Previously: High Broderism (February 24, 2012)

We repeat ourselves, but so does Senator Claire McCaskill.

High Broderism – Also frequently seen as merely “Broderism.” A fetishistic attachment to bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake; reflexive adherence to false equivalencies, regardless of whether what one side says is patently insane. The result of forty years of believing that Dirty Fucking Hippies may be hiding under your bed. Whereby a center-right pundit, often Broder himself, decrees that bipartisanship is a good thing and can be achieved if only everyone would agree with the center-right pundit. For the last ten years or so, High Broderism has been the shorter version of virtually every op-ed from David Broder.

Today, from Senator Claire McCaskill:

Nonpartisan Rankings: McCaskill Maintains Moderate Course in Senate

On scale of conservative-to-liberal, National Journal ranks McCaskill 50 out of 100

February 7, 2014

WASHINGTON – The nonpartisan news magazine National Journal has released its annual rankings of members of Congress from liberal-to-conservative-and U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has again landed exactly in the moderate middle, ranking #50 out of 100.

[….]

“I haven’t made folks on either extreme of the political spectrum happy, and I’ve stepped on a lot of toes since I came to the Senate, but that’s okay,” McCaskill said. “Because I wasn’t elected to make friends. I was elected to get results for Missouri families-to expand job opportunities, cut wasteful spending, and help clean up Washington so folks can have confidence in their federal government.”

Since joining the Senate, National Journal has consistently ranked McCaskill in the ten most moderate U.S. Senators-and also ranked her as #50 out of 100 in its 2012 rankings.

McCaskill has been criticized by some in her party over her strong support for the Keystone XL Pipeline, her bipartisan work to cap federal spending, and her longstanding battle against Congressional earmarks. McCaskill has also been targeted for criticism over her support for the Affordable Care Act, her work to end huge taxpayer handouts to big oil companies and multi-millionaires, and her success in bolstering accountability in government contracting.

From National Journal’s website: “For the 2013 ratings, National Journal examined all of the roll-call votes in the first session of the 113th Congress-641 in the House and 291 in the Senate-and identified the ones that show ideological distinctions between members. Many votes did not make the cut-those that involve noncontroversial issues or that fall along regional lines, for instance. In the end, 117 votes in the Senate and 111 votes in the House were selected and were categorized as economic, foreign, or social.”

[….]

This is precious: “….McCaskill has been criticized by some in her party over….her success in bolstering accountability in government contracting….” Is that really an article of faith view expressed from the extremist left? Just asking. How about on that earmarks thing? Just asking.

Update: Okay, that is from two sentences. We’ll chalk that one up to less than stellar press release writing… [end update]

Uh, Senator McCaskill, you’re not in the middle. From two year ago:

[….]That is, ignoring the reality that the Overton Window has been moved so far to the right that what once was “moderate” is now considered extreme left and:

….the GOP knows that the middle DOES matter.  They know that by playing to their base in very well-crafted ways, they can shift the very definition of what the middle is. By introducing radicalism into the public discourse (and taking initial heat for it), whatever used to be radical within this context becomes moderate by comparison….

[….]

Senator McCaskill’s recent ranking among all senators from the National Journal:

The 2013 liberal/conservative rankings in the United States Senate by the National Journal. Higher liberal rating is on the left, higher conservative rating is on the right. Senator Claire McCaskill’s ranking is indicated by the green mark. Democratic Party and Independent (2) Senators are to the left of the red vertical line, Republican senators are to the right of the red vertical line. The middle of the Democratic Party caucus in the Senate is indicated by the blue vertical line and mark.

The four Democratic Senators to the right of Senator McCaskill in the National Journal rankings are Senators Kay Hagen, Joe Donnelly, Mark Pryor, and Joe Manchin. The six closest Democratic Party senators to the left of Senator McCaskill in the rankings are Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Mark Begich, Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Max Baucus, and Mary Landrieu. Mary freakin’ Landrieux. These individuals are not considered “moderates” in anyone’s book. And immediately to the left of Senator Landrieu is Senator Angus King, an Independent who used to be a republican.

“….I haven’t made folks on either extreme of the political spectrum happy….” Spare us the “both sides do it” inside the beltway conventional wisdom, please.

As for the batshit crazy republicans in the Senate? Senators Michael Enzi, Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, John Barrasso, Mike Lee, Pat Roberts (does he actually live in Kansas anymore?), and twelve more positions before we get to Senator Rand Paul.

The sixth most liberal Senator? Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

We rest our case.

Again, from two years ago:

….In our present environment a true moderate would be in the middle of their own party, not to the right of it.

It certainly is according to High Broderism.

Via Twitter today:

Claire McCaskill ‏@clairecmc

Just finished Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. Stressed the need to compromise. 8:30 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

In what world is Chris Wallace and the Faux News Channel open to “compromise”? Just asking.

A few replies:

Shell ‏@Shella_Bella

@clairecmc u don’t compromise , u blindly follow Obama! R elderly get treated like Crap. ^ taxes, Hc, gas, electric. Country is a mess!8:32 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

A personal favorite:

Patrick Scott ‏@Dewarsplz

@clairecmc Senator you are no moderate you are as much a communist as Obama! #tcot8:34 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

Communist? Didn’t that go out with high button shoes? Who would have thought…

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@clairecmc Hoping compromise isn’t defined as “give irrational obstructionists everything” so the rich DC pundits can applaud bipartisanship 10:35 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

Synchronicity:

Bob Yates Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@MBersin @clairecmc I don’t watch Fox News, so I don’t know what compromise is for them. So what is it? 10:47 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

Maybe compromise has a certain percentage to it:

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@OldDrum @clairecmc Uh, making sure Speaker Boehner (r) doesn’t cry on national TV and giving him “98%” of what he wanted. Oh, wait… 10:57 a.m. – Feb 24, 2013

Not if the recent past is a reliable predictor. Charlie Brown, meet Lucy and her football.

It’s supposed to be a clue when the simple act of joining a “bipartisan” group, rather than actual substantive policy, provides the “bipartisan” group the political cover and enhances their label.  

Previously:

High Broderism: the debt, the debt, it’s the debt…. (November 16, 2012)

High Broderism in Missouri: State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) (November 19, 2012)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel joins Campaign to Fix the Debt to urge leaders in Washington to reach bipartisan consensus

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel [….] has joined The Fix the Debt Campaign, a national bipartisan group dedicated to finding a long-term resolution to the current fiscal crisis facing the United States.  Treasurer Zweifel will be chairing the state’s steering committee….

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) might want to consider skipping those meetings.

Tuesday, Nov 27, 2012 9:52 PM UTC

When did “Fix the Debt” become “protect Bush tax cuts”?

A coalition devoted to reducing the deficit shouldn’t embrace the irresponsible tax measures that helped create it

Fix the Debt and its partners find themselves twisted in a knot. Because “comprehensive tax reform” is such a central component of their vision, they have to root for the Bush tax cuts, because there’s not much room for reform otherwise. But supporting the Bush tax cuts, as a baseline, is not “fixing the debt.” It’s the opposite, since the Bush tax cuts make up almost all of the long-term projected deficit, as this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows.

It’s also worth noting that Fix The Debt’s approach to taxes is not the same as the Simpson-Bowles commission. Simpson-Bowles started from the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire. Insisting that the Bush tax cuts form the starting point for negotiations was the position, instead, of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan (it was one reason he opposed Simpson-Bowles), and the current House Republicans.

I’m not sure why Fix the Debt put itself in a position where it now seems more concerned with protecting the Bush tax cuts than actually reducing the long-term deficit. Maybe it’s that the devotion to the fantasy of a grand bargain that includes something called “tax reform” drove them there. Maybe it’s that it’s necessary to maintain the nominal support from Republicans and business leaders that they boast. But whatever the cause, it’s where they seem to be. And a group devoted to fiscal responsibility has no business protecting one of the two most irresponsible fiscal choices in recent history….

When? As if it ever was anything else?

Does Fix the Debt Want To Fix the Debt, or Keep Tax Rates Low?

By Matthew Yglesias

Posted Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012, at 12:03 PM ET

….So it’s not a group dedicated to avoiding premature austerity at all costs and it’s not a group dedicated to deficit reduction at all costs either. But it does include among its “core principles” that we need to reduce entitlement spending and enact “comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform” that, among other things, “lowers rates.” That sounds a lot like the agenda of a group that’s dedicated to rate-cutting tax reform and entitlement spending cuts, rather than to any particular view about the appropriate timing of deficit reduction.

From the Institute for Policy Studies:

The CEO Campaign to ‘Fix’ the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks

By Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger. Contributors include Brent Soloway.

Released November 13, 2012

This business-driven initiative is using the so-called fiscal cliff as a cover for tax-code changes that would damage our economy.

The Fix the Debt campaign has raised $60 million and recruited more than 80 CEOs of America’s most powerful corporations to lobby for a debt deal that would reduce corporate taxes and shift costs onto the poor and elderly.

This report focuses on the Fix the Debt campaign’s corporate tax agenda and in particular the windfalls the campaign’s member corporations would reap from a territorial tax system. We also analyze the savings the Fix the Debt campaign’s CEOs have derived from the Bush tax cuts and how many of them received more in compensation last year than their corporations paid in federal income taxes….

But wait, there’s more:

A Pension Deficit Disorder: The Massive CEO Retirement Funds and Underfunded Worker Pensions at Firms Pushing Social Security Cuts

By Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger. Contributors include Brent Soloway.

Released November 27, 2012

This report analyzes the retirement policies of the U.S. corporations leading the “Fix the Debt” campaign, which is calling for reduced spending on senior citizens’ benefits as part of a deal on the national debt.

A major player in the national debt debate, the “Fix the Debt” campaign, is arguing that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are necessary to avoid economic disaster. Meanwhile, the corporations leading this campaign are contributing to Americans’ retirement insecurity by funneling enormous sums into their CEO retirement accounts while underfunding their employee pension funds.

Key findings:

The 71 Fix the Debt CEOs who lead publicly held companies have amassed an average of $9 million in their company retirement funds. A dozen have more than $20 million in their accounts. If each of them converted their assets to an annuity when they turned 65, they would receive a monthly check for at least $110,000 for life.

The Fix the Debt CEO with the largest pension fund is Honeywell’s David Cote, a long-time advocate of Social Security cuts. His $78 million nest egg is enough to provide a $428,000 check every month after he turns 65.

Forty-one of the 71 companies offer employee pension funds. Of these, only two have sufficient assets in their funds to meet expected obligations. The rest have combined deficits of $103 billion, or about $2.5 billion on average. General Electric has the largest deficit in its worker pension fund, with $22 billion….

Gee, incentives. What’s State Treasurer Clint Zweifel’s excuse?

Previously: High Broderism: the debt, the debt, it’s the debt…. (November 16, 2012)

From CNN’s election exit polling in Missouri:

Most Important Issue Facing Country

Foreign policy:4%

Deficit:14%

Economy:59%

Health care:21%

Interesting. The deficit came in a distant third.

And the poll numbers nationally?:

The Real Mandate: CAF/Democracy Corps Election Poll 2012

By Democracy Corps/Campaign for America’s Future

November 8, 2012

….voters disagree strongly with the priorities of the elite consensus congealing around the president’s deficit commission co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, and his own discussions of a grand bargain with House Speaker John Boehner. Those discussions suggest a deal that trades cuts in Medicare and Social Security for tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and corporations while gaining revenue by closing loopholes – a sort of Romney-lite tax reform.

When it comes to a deficit reduction plan, Americans have clear ideas.

They want tax rates to be raised on the wealthy. 68 percent find a plan that did not raises taxes on the rich “unacceptable.” 70 percent support a plan that raises taxes on the top 2 percent while keeping the taxes of others at the same level. 63 percent would find a plan that continued to tax investors’ income at lower rates than worker’s wages unacceptable. 75 percent would support a plan to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires. 67 percent finds a plan that lowers tax rates on corporations or the rich unacceptable.

They do not want Social Security benefits cut over time. By 62 to 31, they would find a plan that did that unacceptable.

They do not want Medicare payments cut or capped: 79 percent, nearly four out of five, find capping Medicare payments forcing seniors to pay more unacceptable.

By 50 percent to 41 percent, they favor a deficit reduction plan that starts with closing loopholes and raising tax rates at the top, and excludes cuts to Medicare and Social Security over one that closes loopholes but “gets entitlement spending under control, including reducing the growth of Medicare and Social Security.”

The public is very skeptical of the $1.5 trillion in across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending over the next 10 years that Congress has already passed Most Americans do not share the scorn of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan for poverty programs providing a “hammock” for the lazy.

Seventy-five percent – three-fourths of the country – find a plan unacceptable if it requires deep cuts in domestic programs without protecting programs for infants, poor children, schools and college aid.

Moreover they embrace the president’s argument that we should reduce the deficit and invest in areas vital to the economy at the same time. By 70 percent-27 percent, they support a plan to cut “wasteful spending and abolish special interest tax breaks and subsidies so that we can invest in infrastructure and technology and make sure we support education, Medicare and Social Security which are key to the middle class, over a statement that we have to cut spending seriously and that will require across the board reductions in the size of government….including education, Medicare and Social Security….

Simpson-Bowles. Ah, yes, on the Internets it’s known as the “Cat Food Commission”.

All we have to fear is:

High Broderism – Also frequently seen as merely “Broderism.” A fetishistic attachment to bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake; reflexive adherence to false equivalencies, regardless of whether what one side says is patently insane. The result of forty years of believing that Dirty Fucking Hippies may be hiding under your bed. Whereby a center-right pundit, often Broder himself, decrees that bipartisanship is a good thing and can be achieved if only everyone would agree with the center-right pundit. For the last ten years or so, High Broderism has been the shorter version of virtually every op-ed from David Broder.

A press relase today, from State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D):

For immediate release:

November 19, 2012

[….]

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel joins Campaign to Fix the Debt to urge leaders in Washington to reach bipartisan consensus

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel [….] has joined The Fix the Debt Campaign, a national bipartisan group dedicated to finding a long-term resolution to the current fiscal crisis facing the United States.  Treasurer Zweifel will be chairing the state’s steering committee. Treasurer Zweifel oversees state investments, invests state tax-dollars and ensures Missouri’s Aaa credit score is protected.

“The reality is that the math is simple, it is the politics that are hard,” Treasurer Zweifel said. “And it’s time for Washington to put politics aside. Fifth graders in Missouri can do the math required to fix these problems but it is going to take our politicians getting off the school yard and working together to get things done. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem and there isn’t going to be a Democrat or Republican solution. It’s America’s challenge and our opportunity to show the world why we still continue to lead.”

To learn more about Fix the Debt, you can visit their website http://www.fixthedebt.org.

Uh, oh.

Via Twitter:

Jeff Mazur ‏@jmaz

You a Dem signing onto http://www.fixthedebt.org  agenda? Get ready to explain to key constituencies why you want to “reform” Medicare/Medicaid. 11:14 AM – 19 Nov 12

sethdmichaels @sethdmichaels

“Fix the Debt” is like a doctor you go to when you think you’re having a heart attack but when you come to they’ve given you a facelift. 3:21 PM – 19 Nov 12

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D):

Clint Zweifel ‏@ClintZweifel

It’s time to put politics aside, work together for fiscal responsibility & show the world why we still continue to lead. #MOTreas 2:25 PM – 19 Nov 12

The republican version of bipartisanship is that Democrats get to hand them the keys to the store, Democrats get to back the republicans’ truck to the loading dock, Democrats get to load the truck for the republicans, and then the Democrats get to smile and wave while the republicans drive away with the inventory. Almost everyone else then suffers.

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@ClintZweifel That’s easy. Let dubya’s windfall tax cuts for those making $250,000+ a year expire. Invest in public infrastructure not war. 5:13 PM – 19 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@ClintZweifel If we had wanted a cheerleader for the “Cat Food Commission” and High Broderism we would have voted for Cole McNary (r). 5:17 PM – 19 Nov 12

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

All I want for Christmas is some High Broderism 8:24 PM – 19 Nov 12

Michael Bersin @MBersin

@ssnich Or “clean coal” in your stocking. Same difference. 9:48 PM – 19 Nov 12

Tony Messenger should be really, really happy.

High Broderism – Also frequently seen as merely “Broderism.” A fetishistic attachment to bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake; reflexive adherence to false equivalencies, regardless of whether what one side says is patently insane. The result of forty years of believing that Dirty Fucking Hippies may be hiding under your bed. Whereby a center-right pundit, often Broder himself, decrees that bipartisanship is a good thing and can be achieved if only everyone would agree with the center-right pundit. For the last ten years or so, High Broderism has been the shorter version of virtually every op-ed from David Broder.

Because the conventional wisdom evidently always thinks cutting revenue to the benefit of the top quintile is a good idea:

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. [pdf]

From a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [CBPP] report released yesterday:

Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends

By Elizabeth McNichol, Douglas Hall, David Cooper, and Vincent Palacios

November 15, 2012

A state-by-state examination finds that income inequality has grown in most parts of the country since the late 1970s.  Over the past three business cycles prior to 2007, the incomes of the country’s highest-income households climbed substantially, while middle- and lower-income households saw only modest increases.

During the recession of 2007 through 2009, households at all income levels, including the wealthiest, saw declines in real income due to widespread job losses and the loss of realized capital gains.  But the incomes of the richest households have begun to grow again while the incomes of those at the bottom and middle continue to stagnate and wide gaps remain between high-income households and poor and middle-income households….

Today, from Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Former Sen. Kit Bond (R) and Gov. Bob Holden (D) kick off a bipartisan “Fix the Debt” campaign in Missouri on Monday. http://www.fixthedebt.org 3:14 PM – 16 Nov 12

A response:

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess Seriously? Kit Bond? The guy who voted for Bush II era economic policies and two wars “off the books” is now suddenly concerned? 4:24 PM – 16 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

@MBersin Michael, we’re all concerned. The time to play partisan politics is gone. It’s good news that Ds and Rs are standing together. 4:25 PM – 16 Nov 12

Was that good advice in January 2009, too? It’s just too bad for everyone else that republicans then had no intent of following it.

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess Really concerned about the debt? Hope Congress does nothing. Sequestration and expiration of Bush II revenue cuts would cut debt. 4:29 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess But it’s not about cutting the debt. They just want to diminish or remove the social contract. 4:32 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin@MBersin

@tonymess It’s interesting who isn’t included in the “fix the debt” group. No one from labor, eh? 4:34 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess Pete Peterson Foundation? Uh, they’re into gutting Social Security. has nothing to do with the debt. 4:40 PM – 16 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

@MBersin Clint Zweifel, who is pretty darn close to labor, is on Missouri’s Fix the Debt group. 4:42 PM – 16 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

@MBersin I just fundamentally disagree with you. I think that both sides see a real need and opportunity to come to a deal. 4:43 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess And, I was referring to the web link which you provided. Any labor there? 7:22 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess And that deal is on who’s terms? Continuation of a documented redistribution of wealth upward? CEOs at the table. Why not workers? 7:25 PM – 16 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess I’m curious. Do you believe that Social Security contributes to the national debt? 7:28 PM – 16 Nov 12

From the same CBPP report:

[….]

Causes of Rising Inequality

Government policies.  Government actions – and, in some cases, inaction – have contributed to the increase in wage and income inequality in most states.  Examples include deregulation and trade liberalization, the weakening of the safety net, the lack of effective laws concerning the right to collective bargaining, and the declining real value of the minimum wage.  In addition, changes in federal, state, and local tax structures and benefit programs have, in many cases, accelerated the trend toward growing inequality emerging from the labor market.

Expansion of investment income.  Forms of income such as dividends, rent, interest, and capital gains, which primarily accrue to those at the top of the income structure, rose substantially as a share of total income during the 1990s.  (Our analysis captures only a part of this growth, as we are not able to include capital gains income due to data limitations.)   The large increase in corporate profits during the economic recovery after the 2001 recession also widened inequality by boosting investors’ incomes.

[….]

States Can Mitigate the Growth in Inequality

Make state tax systems more progressive.  The federal income tax system is progressive – that is, it narrows income inequalities – but has become less so over the past two decades as a result of changes such as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Nearly all state tax systems, in contrast, are regressive.  This is because states rely more on sales taxes and user fees, which hit low-income households especially hard, than on progressive income taxes.  (The income inequality data in this report reflect the effects of federal taxes but not state taxes.)

[….]

The current debt High Broderism wants to perpetuate the world of Bush II. And the rest of us will get to live in their very real dystopia.

A conversation today via Twitter – it started with this:

No Labels ‏ @NoLabelsOrg

36% of Americans identify as independents, but politicians keep moving toward the extremes. 12:15 PM – 12 Mar 12

Retweeted by Tony Messenger

[emphasis added]

Michael Bersin ‏ @MBersin

@tonymess Uh, you might want to check out the connections between No Labels and Americans Elect. Astroturf 501c4 1:59 PM – 12 Mar 12

Tony Messenger ‏ @tonymess

@MBersin Both organizations have a place in the political conversation, in my opinion, though I wish all the funding was transparent. 2:06 PM – 12 Mar 12

“…I wish all the funding was transparent.”

I’m hoping that was intended irony.

The connections between No Labels and Americans Elect, bastions of High Broderism:

No Labels and Americans Elect: A List of Known Connections

Jim Cook 7/28/2011

Americans Elect is a 501c4 corporation founded last year and headquartered inside the Washington DC beltway that does not disclose the identity of the people who are funding it.

No Labels is also a 501c4 corporation founded last year and headquartered inside the Washington DC beltway that does not disclose the identity of the people who are funding it.

A major goal of Americans Elect is to run its own candidate for President of the United States in 2012. A major goal announced by No Labels at its launch is to organize in all 435 congressional districts and spend money to influence campaigns for Congress in 2012….

Go, read the whole thing.

Back to the Twitter conversation:

Michael Bersin ‏ @MBersin

@tonymess Both organizations are almost one and the same. Transparency? Heh. That’ll be the day. And the myth of the political independent. 2:17 PM – 12 Mar 12

Tony Messenger ‏ @tonymess

@MBersin Myth of the political independent? So I don’t exist? 2:23 PM – 12 Mar 12

Michael Bersin ‏ @MBersin

@tonymess Anecdote does not equal data. 2:25 PM – 12 Mar 12

Tony Messenger ‏ @tonymess

@MBersin Perhaps we need more than 140 characters. Are you saying there’s no such thing as a political independent? 2:26 PM – 12 Mar 12

Michael Bersin ‏ @MBersin

@tonymess More than 140 is a good idea. True independents exist, just not in the numbers groups like No Labels and “conv wisdom” promote. 2:29 PM – 12 Mar 12

Not old media conventional wisdom:

Setting the Record Straight: Correcting Myths About Independent Voters

Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist July 7th, 2011

….It’s true that independents are a diverse group. But that’s mostly because the large majority of independents are independents in name only. Research by political scientists on the American electorate has consistently found that the large majority of self-identified independents are “closet partisans” who think and vote much like other partisans. Independent Democrats and independent Republicans have little in common. Moreover, independents with no party preference have a lower rate of turnout than those who lean toward a party and typically make up less than 10% of the electorate. Finally, independents don’t necessarily determine the outcomes of presidential elections; in fact, in all three closely contested presidential elections since 1972, the candidate backed by most independent voters lost….

More on the Twitter conversation:

Tony Messenger ‏ @tonymess

@MBersin Well, I am one. And unless the political scientists and pollsters are all being duped, they think they exist, too. 2:32 PM – 12 Mar 12

Michael Bersin ‏ @MBersin

@tonymess Yes they do, just not in the numbers or with the political effect that conventional wisdom bestows upon them. Overton Window, too. 2:34 PM – 12 Mar 12

Thus endeth the conversation. Though, Tony Messenger is always welcome to comment around these here parts.

The Overton Window:

….The current location of the Overton Window is so far to the right of any objective political spectrum, that what are now considered Extreme Left Positions are really not extreme at all….

That is, the Overton Window has been pulled so far to the right that the republican politicians in the past who supported family planning, contraception, a health insurance mandate, investment in public infrastructure, a somewhat responsible budget view that included increasing revenue (and on and on) are considered heretics by today’s republican Party. And a handful of progressive bloggers in Missouri are considered a den of radical leftists.

Go figure.