Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

[Razgovory]

That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that. 

Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.

Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"?  If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.

[Valmy]

That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that. 

Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.

Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"?  If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.

So only people who have made no political position decisions can be independent?

[Razgovory]

That makes up around 40% of the population.  That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that.

Why would we expect that? People may be independent but that does not mean their individual positions change radically from election to election. Unless you are suggesting that from election to election the two parties are radically shifting their policy positions in the expectation that independents are going to flock to them but I do not see that happening very often.

The actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates.  People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals.  Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians.

Well duh Raz.

The only person I see who lumped 'independents' with 'moderates' is you. Radical independents are the ones who are powering things like the Tea Party. And, you know, FEEL THE BERN himself is an independent.

There is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.

There may be a big moderate middle but the Venn diagram with independents may not overlap as much as you seem to think or suggest that everybody else thinks.

What makes you think the Tea Party is made up of Independents?  And if peoples opinions don't change and the parties don't change then why call them Independent?  You already know what they are going to do.

[Razgovory]

That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that. 

Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.

Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"?  If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.

So only people who have made no political position decisions can be independent?

Fairly close, yeah.  Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values.  The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with.  For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers.  But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.

[DGuller]

DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.

I think the point I'm trying to make it very real, even if I haven't developed it well in this case. 

We'd like to think that as we gain more thorough understanding, our conclusions would become more and more correct without reversals.  What you got right originally you'll still get right, but you'll also get right some of the things that you previously got wrong.  It unfortunately doesn't always work this way.  Sometimes you start off getting things right by dumb luck, then learn enough to be dangerous and thus get wrong some of the things you previous had right.

[Valmy]

Fairly close, yeah.  Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values.  The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with.  For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers.  But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.

As you have already stated being 'Independent' could mean any one of hundreds of different things. For the foreseeable future my voting pattern is going to be indistinguishable from a Democrat. But that is subject to change as the facts on the ground dictate.

[DGuller]

Fairly close, yeah.  Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values.  The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with.  For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers.  But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.

I think you are certainly right about some independents.  Some think of themselves this way only because it's cooler being an independent voter than being a dependent voter.  But again, what I said before about the shifting of the parties very much explains the phenomenon.  If you do different things when conditions don't change, then you're not independent, you're just fickle or erratic.

[mongers]

So does particiapting in this thread amount to grinding/camping/levelling up?

(excuse the confusion but I've never played a MMORG, so don't know the terminology)

[frunk]

grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards
camping - occupying a specific location waiting for something to happen
leveling up - character becomes more powerful

I don't think any of us are leveling up, and the rewards for grinding are dubious at best.

[The Brain]

grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards

Often on a dance floor.

[Malthus]

grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards
camping - occupying a specific location waiting for something to happen
leveling up - character becomes more powerful

I don't think any of us are leveling up, and the rewards for grinding are dubious at best.

If I "camp" in this thread, "grinding" though its multiple posts, will I "level up" to become a higher-level thinker? 

[frunk]

If I "camp" in this thread, "grinding" though its multiple posts, will I "level up" to become a higher-level thinker? 

Only in the DGuller sense, which is to say not at all.

[DGuller]

Poker levels are different.  It's basically about how much you think about what other people think, with the aim of being one step ahead of them (and exactly one, it's easy to make a wrong move by overestimating an inferior opponent).  Just because you're capable of thinking at level 5 doesn't mean you should always play at that level.  The point is that you have an oscillating phenomenon, where sometimes a less thought out decisions is better than a more thought-out decisions.

[Eddie Teach]

  But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.

I just don't think this is accurate. I think the independent voters are more likely to vote split tickets. 

[DGuller]

Okay, here is a simpler example, it's just probability and statistics.  You flip a coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 6 times and tails 4 times.  Is this coin biased?

Level 1:  Sometimes you get heads, sometimes you get tails.  It's fair.
Level 2:  Fair coin gives you heads 50% of the time.  This coin did it 60% of the time.  It's biased.
Level 3:  There is not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair.
Level 4:  After seeing these 10 results, I think it's more likely that the coin is biased.

As you understand probability and statistics more and more, your answer tend to oscillate back and forth.  It happens fairly often, unfortunately.  Another annoying example is the "correlation is not causation".  Yes, someone who knows this knows more than someone who doesn't.  But someone who knows even more knows that it doesn't always matter.