Nice piece in TNR by Ruy Teixeira (the only political scientist I’ve ever seen wearing a purple suit– at a conference many years ago), about Obama’s mis-guided attempts to win over Independent voters:
we have a deal that severely undercuts Democratic policy priorities and cuts government spending just as the economic recovery is showing signs of tanking. Just how, exactly, did it come to this? The most plausible explanation is that Obama and his political advisors are convinced that striking a bipartisan compromise on debt reduction is the way to the hearts of America’s political independents, who famously abandoned the Democrats in 2010.
Following this logic, Obama’s actions—treating the Republicans’ extraordinary threat not as an illegitimate bargaining tactic but as an opportunity—begin to make a measure of sense. Since independents are supposedly fixated on a bipartisan compromise to reduce spending and cut the debt, Obama would use the leverage provided by the Republicans’ threat, in a judo-like fashion, to enlist both parties in a grand bargain to restore long-run fiscal health. As a result, independents would reward Obama for being, in that tired phrase, “the adult in the room” who stood up for their fiscal priorities.
Teixeira proceeds to bring the Political Science (in an area near and dear to my heart– and dissertation) pointing out that there’s not some mass of unaligned independent voters. The vast majority have strong Democratic or Republican preferences. They think and vote like partisans the vast majority of t the time. In conclusion:
These are the facts, but politicians, and Obama especially, seem to have a hard time grasping them. Perhaps that’s because independents are the Rorschach test of U.S. politics—you see in them what your beliefs and preferences incline you to see. Obama and his team want to see teeming hordes of voters who are above the partisan allure of party, untroubled by the bad economy (or, at least, not planning to vote on that basis), and pining for a Washington where the parties, darn it, just work together. So that’s what they see.
The administration’s chimerical search for the independents of their dreams has not served the country, nor the president, well.
Meanwhile, I think John Sides’ comments on Obama’s misread of things over at the Monkey Cage are also quite relevant:
Second, and more importantly, public opinion about political processes doesn’t have big consequences. It didn’t matter much during the health care debate, for example. And there isn’t much evidence that it cost Obama a lot of support during the debt ceiling fight, even if the publicfound that fight to be “ridiculous,” “stupid,” or “disgusting.”
But note the corollary: Obama allegedly wants to seek bipartisan solutions that allow him to be seen, particularly by independents, as “making Washington work.” This just doesn’t work. Not only because such solutions are hard to come by, but because the public cares more about fixing stuff than about how that stuff gets fixed. For this reason, a robust economy is a thousand times more helpful to Obama than are his bipartisan credentials.
Indeed. Obama is a really smart guy, but he’s not perfect. And it seems to be a case where he and his adviser would genuinely benefit from actual political science as he appears to be operating from a worldview at odds with what Political Scientists recognize as political reality.