8/9/16 Second Column for PennLive

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/08/call_yourself_an_independent_y.html#incart_river_index

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

  • Stealers Wheel, “Stuck in the Middle With You”

Like former Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared at the Democratic National Convention, many voters say that they cast ballots on the basis of candidate qualifications, not the party label.

Looking at actual voting behavior, however, it is truer to say that the party label shapes our evaluations of candidates.

Partisanship influences how we see election campaigns, the president, and the state of the nation. Going into the general election of 2016, party identification will be the strongest predictor of how voters will decide.

In recent elections, nine out of ten partisans voted for their preferred party’s presidential candidate.

Though there are more self-declared independents than either Democrats or Republicans, most independents turn out to have partisan leanings. Fewer than ten per cent of all voters are estimated to be truly independent.

Moreover, partisanship in the 21st century is linked to ideology. The Democratic and Republican Parties, nationally and in Washington DC, have become liberal and conservative parties, respectively.

By itself, partisanship and ideology are not necessarily bad things.  Partisans are more politically active and informed, and ideology promotes concerted action.

However, polarization of politics has serious implications for campaigning and governing. With voters moving to either end of the ideological spectrum, campaigns are geared less toward winning moderate or uncommitted voters in the center.

Rather, the goal is to mobilize the base, feeding dogma to the true believers and demonizing the other party, as we saw at the national party conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

As for governing, partisan hostility leads to gridlock, especially when opposite parties control separate branches. Stalemates between President Obama and Congressional Republicans over the federal budget, judicial appointments, and gun control have become routine.

No one knows exactly how the current age of animosity happened, but the causes almost certainly preceded the deadlocked presidential election of 2000 in which the Red State/Blue State map became prominent.

Maybe it started with the social movements of the 1960s and the conservative movement that formed in reaction. Or, it might have begun when the Cold War ended and Americans no longer had a common enemy.

Following the brief period of national unity after 9/11, liberals mobilized against the war in Iraq and the presidency of George W. Bush. Tea Party groups materialized in opposition to President Obama, Obamacare, and the massive 2009 stimulus bill.

New communications technologies, enabling like-minded folks to congregate virtually, have exacerbated partisan and institutional combat. Red and Blue Teams speak in their own media echo chambers.

Watching the conventions on MSNBC and Fox was like seeing alternate realities, one united and hopeful and the other divided and delusional, depending on your point of view.

No wonder growing numbers of partisan activists hate and fear the other party, according to a recent Pew study.

There is no indication that political polarization is disappearing. Though Donald Trump has alienated party elites, GOP voters are coalescing behind him to stop Hillary Clinton. The antics of Bernie-or-Bust activists at the DNC aside, fear of Trump is bringing most Sanders supporters into the Clinton fold.

As in previous years, the vast majority of states are likely to vote Red or Blue, and the election will come down to a dozen battleground states.

Historically, most voters make up their minds by the time of the party conventions, and 2016 appears to be no exception.

However, some evidence suggests that there will be a larger pool of persuadable voters this year. For one thing, the incumbent president is not on the ballot. For another, Trump and Clinton are highly disliked.

Voter dissatisfaction could increase support for the Libertarians or Greens. If either party polls 15 percent (a tall order for sure), it can participate in the presidential debates.

While the Clinton campaign will try to reactivate the coalition that elected Barack Obama twice, Trump wants to shatter and realign voter loyalties.

Angry voters see Trump as a disrupter who will shake up Washington. Polls show Trump’s nativist and nationalistic stands appeal to men and less-educated, working-class whites. This puts states with older, less diverse populations such as Ohio and Pennsylvania into play.

At the same time, minorities of color are expected to assume a larger proportion of the voting population and vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Together with increased support from women and the college-educated, Clinton is running well in Sunbelt states such as Colorado and Virginia.

With more people susceptible to campaign messaging, the way each candidate is trying to reach voters deserves greater scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, Trump is pursuing a different approach than what political professionals recommend. If he succeeds, political parties and campaigns, not to mention the nation, may never be the same.