Independents?

the myth of the independent voter

interesting read and timely to your thread.

 

If you're truly an independent, your choice should be simple in 2012: vote Obama. The differences between the parties have pretty much all been Obama trying to push old moderate Republican policies and Republicans opposing their own prior proposals apparently because they were brought up by a Democrat.

For a center-right candidate, Obama's a good choice. For a radical-kook candidate, go with whomever the GOP winds up with.

That's all pretty snarky, but look into what Frank Zappa called the Right Wing Media Myth. There is no center except for one that is constantly moving and in the same direction every time. Because one party keeping moving right and the other party keeps following them. Seriously, it's like all anyone has to do is say "socialist" into a microphone and everyone takes a step to the right.

Richard Nixon was, in many ways, a bigger liberal than Clinton or Obama and Ronald Reagan could never make it out of today's GOP primary - he'd be the first to drop out from low numbers - because he would be more moderate than anyone else in the field by miles, which should give you an idea of how things have been moving for literally decades. Today's GOP makes George Bush the first look like FDR.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could be an independent. It's not a choice between left and right anymore; it's a choice between right and waaaay right. Whichever you choose, it should be a pretty easy choice to make.

 

It is true at least in my case. I am a democrat leaning independent, but I would vote for the right Republican moderates. Many Republicans really turn me off with their social issues. The Republicans were not fiscal conservatives when they were in power last few times, only when they were not in power have they cared about the debt, we will see if next time they are in white house will they cut federal spending include DEFENSE budget.

 

Good article. I've said for years that most "independents" aren't so. My definition of a legit independent voter is one who truly doesn't identify with either party and who's vote is actually up for grabs. A person that votes for the same party 90% of the time election after election is fooling themselves if they wear the independent label. A person who revels in harsh criticism of one party but not the other isn't independent. They are partisan. I'm not "torn between the two political parties" at all. I dislike them both.

IMO, legit independents probably make up only about 10% of the electorate.

 

But independents are easier to swing than self identified Democrats and Republicans even if they lean one way or the other. I lean Democrats on many issues, but if a moderate like Daniels who is not very conservative on social issues and who is a reasonable fiscal conservative joins the Republican race, I will vote for him over Obama who I think is an OK but not great president.

 

I would consider myself an independent voter. I lean right when it comes to economic issues, but a little left on social. Of course, the issues I care about conflict constantly. I vote on the person running and where they 'stand' on issues. All politicians make promises they can't and wont keep, but if I believe the person will do the best job and what's best for the country's long term prosperity, not just mine, I'll vote for him/her.

 

The notion of an independent voter is a stretch. Its more about straight ticket voters vs those willing to vote outside of their voting history. Politics have become so polarized that its really killed off the true independent voter. Politicians now campaign on their party lines instead of their true beliefs.

I cringe when I hear people base their vote for the president on social issues.

 

Which is my biggest problem with Republican party, you are free to do anything you wish as long as you follow the Christian ways, or you pretend to follow the Christians way in many cases.

 

and 9% of them are lying.

 

How is it a catch-22? You vote on the pressing issues and what is important to you. I would venture to say that economic issues are pretty important right now.

 

I am officially registered as an independent and in local elections primarily support the Independence Party of MN (IP), Jesse Ventura's party. Nationally though I have generally supported Democrats.

Unfortunately the nature of how Congress is set up and the system using electors greatly favors a two party system. Since state by state organization is important along with majority control of a bi-cameral legislature. If we had something like a parliamentary system and / or a truly popular election for president those might change things but they bring other problems too.

 

I would just point out that, while true independents may be only something like 10% of the electorate, they are also the most critical votes. 45% of people will probably vote Dem; and 45% will vote GOP - those all the party identifiers and leaners. Outside of extremes when turnout is severe on one side or the other, how that last 10% distributes themselves often determines who wins elections. So yes, it's a small portion of the populace, but it's also a critical one.

 

The "myth" of the independent voter is a "myth." Belief one way = commie and belief the other way = racist. To be in the middle? Naw, that can't exist.

Whatever.

The thought that one cannot POSSIBLY have a different opinion is what makes the D&D near-unbearable.

 

Is it really the fact that you can't have a different opinion that disheartens you- or the fact that you can't stand having the facts underlying it challenged?

Cause a few years ago, I remember you in particular becoming apoplectic at the proposition that, in certain circumstances, a less regulated market is more inefficient than a more regulated market....which is not really a question of opinion...IMO.

 

Apoplectic. Pfft. I don't know as I've ever gotten apoplectic about much of anything, but I've been here long enough that anything is possible over the years. As to regulation, it's absolutely needed in some areas, and I recognize that, which is one of several things that irritates me about Libertarians. That they are so standoffish is another. I say again: I have no candidate, no party, and I've never had either of those things.

 

You can ignore facts all you want. But the reality is that the vast majority of people simply aren't truly "independent", and this is conclusively demonstrated in their voting records. No one is saying it's impossible - that's why the estimate was 10% instead of 0%.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

 

Okay. Did I ignore facts somewhere?

Generally, I'd rather vote for an economically conservative Democrat or a socially liberal Republican than virtually anyone else, yet those are few a far between. So, I do my best to try to vote for an individual and his/her policies/stances on issues than what their parties might endorse. If that's not stuck-in-the-middle, then I don't know what is.

 

Socially liberal Republicans aren't few and far between; they're just not invited to the party anymore. If they are elected they will be primaried, and hard, by the radicals that now run the party.

Obama is more economically conservative than anyone in the GOP leadership or running for the GOP nomination in 2012. So was Clinton.

The idea that Republicans were into balanced budgets, concerned about deficits ("Deficits don't matter." - Cheney), concerned about spending or were in any other way the fiscally responsible party is a myth that died for any serious observer with Reagan's first election. The Republicans are not the fiscally responsible party; they gave up that designation long, long ago. Their only contribution to the economic debate over the last 30 years is de-regulating everything (that worked out AWESOME) and slashing taxes for the rich and for corporations, also known as trickle down economics, or if you prefer George Bush the elder's characterization: "voodoo economics."

You have your candidate in Obama, a center-right president that is both fiscally conservative and socially moderate.