to realize why independents are "bolting" from the Democrats

After New Jersey and Virginia elected Republicans for governors a few weeks ago, the Administration and Democrats tried to spin those races as being determined by local issues, not national party issues.  Although Obama did campaign for Corzine and said Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House," and that they "work together" (on what exactly I could only imagine), it's more likely that local issues decided New Jersey and Virginia was more of a litmus test for national politics.

Maybe that helped Democrats rationalize the political atmosphere a few weeks ago, but now Democrat officials are starting to get alarmed about independents bolting from them.  The Politico article goes on to quote officials in several states theorizing the reasons behind it, with some citing a faltering economy, some citing spending, and some simply burying their head in the sand and refusing to see a real problem.

But it doesn't take a wonk to understand the public's underlying problems with the Democrats right now.
To begin with, independents (and a majority of Americans in general) are fans of fiscal responsibility.  And while they will support deficit spending when they believe it's necessary, independents right now can't help but notice the Democrats in power are treating the federal government like a credit card with no limits and no credit rating repercussions.  And making matters worse, the public is not seeing helpful results.  Maybe if they lived in certain nonexistent Congressional districts their jobs would be created or saved and they would be happy.  Instead, people in actual Congressional districts are getting a sense that the spending spree has benefited Wall Street, has had no positive effect upon dysfunctional automobile companies, and has not stopped unemployment from rising above 10%.  In essence, 2009 has been a year-long Black Friday, but the average citizen isn't even receiving a lump of coal in the stocking.

This has led to three readily identifiable classes of Democrats.  There are Democrats who are aware of voters' issues but are politically ensconced and can continue spending poorly with impunity.  There are Democrats who are not politically safe (indirectly including Obama) and do have to worry about 2010.  And then, as is made clear by the Politico article, there are Democrats who are completely tone deaf.

It's easy to identify members of each class simply by looking at the health care reform process.  In what may be one of the most under-reported aspects of the health care bill's spending, after Obama mandated that health care reform not cost more than $900 billion, and it became apparent (unsurprisingly) that Congress would struggle to reach the mark (the final House bill cost about $1 trillion), Congressional leaders opted to strip certain spending provisions and try to pass them separately, so that they wouldn't technically add to the final cost of the health care bill.  Most notably, there is a provision that would prevent cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.  I'll spare you the legislative history that has gone into this during the decade, but suffice it to say that the Democrats' plan to freeze these cuts will cost the government over $200 billion.  Now, it doesn't take a wonk to realize that legislation related to Medicare payments is legislation related to health care reform, but Democratic leaders figured that if this extra $200 billion + was added to the actual health care reform bill, even idiots would understand that the health care reform isn't as budget neutral as they're alleging.  If any of this sounded familiar to you, it's because a majority of the Senate, comprised of Republicans and over a dozen Democrats, already blocked that provision in its stand alone form over concerns about costs.  We see Democrats who are aware of voters' frustrations and try to get around it by outright obfuscation, and we see other Democrats refusing to play along.

As for the tone deaf crowd who have their heads in the sand, it doesn't take much time to refute them.  For example, in the Politico article Michael Dimock points to independents' distaste for partisanship and the Democrats' inability to move the health care bill along.  Dimock says the public "wants to see action."  Dimock's right to an extent, but the clear truth is that right now the Democrats' action is an attempt to push through a health care reform bill that a majority of Americans oppose.  The public wants to see action on issues like the economy.  The public does not want to see action on health care, or at least not the particular action the Democrats have in mind.

Meanwhile, several Democratic pollsters note that the composition of independents has changed from 2008.  Larry Sabato notes, “This was not the same group of independents who showed up in 2008.”  It's unclear whether Sabato is overlooking the importance of Barack Obama as a candidate in 2008, but any Democratic pollster who is relying on Obama's coalition to save other Democrats should join the 10.2% of jobless Americans.

Then there's John Anzalone, a veteran Democratic pollster who notes, “Independents aren’t just falling away from Democrats.”  Why does he say that?  Because the pool of independent voters is simply becoming more conservative than in the past.  Now anyone who reads that is probably wondering how the hell that fact could possibly help Democrats, since conservatives are still more likely to vote for Republicans, especially if incumbent Democrats can't control their spending.

Maybe the Democrats are just banking on having a Doug Hoffman in every race sapping votes from other Republican candidates in Congressional races.  If that's the case, Democrats have even more problems than we thought.

Washington we have a problem.