats' turn. Let's hope they don't blow it.
I have been a Clinton supporter for a long time - as a woman, as a Democrat born and bred and because she's smart, savvy and tough as nails.
Obama, however, hearkens back to the days of my childhood - and Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King and the days of my youth when I still believed it was possible to change the world.
I will support either Democratic candidate, gladly, and for different reasons.
so this is not meant as a slam..
I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination but I'd prefer Clinton.
If it had to be McCain or Obama, I'd have to go with Obama, but I hope Clinton makes it -- Obama needs another 8 years to get ready. McCain has too many dichotomies to be comfortable for me.
I believe his knowledge of Constitutional law and his life experiences are an asset.
I like his health care plan and I believe him ti be sincere.
Thanks
I an a reluctant supporter of the action in Iraq, ready to leave if things do not get better, but I do believe Obama's blanket plan to withdraw and his willingness to talk with Iran way be change, but it is stupid. I would prefer to vote for a Democrat, but I really don't know what Obama is.
My problems with McCain: 100 year war, anti-choice, pandering to the religeous uber-right.
hear McCain make that statement. He said 100 years presence
in Iraq to ensure peace if our guys were not getting shot at.
Do you feel you really need to lie to make your point?
Once the people start lookng for details he will have a tough time. The "change" bit will grow old. But it works on the lemming left.
I wish I had a better feeling on Iraq "politically", but the 100 years thing often quoted is rhetoric and out of context.
Obama's plan for Iraq I frankly can't see. Might as well just pull 'em all out day one, and forget waiting for another Iranian embassy fiasco... I do think pulling out now will lead to bigger conflict later in the region for sure; the mullahs sure aren't pulling out. What Bush did, should have no bearing on what we do going forward. We're all disappointed how it went down and was handled earlier.
I think the next President is going to be tested by our enemies, and to some extent our quasi-friends, big time however. They "know" where Bush is at, and are waiting to see what they can do with the next guy/gal in office; and not just the Al Qaeda type groups either. I feel McCain is strongest there by far, and being Commander and Chief of the military, as well as President, is a tough job; both need to be considered.
The issues between what they all "say" in primaries, with as yet to come debates, versus what they can actually do in Congress is another as well. Promise anything, but can you pull it off? Political savvy in Washington is important, whether we like it or not.
Bottom line for me... I feel I'll eventually be voting against somebody again, instead of feeling as a vote for... I'm not a happy camper in my choices so far, and there is a lot to learn yet in substance, and hopefully we get deeper into that as we go forward in this process.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Often neither candidate is that dissimilar from any other candidate.
I don't think McCain is as bad as the other choices that side offered, but he's still more of the same and that is not good. I think the drastic differences, in every way possible, between Obama and McCain are interesting. Guess it's reflective of how divided the country is. "I'm a uniter," didn't work out so well.
the Republican Party will be waging an uphill battle for independent votes.
Well, that's your spin-- just because former "registered" republicans are now "registered" independents doesn't make the democrats any more palatable to them, particularly when you have two uber liberals as the alternative.
The switch in mere registration means very little, ask the so called libertarians.
There is no such thing as an independent, or a libertarian, there are only people that have been repulsed by the current and past Bush presidents' tilt toward the left.
These so called independents didn't reregister as independents because the Bushies are too conservative, they bolted because the Bushies aren't conservative ENOUGH! ! !
I'm a democrat for the most part, and having a democratic congress and having a reasonable republican (not a right-wing nutjob who can comprimise) would be the best option we have. Remember, for most of Bill Clinton's administration, there was a republican congress, and things weren't going so bad.
I repeat, the last thing we need is for one party to control the executive and legislative branch.
"Long term Gallup Poll data on party affiliation indicates that the percentage of Americans who call themselves independents has grown substantially since the 2004 election. Back in November of 2004, 38 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans, 27 percent as independents, and 35 percent as Democrats. Last month, a new Gallup Poll showed only 28 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans, 38 percent as independents, and 34 percent as Democrats."
"Back in 2004, 48 percent of independents told Gallup that they leaned Republican and 48 percent said that they leaned Democrat. Those numbers have also changed dramatically. Last month's Gallup Poll showed only 39 percent of independents leaning Republican. A majority, 52 percent, of independents said that they lean Democrat."
So the Republican party has lost a significant portion of its membership (around 25 percent) to the independent bloc since 2004. Independents now tend to favor the Democrats by a large margin. So I am not sure how saying that the Republicans face an uphill battle for independent votes constitutes spin.
Your analysis is one way of viewing the situation, but I suggest you back it up with some hard, verifiable evidence.
So ??? Your analysis is silly BECAUSE you've based your spin on polling data.
So the Republican party has lost a significant portion of its membership (around 25 percent) to the independent bloc since 2004
So ????? As I said, just because they removed their registration as republican, doesn't make them probable democrat voters, and no "up hill battle" will be required to get those formerly registered republicans, to vote republican again, as registered independents.
Your analysis is one way of viewing the situation, but I suggest you back it up with some hard, verifiable evidence
You call polling data "hard verifiable evidence" ??? *ROFL* well there's your problem sprout *ROFL*
John McCain's mom is alive and kicking at 90+, and he survived more than any of us would ever want to imagine. Everything else really isn't such a big deal after that. Just ask the north vietnamise how hard it is to kill John McCain.
The breaking news about the NY Times article sure has shaken things up. Just the fact that it's been "breaking" for 15 straight hours must have the McCain staffers in a frenzy. And the way John threw down the gaunlet with his absolute denial isn't anything new to those close to him and have been the object of his flash temper. And if this is one of his ill concieved knee jerk reactions to negative press he's also known for, God forbid this blow up in his face, for if it does we may be looking at a whole new ball game.
> The mullahs live there, John S. How would you feel
> if they had invaded Arizona and put up blast walls
> in Phoenix?
I might feel pretty damn good if I was a woman or a
member of a persecuted religious minority Dave A.
I think it is presumptuous at the least to deny that the
majority of people will benefit immensely by breaking
the system of totalitarianism that rules their lives by
terror.
The terror we see used against us to maintain this
sick system was being used every day if only as a
threat against innocent Iraqis and others.
opinion. What you said about McCain and keep claiming
is your opinion, I'm just offering mine with a reason for
it that doesn't include hyperbole like "fighting and lounging".
Who I dislike is people who lie to me, or people who
bait me and try to get me think they are something
they demonstrably are not ... ie. Barack Obama.
I do not need to hear words of hope or bouyant
positivism from a candidate to like them, I need to
know their values, their past, character, and their
stick-to-it-iveness.
I don't want to have a beer with any of them, and
I would just as soon have someone who can boringly
get the job done not someone whose personalilty
is the issue, particularly the false portrayals of some
personalities as good or bad, in effect telling all of
us what everyone should think about someone's
personality.
Screw the media, and their fake lament about their
right to brainwash the public and call it free speech.
I do not support or back up every action that Bush and
his "team" have taken.
One good way to look at this though is that the price of
oil is going up. This year large as the defense budget
is, we will most likely be spending more money on oil,
maybe even more the next year.
That's just oil. Then there is terrorism. There is a block of
countries that terrorize their people, hoard their wealth
to a few families, and have succeeded in making this
system work for them in an imperialistic way.
I add that up and say sure, there is a lot of room or
criticism of Bush, but that does not change the
situation one iota.
As I said it is the system there is that is totalitarian,
or tyrannical, not one particular person. And I do pay
up by paying my taxes, just like everyone else, I just
don't complain about it as loud as most.
> are in a vast minority with that one.
It is just so funny Deb, how you rail about Hillary Clinton being
shrill and all the negatives you pile on her, which are just what
the media tells you to think. But that you are so shrill doing
it as well. I would think if you thought Hillary was this way, you
must love her to death?
But as for me, as I have said before, I don't find a lot in a
polician to like. I do respect Hillary, and admire her qualities
to push on despite attacks like yours, I think it shows vastly
more of what I'm looking for in a candidate, character.
The mud-slinging is par for the course, and both Clintons
have been fair despite your characterizations of them, but
you are welcome to your opinions.
I was not originally for Ms. Pantsuit, and I cannot really
bring myself to give in to everyone mass hysteria, even if
it is based on "hope" and support Mr. Empty Suit. If he
can get the nomination and get elected without getting
knocked off when it is well understood what he has done
during this campaign, then maybe he will do something,
maybe not. But either way I'll not based my opinions on
likabililty, or what the right-wingers have been saying that
the hypnotized believe through repetition.
I respect your opinion of Mrs. Clinton. I also recognize that, just like Bruce's liking for Mrs. Clinton, they are strictly your opinions. I'm a little closer to Bruce in that I don't think I might like her if I was around her a lot, I do believe she is a gracious and sincere lady who possess the needed abilities to do the job of president very well.
I know she posses comprehensive knowledge of the economy and can deal with leaders of other countries from day one effectively. I know that there are no skeletons in her background as Ken Star proved that! To his dismay, I might add.
And I understand your feeling different and expect you to vote differently. That's what America is all about!
Al Gore was a stiff and wooden and took politeness a bit too far when he failed to respond indignantly to Bush's rude and insulting comments to him in debates, it caught him off guard to be basically called names or have his intelligence of masculinity challenged by shrimpy George Bush.
To be liked by redneck morons, or the weaklings who kowtow to the bellowings of redneck morons again ... doesn't do much for me.
I can see Hillary Clinton making tough honest choices in how to answer a question with truth and integrity, with the guts to sometimes say something that is controversial as opposed to always saying the pandering nice-guy thing, like. ... why not talk with Ahmadinejad, as if implying it had never been done before, and pandering to the anti-war mob the kind of idiots who have to stand up in the middle of lectures all over the country and make big speeches and yell and disrupt things.
It is also about who is doing the liking as well.
So imagine this: an Obama, Paul ticket. Guaranteed to send heart attacks into both party structures, and redefine what it means to have an independent grasp of political realities.
Or we could go for broke, and vote for Bozo the Clown!
they know nothing of American politics and are not willing
to even learn, or explore their own candidate. They are
voting on some kind of crazy image.
Sadly Obama has been able to rope-a-dope Clinton
and the other Democratic candidates who should have
bashed him as the first to get out of the race. Now
all he has to do is smile and say "Yes we can".
Democrats do not realize that these contests are about
attacking the other person, so Bush attacked Gore,
and Clinton failed to attack Obama soon enough.
She still says she is honored to be sharing the stage
with him. That stuff is not going to get her liked or
elected, it is her maturity, experience and balance that
should.
Obama is a nothing, for the first time in my life I actually
have to vote against something I think is dangerous
and crazy. What do we have next a teenage that actually
smokes pot running for office?
I'd like to hold my nose and even vote Democrat, but
there is no way I'm forced to vote for McCain because
it will not be me that contributes to putting another
unknown sneaky SOB in the White House after Bush
because his colors are different.
Cheers!
bonnie W