30 January 2008
Pollster Discusses How Independent Voters Affect U.S. Politics
John Zogby explains how political center of United States has been “reborn”
Pollster John Zogby is president and chief executive officer of Zogby International, a worldwide research and marketing firm based in Utica, New York, and doing business in more than 70 countries.
In the presidential races of 1996, 2000 and 2004, Zogby correctly identified the winners -- something no other major American pollster was able to do. Much of Zogby's polling is conducted using live telephone operators, but over the past decade he has developed an interactive polling methodology that has become extraordinarily accurate.
Zogby has said he believes this online polling methodology is where the future of polling is headed, as more than 90 percent of likely voters nationwide say they regularly log onto the Internet to check e-mail or get their news. Zogby has written a book on the future of marketing in America, which will be released in the summer of 2008. He lives in Utica with his wife, Kathy. He has three grown sons.
The following article by Zogby originally appeared in the January 2008 edition of Campaigns and Elections magazine.
(begin byliner)
Rise of the Independent
By Pollster John Zogby
President and Chief Executive Officer of Zogby International
January 28, 2008
What a difference a presidential campaign cycle can make!
The compressed primary election calendar this year has contorted the process of selecting major party nominees as candidates for the White House, but, interestingly, it has resulted in two of the most fascinating political battles we have seen in decades. Both Republicans and Democrats are still uncertain about who their nominees will be.
This is in part because of the political landscape on which these battles are played, as the political center has been “reborn.” And independent voters are a big part of that.
This rebirth, which necessarily means that we are seeing a corollary shrinkage in the percentage of voters who populate the outer fringes at both ends of the political spectrum, promises to have just as big an impact on the general election this year.
The 2004 election was an anomaly. It was one of the few instances in American history where voters immediately divided into two mostly equal hostile camps. Very few voters were undecided that year. I called it the Armageddon Election.
This year’s voters give every indication of being tired of the hostility.
The rise of the independent voter coincides with a dramatic increase in the level of distrust in the current political system, including the two major political parties. Voters have told us over the past few years that they are increasingly angry about the performance of national leaders. After a decade of hyper-partisanship, they want change. They are hungry for a leader who can unite the nation, competently manage the federal government, and intelligently run the war in Iraq. The anger we have seen in Iowa and New Hampshire was palpable.
These factors played big roles in the rise of Democrat Barack Obama in Iowa, as he rode a positive message of hope for a new direction for the nation to an upset win over rival Hillary Clinton. In New Hampshire, Clinton adopted the “change mantra” and eked out a come-from-behind win over Obama, indicating that no matter who the Democratic Party nominee is, their platform is clear. This was reinforced with Obama’s win in South Carolina, as voters there rejected a nasty political assault by former President Clinton, who was charged by members of his own party with injecting race into the Democratic presidential contest.
On the Republican side of the aisle, the standings of the candidates and the most important issues were more muddled in those early days of primaries and caucuses, but those candidates too worked to define themselves as the “agent of change” who would alter the status quo in the White House while keeping it in GOP hands.
In the early primary races, it has been the independent voter who has defined the race for the White House 2008, and, as we move toward the nominations and the general election, there is no reason to believe that will change. This begs the question, “Who are these voters, and what kind of candidate do they support?”
In Iowa and New Hampshire, independents are much like the rest of the electorate. They are as likely to be women as men. They live in cities, suburbs and rural areas in roughly the same proportions as mere partisans. Their annual incomes are comparable to the others in their state.
But there are certain differences, and those differences have had an impact.
In both states, independent voters were slightly less likely than others to have firmly chosen a candidate before the election. They also hovered around the middle of the ideological spectrum. Other Zogby polling of the American electorate last year gives us a clue as to why -- independents are more moderate because they do not hold strong opinions on political issues. When they do consume a meal of politics, they bypass spicy dishes and consume mild servings that won’t cause indigestion. You see that in their choices in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Voters have given us every indication that they are tired of the bickering. They want solutions. They want good management. They want someone who will not fight with the opposition, but instead will work with the opposition. They want a commander in chief.
Not coincidentally, what is clear thus far is that independents are showing up in large numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. They have given their support to candidates who represent a change -- not necessarily a radical or ideological change, but instead a change that doesn’t necessarily result in one party winning while the other loses. That’s a theme prominently voiced by Obama, which accounts for his ability to win widespread support. Republican John McCain is in the same category, and rode to victory in New Hampshire largely on that appeal, with the help of independent voters. And while Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, he won as much for his populist message and comforting demeanor as for his championing of a single big idea or theme.
I’ve been saying for over a year that this election will be won in the center, meaning that it will be more of a traditional election, as opposed to 2004, which was hyper-partisan. Independents are a major force in this trend. Our statistics from Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters who registered without a party affiliation were far more likely to call themselves moderates. In Iowa, 39.5 percent of them placed themselves in that category, while just 25 percent of all voters did. In New Hampshire, that difference was even more pronounced, with 45.6 percent of independents calling themselves moderate, compared to 31 percent of all voters. In both states, independents were less likely to classify themselves as conservative, but were as likely to be liberal as everyone else.
In Iowa, independents tended to be younger than the average voter -- 23.8 percent were between the ages of 18 and 29, as opposed to just 15.3 percent of the entire voting pool. Proportionally, far fewer -- just 11.3 percent -- were over 65, unlike 21.5 percent of total voters in the state. In New Hampshire, independents were spread across the age spectrum in the same percentages as the average voter.
Younger voters, including independents, helped put Obama over the top in Iowa, but they failed him in New Hampshire. There, in the Democratic nomination race, it was women -- who had favored Clinton early in the campaign but then peeled away to support the Illinois senator on caucus night -- came back to her in New Hampshire. By helping her win New Hampshire, it could be argued that they saved her presidential campaign.
Much was made of Obama’s efforts to bring many younger independent voters into the process with the lure that he practices a new kind of politics. What was unanticipated was that many of those independents in New Hampshire would find Clinton an attractive alternative. Between my final tracking poll, which was released the day before the primary, and the primary itself, Clinton gained 8.8 percentage points among independents, according to exit polls. Obama held steady among the same group. Clinton was also helped to victory by female voters who flocked to her side after an incident in which she teared up at a campaign stop.
Obama’s appeal extended to the South, where he attracted many new voters to the political process, winning by a massive 28 percent margin over Clinton in a contest charged with racial overtones.
As we move toward the general election this fall, independents in each state, each with a slightly different demographic makeup, will make their voices heard. The candidate who listens to this group and most effectively responds to their political concerns is most likely to come out ahead on Election Day.
(end byliner)
