Party ID numbers for January show something different than last month..
Independents are becoming more important.
In January, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell another tenth-of-a-percentage point. Now the number of Democrats is at the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports.
However, in January, the number of Republicans in the country dropped by nearly two percentage points.
Currently, 35.4% of American adults view themselves as Democrats. That’s down from 35.5% a month ago and 36.0 two months ago. Prior to last month, the lowest total ever recorded for Democrats was 35.9%, a figure that was reached twice in 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.
The number of Republicans is now down to 32.3%. The number of Republicans in the country has stayed between 32.3% and 34.05% in every month for the past 18 months.
The number of adults not affiliated with either major party is now up to 32.3%. That’s the highest number of unaffiliateds since the summer of 2007.
Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.
As has been the case in every month over the past seven years of tracking, there are more Democrats than Republicans in the nation. The gap is currently 3.1 percentage points, up from 1.5 percentage points a month ago.
Scott Rasmussen uses a “dynamic weighting system” with regard to his polls. He surveys 500 adults/day to find their party ID. He totals the results without any weighing of the numbers and at the end of the month, he comes up with the party ID percentage for that specific month. These numbers can be accessed on his public site. In fact, he published an article on party ID today.
At this point, he does something interesting. Instead of using the results from the preceding month to determine the party ID weights in his various polls, he combines the results from the previous three months and then averages these results. This can product a result that may not be the same as the preceding month, but it will give a strong picture of party ID trends over time. Usually, the difference between the weights that they use in their polls and the results from the preceding month are quite small.
Below is a table with the history of the party ID for this year.
Month / Repub / Democ/ Indep / Rep - Dem
Jan ‘10 / 32.3% / 35.4% / 32.3% / -3.1%
Dec ‘09 / 34.0% / 35.5% / 30.6% / -1.5%
Nov ‘09 / 33.1% / 36.0% / 30.8% / -2.9%
Oct ‘09 / 31.9% / 37.8% / 30.3% / -5.9%
Sep ‘09 / 32.1% / 37.5% / 30.4% / -5.4%
Aug ‘09 / 32.7% / 37.3% / 30.2% / -4.6%
July ‘09 / 33.3% / 36.8% / 29.9% / -3.5%
June ‘09 / 32.2% / 38.9% / 28.9% / -6.7%
May ‘09 / 32.6% / 39.4% / 28.0% / -6.8%
Apr ‘09 / 32.6% / 38.7% / 28.7% / -6.1%
Mar ‘09 / 33.2% / 38.7% / 28.0% / -5.5%
Feb ‘09 / 33.6% / 40.8% / 25.6% / -7.2%
Jan ‘09 / 32.6% / 40.9% / 26.6% / -8.3%
This table shows a clear trend toward independents. Self-identified democrats are starting to identify more as independents. Self-identified republicans increased in July. This was most likely caused by the “Tea Parties.” The increase in self-identified republicans in November was undoubtedly due to the enthusiasm regarding the elections in Virginia and New Jersey.
Where these trends will lead is open for discussion. However, listen to what Scott Rasmussen said in his article today:
Between November 2004 and 2006, the Demoratic advantage in partisan identification grew by 4.5 percentage points. That foreshadowed the Democrats’ big gains in the midterm elections. The gap grew by another 1.5 percentage points between November 2006 and 2008 heading into the election of President Obama. However, the gap is currently 4.7 percentage points smaller than it was in November 2008. It remains to be seen where the trend will head in 2010.
Keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not likely voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.
Party weights for their job approval poll as well as other polls are going to be affected somewhat. Below is a chart with the various weights used over the last few months.
Month / Repub / Democ/ Indep / Rep - Dem
Feb ‘10 / 33.1% / 35.8% / 31.2% / -3.4%
Jan ‘10 / 33.0% / 36.4% / 30.6% / -3.4%
Dec ‘09 / 32.4% / 37.1% / 30.8% / -4.7%
Nov ‘09 / 32.2% / 37.5% / 30.3% / -5.3%
Oct ‘09 / 32.7% / 37.2% / 30.2% / -4.5%
Sep ‘09 / 32.7% / 37.7% / 29.7% / -5.0%
Now for the fun part. Let’s see what will happen to job approval. I am going to make several assumptions about approval by party ID. Let’s pretend that the results of a survey shows this approval:
Assumptions
Rep: 20%
Dem: 80%
Ind: 40%
Using the percentages above, job approval would be, approximately:
Approximate Job Approval
Feb: 47.74%
Jan: 47.44%
Dec: 48.48%
Nov: 48.56%
Oct: 48.38%
Sep: 48.58%
So, what does this mean for job approval numbers?
Simple.
It will increase slightly.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Frank,
Great post. Thanks.
What sort of voter/non-voter registers as Independent?
1. I wonder if motor-voter laws have created a bulge of Independents who are really apolitical or politically uninformed. If this is the case, Independent turnout would be quite low for they really weren’t making a positive choice to be Independent, but rather a choice out of ignorance — Independent as the default party.
2. I wonder if political correctness has squelched the true number of Republicans. After all, those who call themselves “conservative” are far greater than those who ID as liberal. Those of us in academe, for example, don’t dare register as Republican. I’m sure other occupations have the same anti-Republican bias.
3. I wonder if Independent is really a meaningless ID, a pass-through position for those who are changing their political views, but aren’t quite ready to admit it to themselves. But this would assume voters are politically astute enough to change parties.
4. I would love it if we could find some data that proves increasing political polarization, not because I want a polarized country, but because there are scholars who seem determined to believe that a huge, middlin’ mass of people exist between the poles. I simply don’t see this. What I see is a mass of politically ignorant people who rarely vote between the poles, but those who vote and are politically knowledgeable seem to quickly polarize. To prove this, though, requires statistical skills I don’t have.
I’ve always wanted to take polling data and divide it into many subgroups, not two or three, because a more nuanced division of data may show the absence of a middle, or of centrist voters.
As an aside, this same polarization exists within religious groups (not between them). Within Protestantism, in particular, there are evangelicals/Pentecostals/charismatics/fundamentalists on the right, and a hard left composed mainly of university trained ministers and their ilk. Judaism, too, has lost members in the middle (as well as the left) as Orthodox Judaism has grown in number and influence. Ditto for Roman Catholicism, though it is more difficult to see the divisions in this heirarchical polity.
Anyway, enough musing for tonight. And, again, thanks for the great posting.
K
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 am
Kristen,
Thanks for the post. I love your thoughts.
Frank
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
A new WPA for 2009 is a chain gang solution to joblessness. Obama said: the interests of community are more important than are the interests of the individual. He promised change. Change must then mean to abandon individual freedom. The chain gang is one way to do so. You can call his ideas left, socialist, communist, fascist, monarchist or any others that turn you on, but in reality, there are only two different political forms. The oldest is where the few elite rule the many, part of all those labels. They have always favored a chain gang. The newest is where the many rule themselves, guided by a moral consensus and written law, i.e., individual freedom. Conservatives and libertarians say the interests of individuals are more important than are those of the community. They believe when individuals prosper, their families and communities prosper and government works best staying out of their way. Modern Democrats believe community interests are most important. They claim they can better define and govern community interests. They expand the role of government to serve those interests and as a few elite, will rule the many. This is the center of Obama’s chain gang. Claysamerica.com
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Frank:
This is a little off topic, but what do you think of Huckabee’s chance at 2012 now. I think he’s lost a good deal of momentum, but it was an honest mistake and looking at all the problems the state had before him he had to do some things like that.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
@Kristen: I am registered as an independent, and I think some of your assumptions might be a bit off.
they really weren’t making a positive choice to be Independent, but rather a choice out of ignorance — Independent as the default party.
Actually, most non-affiliated folks I know are more politically active and informed than partisans. Most independents don’t eschew the two majors out of ignorance, they do so out of displeasure with both groups, which requires knowledge of each.
I wonder if political correctness has squelched the true number of Republicans.
Yeah that is a possibility, although again, in my experience the unaffiliated are not particularly concerned about offending either side, while partisans on each side tend to embrace their own ideas of political correctness.
I wonder if Independent is really a meaningless ID, a pass-through position for those who are changing their political views, but aren’t quite ready to admit it to themselves.
I don’t find that one convincing at all. I think most independents reject the two-party paradigm as a whole — they’re not wavering at all, they’re doing the exact opposite. Political compromise is the lifeblood of the two majors.
there are scholars who seem determined to believe that a huge, middlin’ mass of people exist between the poles. I simply don’t see this.
Yeah there’s probably something to this one. That’s why it bugs me when people so often use “independent” and “moderate” interchangeably. I am an independent, in the sense that I don’t support either major party. That doesn’t make me a middling, vanilla moderate though — some of my views are very strongly held, and many are considered outside of the mainstream (I’m a libertarian). So yeah, I don’t like equating independence with moderate views.
I really don’t think we’re becoming more “polarized”, I just think the two major parties are leaving more and more people without a voice as they both move toward the center. And honestly, I don’t think very many people could be described as “centrists”; this is such a large and diverse country that nearly everyone has a specific set of priorities that color his or her political philosophy. It’s not about increasing radicalization, it’s about decreasing total coverage by the two major parties as they overlap more and more.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Charles,
I went to the Huckabee show a few weeks ago and I asked him about that after the show(he meets all the people afterwards, takes pictures, signs autographs, etc.). He said he was enjoying the show and wasn’t sure if he wanted to do it again, that “it’s rough out there”. I can’t blame him, he’s doing well with his show(#1 weekend show on cable), he enjoys doing it, doesn’t have the stress and hectic schedule a Presidential Candidate goes through, and probably gets paid well.
As we know, it’s early yet, anything is possible, and they all hold back the announcement that they are running until it gets closer. In my opinion Huckabee would make a GREAT president!
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:04 am
I have commented several times, at other sites, on the indie/unclassified voter issue. There is no clear answer on this matter. Here are the two big gorillas in the room.
1. roughly 30 states register by party. In the south only FL-KY-LA-NC have party registration. We have big states like CA-NY-PA with party registration but in the “progressive area” states of IL, OH and MI there is no party registration. My point is that we self indentify by party in 20 or so states. Here in TN I can vote in either party and change my ID on a whim. In AZ, CA or NY changing parties takes paperwork. Yet in closed primary states in 2008 we had in the democratic primary -5% of the people saying they were republican. How exactly do you identify yourself as a Republican when you are registered as a democrat? So the party ID issue is blurred a bit to start with.
2. the other gorilla is motor-voter. All these internet voter registration forms plus the generic ones that ACORN and other groups use (including the RNC) do not include a box for party identification. Some do but most do not. We are getting to be lazy and fast about doing everything so one extra box is more space on the form plus another questio/answer. So we are seeing election commissions gets +60% of forms (in the mail) without any party ID. Now states with closed primaries have been allowing party changes on election day or by other methods (early vote is an easy way to change address or party ID). So , generally, at the election commission level we are seeing more people with no party ID.
So the ties that bind on party ID is slipping or around hard to determine. I might add that Motorvoter is also creating more and more “unclassified” as to race voters. Many forms do not race as a question.
Strange that Motorvoter is leading to a partyless-raceless society. At least as far as voter ID at the local level
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
My guess is that Democrats will go down a point and a half, Republicans will gain a half a point, and indies will gain a full point. That would make Republicans be at 33.6%, Democrats at 34.5%, and Indies at 31.8%. I predict that over the course of the year, we will be heading towards a pretty even 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
good info Rdel
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I’m registered as a republican but I vote for the person who I think will do the job. I also know others who do the same. What’s the point?
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Mixplix,
Cool moniker.
Everybody votes for the person who will do the best job. That’s not the point.
The point is that opinion is shifting again. There was a 12 year period where a strong majority of people voted in favor of the republican candidate. In 2005 and 2006, the perception changed. The great PR machine of the DNC made the republican brand very bad. Self-identified democrats and support for generic democrats grew. This was largely due to the PR campaign against the Iraq War. The campaign was VERY successful and people got very “bushed”.
Today, the opposite is happening. The Speaker and Majority Leader are overplaying their cards and their democratic majority for life is going to disappear less than two years after the election of a democratic president.
This is a tendency that happens often. People do not like what the majority in congress or the President wants and they see somebody saying that they can do better. The problem usually is that it is much harder to run the congress than to criticize the congress.
The election of 1994 led to two distinctly oppositional things. One was a congress run by a republican leadership that pushed a responsible spending government (until 2003 or so). Two was the reelection of President Clinton. The republican majority forced President Clinton to tack to the middle and govern from the center. He was a very pragmatic president. He did what was electorally pragmatic.
The question becomes two-fold. One; will the republicans take over control of one or both sides of Congress. Two, if they do, what will President Obama do? Will he replicate President Clinton? If he does, then he may be reelected. If not, he is toast … just like President Carter.
A piece of history.
It is very seldom when there are three two-term Presidencies in a row. In fact, I can’t recall any.
True, it had been a LONG time since we had two two-term presidencies in succession. Can you remember the last time that happened?
Frank
January 3rd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
kristen, a couple of points of discussion in your comment #1. As far as polarization, normal people are shown to be in the middle; the parties are more polarized in congress, but not so much in governorships or the presidency. By that I mean that pres bush (either one) wasn’t nearly as far right as the republicans in congress, and clinton or obama arent as far left as the dems.
The reason congress (the house) is so polarized is because of 2 things, I think. First, house seats are gerrymandered to protect incumbents of both parties, so reps are in solid rep districts, and vice versa. Second, the south until recently, used to be a place for moderate dems, which made the overall dems more moderate. But they’ve become conservative reps. otoh, the northeast did the reverse for reps, and now theyve become liberal dems. So both parties are off the edge on a lib-con scale in the house, and will be so for awhile.
As far as religion, there’s a book that I recently read (not a very good book, but this was interesting) that divides americans into 8 clusters: african-americans (11%), white non-christians (14%), new minorities (11%), white catholic women (11%), nonevangelical white protestant women (11%), nonevangelical white protestant men (10%), white catholic men (10%), and white evangelicals (22%).
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
The citizens of Gardner, KS are currently working to recall two members of their City Council. The recall is tied up in the courts at the moment, but it should go to a vote in March of 2010.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
[...] Party ID / Democrats, Republicans, Independents » Right Pundits [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 4:00 pm
@Kristen,
Rhay said:
“Actually, most non-affiliated folks I know are more politically active and informed than partisans. Most independents don’t eschew the two majors out of ignorance, they do so out of displeasure with both groups, which requires knowledge of each.”
I never thought I would say this publicly, but I fully agree with Rhay here.
I am an Independent Conservative. I detest the Big Two, and i have voiced this on an article here on RP, known as “Let Our People Go”, and through other writings at other sites.
I am not an expert on the Dems or the GOP, but just because I don’t work at McDonald’s doesn’t mean I can’t tell you what a good hamburger should taste like. I am a bit more politically (I hate that word) active than some, but I am no blind party follower, either.
Anyhoos, please don’t discount all Independents as being flighty. We surely are not. Rhay is an Independent and I am an Independent, but we both represent different aspects of said Independence.
2010 will be the year that Independents make their real mark, as both the GOP and the Dems have royally made a mess outta things thus far, and folks are simply getting tired of their games.
Just an observation.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Can you imagine if ballots didnt just allow the few parties we see today and had to contain every possible variation of a subgroup and possible divison going into all the nuances we see whithin each of the basic groups today ?
I dont know if that would be as about as fair as the electorate could be in promoting true democracy or some undercover sublime plot to unlrash anarchy like weve never seen.
just a thought when you look at all the other crap we see happening that no doubt looks so well intebded up front but upon disection turns out to bf ulterior motives
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:57 am
I have always wondered why a party at all. Why can’t people run on what they will or will not do? Run on what they believe is the best for the people they want to represent? I understand the system where we use a primary election to choose the candidate from each party. Why can’t we have a ballot with everyone listed and no affiliation? Anyone who wants to vote (registered etc) votes. The top 2 or 3 from these elections then go on the ballot for November. I think it would be a welcome sight to see just names on a ballot. Not any type of party affiliation. This may force people to actually research the candidates based upon their merits and not solely on what party they belong to. I know there are a lot of people out there that are registered to a party that vote for the person they think will do the best job. I count myself as one of these. But I also know that there are plenty of people that go to the polls and look at the ballot for the R or D to decide their vote, often with out knowing one thing about the person they just voted for.
I’m just saying….
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:25 am
rowdym, they tried doing that in Kingston, N.C.
last year and the Obama administrations Justice Department overruled the electorate.
They felt blacks could not vote properly if there wasn’t a “D” next to the candidates name.
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/10/justice-department-rules-kinston-north.html