“The biggest misreported part of this election is that you have large numbers of independents who went for Obama now going for the Republicans. Not true,” said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.
Democratic-leaning independents who turned out big time in 2008 are being compared to a smaller number of conservative-leaning independents this year who likely include a fair number of “Tea Party” attendees, the professor said. The apparent swing among independents is a function of who turned out Tuesday and who didn’t, he said.
While a major storyline coming out of Tuesday’s results has been that skittish moderates abandoned Obama and fled to the GOP out of concerns over rising deficits, there is little evidence in exit polls to support that. Of Obama voters who showed up in Virginia Tuesday, only 12% slid to Republican Bob McDonnell, according to exit polls. With John McCain’s 2008 voters defecting to Deeds at a 5% rate in the same surveys, the net trickle away from Obama is hardly enough to explain, or even substantially contribute to, McDonnell’s 59% to 41% trouncing of Democrat Creigh Deeds.

—Josh Gerstein, “Did independents snub Obama?”, Politico, last night

Thank you, Professor Sabato. For quite a number of weeks now, we’ve been treated to the repeated-ad-nauseam line by political journalists, consultants and pollsters that “independents” have swung wildly from Obama to the Republicans and that they have done this because they are concerned about “big government” and “the deficit”, and after voting last year for the candidate who promised big changes now want the status quo.

Wow. All these people who are so happy with the way things are!

This sounded really strange to me, because the presumption—or, I should say, the representation—is that “independents” means what it used to mean: swing voters who are non-ideological pragmatists. “Centerists.” “Moderates.”

What no one seemed to notice was that the very terms “centrists” and “moderates” have been quietly redefined to mean “in favor of the status quo.” Just ask, say, Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, and Joe Lieberman. Not to mention virtually every political journalist and political consultant.

So now we’ll be treated to members of Congress running, running, running away from meaningful health insurance reform. Be prepared for “The Public Option Is Dead” headlines.

Which makes me wonder why, suddenly, so many Republicans are now identifying themselves to pollsters as independents. And whether the remarkable drop in the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans isn’t part of a clever orchestration to control the outcome of the current legislative battles on, among other things, health insurance.

I mean, if—as appears to be the case—all that matters to politicians and pundits is the opinion of a majority of “independents,” whether they are in fact independents or instead are “independents,” then the way to influence legislative votes is to identify yourself in exit polls or tracking polls as an independent.

So here, progressives, is my plan: simply identify yourself to pollsters as an independent.

Ah. There. The public option may not be dead after all. But the careers of “centrist” and “moderate” members of Congress may be. Somehow, status quo does not sound like a winning ideology.

It' s the way of the world. To move away from the status quo you have to convince the voters that the positive of the changes will outweigh the negatives. Its like in Congress where a tie is a loss. Despite having elected Democrats as a protest against the past, it still doesn't mean the American public necessarily agrees with the Dems on that positive/negative balance.

If you're looking for a Fray board to post on about anything,consider this one...

<link