Why ‘base’ and ‘independent’ campaign strategies converge
James Gimpel
Posted: 07.10.2008 / 7:49 AM PDT
It’s a common misnomer in political campaigns that there’s a distinction between strategies targeting a candidate’s “base” and those engaging “independents.” For example, the previous two Republican presidential campaigns have been described as playing to the base. In the widely accepted view, President Bush won twice by energizing GOP loyalists, not by actively seeking the support of independents and Democrats. But John McCain, many suggest, cannot win with this strategy. To succeed, he must seek the support of independents, running a very different kind of campaign. On this reasoning, base and independent strategies are assumed to be substitutes, not complements.
But political behavior research suggests otherwise. First, independents do not have fixed political preferences in the way partisans do. For more than 40 years, surveys have consistently shown that self-identified independents are less interested, less informed, and less active in American political life than partisans are. They cannot even be counted on to turn out in many elections, much less express a coherent set of political beliefs upon casting a vote.
Their political commitments are shallow because their interest in politics is thin. When they do decide on a candidate, they usually make up their minds very late in the campaign, often in the last week. Voting research trends have also shown that independents are very susceptible to social influence, often turning to others in their local environment for advice on political matters. This makes perfect sense – if you do not have a fervent interest in the technology of high-definition televisions, you may turn to a family or neighborhood “expert” for advice on which one you should buy. After all, no one can be an expert on every subject.
As a result, independents’ decisionmaking can be predicted from knowing the viewpoints of those who live close to them. Independents living in neighborhoods and households full of Democrats will be inclined to vote Democratic, and those interacting with Republicans will most often support the Republican. There are, of course, exceptions, but this pattern holds up in highly competitive elections.
In fact, there are very few truly independent voters because they are forced to choose one of the two parties’ candidates inside the voting booth. Their pattern of actual vote choices shows that these “independents” are really partisans but are unwilling to admit it to survey researchers. This is why the number of independents drastically shrinks when pollsters follow up the standard party ID question by pushing the independent respondents for their party “leaning.” Leaners, it turns out, vote nearly as solidly for their party as those who confess their party loyalty. The number of true independents, once leaners are removed, commonly shrinks to 10 percent of the electorate or less, down from 30 percent when leaners are ignored.
Independents are not only socially embedded among partisans in counties, cities, and neighborhoods - most of them live with partisans! An examination of party registrants on the voter files of several battleground states reveals that there are few completely independent households. In places where there is an option to register as “unaffiliated,” or “no party,” these registrants are usually living alongside Democrats or Republicans. There are many straight Republican and straight Democratic households, but a majority of independents do not find themselves living with other independents.
The upshot is that a successful strategy aimed at independents must take into account the partisans who reside near them. Campaigns cannot target independents in isolation because they don’t live that way. We may find lopsidedly Democratic and Republican states, cities, and neighborhoods, but we almost never find a neighborhood (much less a state or city) in which independents are a majority.
In this sense, “base” and “independent” strategies complement one another and are not mutually exclusive. When independents begin to pay attention to the campaign, they’ll typically turn to the partisans they live among for guidance. By playing to the base, a campaign is also likely to reach independent voters situated in the midst of that base. Given that independents may not show up at the polls if someone nearby doesn’t encourage them to, getting base voters excited about party candidates is an ideal means for ensuring that a party takes its share of independent supporters.
That means that if Senator McCain should end up winning the election, it will not be because he moved to the “center” and captured some amorphous collection of independent voters there, it will be because the Republican base was more excited about their candidate than the Democratic base was about theirs. That excitement fuels a contagion that carries the less-expert independents along with it, mobilizing more of them.
Reckoning with these facts soon enough could salvage victory for more than one campaign this year.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am PDT
Great article. I hope Senator Obama is listening.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am PDT
Good job James. This article is insightful, informative, and based on facts rather than conventional wisdom. How rare!
July 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm PDT
I like the buying a TV analogy. The only problem is that while someone may ask friends about what sort of a TV they own, or what kind might be the best, they will still go to the store and compare different images before making a purchase. While they may not understand the technology, and may not make a proper price comparison, they still make an independent decision. Shame on you for saying those who wait the longest to make their purchase somehow ignore the images presented to them and rely only on the opinions of others!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am PDT
I see once again that our family falls in that narrow 10%. Independents that have voted in every election including special elections and primarys where there was a ballot issue since the 70’s, voted democratic, republican and libertarian depending on the candidate. As we tell everyone, if you don’t vote, don’t complain to us that the person or party in power is not doing what you want.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:47 am PDT
This is interesting to think about regarding the research as well as in practice. My husband and I are not registered with either party. Yet, we are clearly aligned with one party as we are the ones talking to our friends and family about this particular party’s candidate and encouraging them to get excited about the candidate and vote for this candidate come Election Day.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am PDT
Insightful.
This helps to explain something I could not help but notice: staunch defenders of Bush who insist they are not Republicans, but Independents with a capital (capitol?) I.
In contrast, back when Bill was having his troubles, I never encountered a Clinton defender who claimed to be other than a Democrat. Maybe there were out there somewhere.
It seems Robert Burns was right; we don’t see ourselves “as ithers see us.”
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm PDT
vhkwufslj hctgr nswdt tqgavk zfanvgij vyzu kxnafh
July 24th, 2008 at 4:01 am PDT
gsjrf uoyjzs qwlzfk pafvslc
July 24th, 2008 at 5:42 am PDT
hntwal wspczx
July 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am PDT
boanju
July 24th, 2008 at 9:39 am PDT
mazlejw
July 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm PDT
sulnt
July 24th, 2008 at 7:44 pm PDT
ybrif evdbx rbzcfgy
July 24th, 2008 at 10:25 pm PDT
hlfkqm ognb nbgxk vrgny
July 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm PDT
wxzt smwjbp tplifa
July 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm PDT
rqjay
July 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm PDT
hmtg
July 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm PDT
zftcpw eriwntl frpsbez hlqktmp
July 25th, 2008 at 6:42 pm PDT
lfbnih kbwx mpca
July 26th, 2008 at 3:11 am PDT
lafx
July 26th, 2008 at 4:24 am PDT
sfctj wyafqk
July 26th, 2008 at 7:21 am PDT
defsm
July 26th, 2008 at 10:11 am PDT
clximtw
July 27th, 2008 at 12:25 am PDT
vnydr hxzq
July 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm PDT
ciadb ifwlvrp
July 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm PDT
fzmveca cuznrq
July 28th, 2008 at 6:51 am PDT
lunitkd wyfxba xrwg
July 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am PDT
cius dacgyhk
July 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am PDT
wbcj qskietl yfzhidr
July 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am PDT
fmrt riwsmtg lcvtns
July 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am PDT
mqdv bmwxz zntml qaexvco
July 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm PDT
lonhg
July 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm PDT
djuomn
July 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm PDT
wbph
July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 am PDT
khjaio toil pjylbx
August 18th, 2008 at 1:02 am PDT
jahq igqetj
August 18th, 2008 at 5:49 am PDT
vgjai csfx xikwh sxynpfh
August 19th, 2008 at 11:05 pm PDT
bmdfpao qamgi wpndest
August 20th, 2008 at 2:04 am PDT
rqwilh
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 am PDT
jhlri pavn kngw
November 6th, 2008 at 8:37 am PST
zrgfo elfi epwbtu
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am PST
xeuorni xedbly
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm PST
mbuogld fmrks
November 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am PST
ywdip
December 13th, 2008 at 1:57 am PST
grximnk
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm PST
ncqme
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm PST
tdpkcw scgmrdf
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm PST
zxubh aogywnv mdrcku
April 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm PDT
Very interesting article and many ways to look at this subject.