Given the recent rightward leap of the Republican party, anyone who used to be a "moderate Republican" is now, willy-nilly, an independent. So, the fact that a majority of 'independent' voters will, in point of fact, vote for a moderate Republican candidate can't be considered surprising.

An analysis of yesterday's elections by our corporate media:

- Rethugs pick up 2 governorships
- Dumbs gain to congressional seats

- OBAMA REPUDIATED BY VOTERS

Per our corporate media, if rethugs win, Obama loses. Per our corporate media, if dems win, it is of no consequence.

Or, as we used to do it when I was a child, heads I win, tails you lose.

There is a US Senator whose favorite political story reflects his coming of age in the late 1960s, when he first entered politics professionally, and he was astonished to learn that millions of American voters named their first choice for President was Robert Kennedy... and their SECOND, was George Wallace.

He loves to say how that baffled him, and he shakes his head at how young and foolish he was.

Because, he explains, now he understands that popularity isn't rational. It's emotional. People do not move to an uncertain trumpet -- and the one thing that RFK and Kennedy had in common, was that they each stood for SOMETHING.

The analysis this morning is as meaningless as was the analysis prior to this morning...as, actually, is much of the speculation, opining, analysis and GUESSING that goes on and on and on daily with little or no affect or retention once it leaves the mouth/pen. But, then, WHAT would you have to write, or our paid for media have to print/"report"...let's see..HOW ABOUT FRIGGING INFORMATION that is sourced, true, and helpful!!!

The utility of the "independent as centrist" framework is that in today's polarized society it allows the politcal class to pull all politics to the right.

Progressives are told that if they want to pursue their agenda the most move away from a liberal (liberal having been framed as a pejorative) agenda to the center/right and compromise.

Conservatives (conservative having been framed as positive) are being told they are not conservative enough. In fact, compromise towards the center/left is punished.

As you say, the Left, Middle, Right is not really analogous to Democrat, Independent, Republican, but you cant expect the current group of "political analyst" to make such nuanced arguments.

I always thought "Independent" was one of thos self-congratulatory labels. "I think for myself", "Well, both sides have a point", yada-yada.

Dancer, if you didn't see the Tuesday edition of "The Daily Show," catch it in re-runs. Their election news team focused their keen analytical skills on... their election news team.

theAmericanist is correct.

Back in 2004, voters in exit poll said that they were voting based on "values". But it wasn't that they agreed with the values promoted by Bush and the Republicans, they just wanted to vote for a politician who had "values", any values that they truly believed in.

The Democrats in 2004 were still running as if they were ashamed of what they believed in. Many Democrats were trying to run as "Republican-lite" (all the policies, half the meanness). The voters rejected them in favor of people who appeared to believe what they say.

Obama won the election in 2008 speaking unapologetically about a progressive agenda that he believed would make the country better. But President Obama has shown a willingness, almost an eagerness, to compromise on his agenda. That makes it look like he didn't really believe what he said in the campaign.

So Obama's approval rating with "independents" like me -- liberals who refuse to join the Democratic party because if I did I would be supporting assh*les like Max Baucus and Evan Bayh -- has slipped. And my approval of the Democrats in Congress, which was never very strong, as slid even more as I watch the Democratic "leadership" allow their caucus to ignore the needs of Americans in favor of the "needs" of their contributers.

The analysis this morning is as meaningless as was the analysis prior to this morning...

The take away for me is this.

1. The "liberal" main stream media are Republican whores.

2. The "liberal" main stream media doesn't allow pesky facts like a democrat winning a seat not held in 140 years to get in the way of a predetermined story arc.

3. The "liberal" main stream media has determined that the "centrist" independent voters have sent a referendum signal to the White House. As to the variances of local politics, the complexity of "independents" voters, the fact that historically low numbers of voters are describing themselves as "republicans" and are probably calling themselves independents, and the fact the Virginia governorship has gone to the opposition party for the last 32 years, there is a great big collective "we'll have to leave it there" .

I think theAmericanist has it right. Absent some clear cut policy difference popularity does not depend on policy--it depends on things like charisma, credibility, conviction, trust etc. I think that is why liberals underestimate the impact of the crackpots on the right, Hoffman's loss notwithstanding. The nuts represent only a tiny portion of the electorate, but they can influence independents where there are no clear policy differences that are controlling. It is also plain that the public is deeply unhappy with the economy and therefore the direction of the country which is always bad for the incumbent and incumbent party and finally that the GOP base is a lot more committed than the Democratic base--I would argue due in part to the Democrats wasting too much capital on special interests and not enough on broad progressive initiatives. Democrats afford lukewarm help to the average working men and women and get lukewarm support as a result. The GOP can fool large portions of its most right wing supporters election after election and like Pavlov's dog they turn out to pull that GOP lever.

The Daily Kos has quite a different take, pointing out that low turnout among Democrats made all the difference and claiming that was due to frustration with the ineffectiveness of the Democratic leadership. More at

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Tonights-big-lesson

I propose renaming the category of independent to "miscellaneous". It's like that file folder of household bills and records that aren't banking, insurance, telephone, or whatever that don't have enough of any one thing to deserve it's own folder.

Although when that folder is the majority of your file drawer, you have an organizational problem...

Corzine lost because NJ's finances are a shamble and he's had to raise fees/taxes & curtail services all over the place.

Period.

Anyone who wants to spend months looking for nuanced larger "lessons" is wasting his time.

(Try to imagine what % of votes Schwarzenegger, whose state is in the same boat, would get if he ran today.)

The common link between independents is the idea that the two main parties are full of s__t.

And at this juncture let us all (including all you independents) reflect what sort of world we would be living in if we had gone all Mavericky with grandpa McCain and Dim bulb Sarah...what sort of state do you think the economy would have been in after a spending freeze.

john R, You make an excellent point, but one that goes over the head of folks who have been unemployed for the last year. There was a guy in our local papaer who wrote in to say that on the day the stimulus package was signed he said a prayer that 20 million jobs be saved. He then argued that 8 months later Obama is claiming that the stimulus saved 20 million jobs, but this guy thinks it is just as likely his prayer did the trick. Bottom line is if you kept your job you may or may not give Obama credit, but if you are out of work you want to blame someone and Dumbya is long gone.

Miller-McCune had a good piece a few weeks back on the so-called "political independents". It's here and worth the read: http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/independent-voters-are-generally-not-1361.

Thanks, Terry.

Two things worth noting: First, how much old school GOTV counts.

One great weakness of the Palin wing in the Republican party is that their roots in most of the country are pretty shallow. You can always find a lot of loose libertarian Randian, NRA talkers, but they're not famous for their skills at actually delivering votes. (just like anarchists never show up for meetings.)

Second, when conservatives get mad, they generally show up to vote to throw somebody out. When progressives get mad, they generally... don't show up.

What happened in NY 23 was pure turnout -- Hoffman had no local infrastructure, nobody who'd been voting for him for years, nobody who could identity his voters, hell, who knew Mabel and old man Pitterwald by name, could call 'em the night before and show up to drive 'em to vote in the morning. Dede S (thank God I don't have to learn how to spell that name) had all of that -- and gave it to Owens, who also had the Democratic infrastucture of the unions, and so on. (Another unremarked but not irrelevant fact is that the one thing Armey actually accomplished in Congress was closing bases like Fort Drum.)

What happened in Virginia and NJ fits the pattern -- progressives weren't thrilled with their candidates, and stayed home. Conservatives showed up to throw somebody out. In NY 23, conservatives managed to choke off Dede S candidacy, but they also motivated progressives AND the old school local folks to turn out to keep the outsider, out.

I'd bet a dime on a dollar that most 'Independents' are that way because they view both political parties as being bloated and corrupted by the power of money.

This is also a big part of the 'anti-government' backlash... Washington is viewed as bloated and corrupted by the power of money.

Unfortunately, they are correct.

Well, here's an "n" of 1: I identify myself as an independent. I'm a progressive by today's definitions, an aging hippie, a lapsed Dem. I just can't identify myself with a spineless, corporatist, bipartisan-loving party like the Dums anymore.

"Independent" is, certainly, not an exact term, nor does it mean "centrist".

We don't register party affiliation here in Virginia but my husband thinks of himself as a "yellow dog Democrat", while I think of myself as an "independent". Yet, he'd have been quite happy with SOBs like Baucus and Bayh (because they have a D after their name and the MSM tells him they're "moderate"), if it hadn't been for my pushing him to the left, constantly.

@ Frak - I can help make you "n" much greater than one. I cannot tell you how many people I know who left the Democratic party and became Independents after watching the party bend over for Bush/Cheney. And that was after all those years of watching it bend over for Reagan, and Bush I, and Newt's Congress (yes, Clinton was a big bender too). Steve is absolutely right at least in describing the independents I know: they are definitely not characterized by centrism. They are on the tail ends.

I'm a registered Independent and I'm way left of Leon Trotsky.