Independents and non-partisans

[grumbler]

I suspect a lot of people identify themselves as independents so that they can be anti-everything.

Almost certainly true, and almost certainly true of lots of Democrats and Republicans, as well.

[Eddie Teach]

There's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.

That's not really accurate. Obama won by 5 points. Clinton won by 5 points. Not sure how big Poppa Bush's margin against Dukakis was, but at least that much. And Reagan crushed Mondale. Only W's wins have been 50-50.

And of course the idea that those people should somehow form a monolithic bloc while swinging from party to party is pretty ridiculous in the first place.

[Razgovory]

Ooh.  Five points.  Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?

[Ed Anger]

I'm voting for LaRouche.

[Eddie Teach]

Ooh.  Five points.  Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?

It's the idea that every election one campaign should trump the other so badly they pick up nearly every "swing" voter that is ridiculous. It's quite rare because the nomination process tends to pick professional politicians who the party feels are electable. Picking up 60% of independents is a sign of a successful campaign. Picking up 60% of voters is a sign that the universe is conspiring in your favor.

[Razgovory]

Ooh.  Five points.  Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?

It's the idea that every election one campaign should trump the other so badly they pick up nearly every "swing" voter that is ridiculous. It's quite rare because the nomination process tends to pick professional politicians who the party feels are electable. Picking up 60% of independents is a sign of a successful campaign. Picking up 60% of voters is a sign that the universe is conspiring in your favor.

I'm unclear on this.  Is the problem that both sides pick candidates that are just so darn electable that they inevitably split votes right down the middle, or that they pick ev0l "professional politicians" who disgust everyone?  And who should they chose besides "professional politicians"?  Unprofessional politicians?

[Eddie Teach]

*Professional* politicians are experienced and trained so considerably less prone to making catastrophic campaign-ending blunders than an average schmo would be under the same circumstances. This helps keeps the races competitive and the margin of victory close.

[Razgovory]

*Professional* politicians are experienced and trained so considerably less prone to making cataclysmic campaign-ending blunders than an average schmo would be under the same circumstances. This helps keeps the races competitive and the margin of victory close.

I dunno, McCain made a pretty big mistake in picking Sara Palin as VP.  Do you have any proof to support your contention?  The article I posted had psychological studies.  Got anything like that?

[Eddie Teach]

Do you have any proof to support your contention? 

That professional politicians are better at avoiding saying or doing things that will kill their candidacy than normal folks? Seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, half* the things posted on Languish would kill a Presidential candidacy if one of the candidates said them.

*slight exaggeration

The article I posted had psychological studies.  Got anything like that?

Didn't read them. But considering the author's fuzzy interpretation of recent election numbers, I'd be inclined to doubt his interpretation of something more complex like a psychological study as well.

[Valmy]

There's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.

I am somewhat baffled by his description of an independent as somebody who is open minded about supporting either party.  It could mean any number of things.

And in any case the Obama-McCain election did not come down the wire.  Nor any other recent election besides the two Bush ones.

[Razgovory]

It was 10 points of 50%.  We never have a 70-30 split.  But you guys really want to tell yourself you are independent, special little snowflakes, then go ahead.

[Eddie Teach]

If independents voted as a block, they'd hardly be independents.

[Valmy]

It was 10 points of 50%.  We never have a 70-30 split.  But you guys really want to tell yourself you are independent, special little snowflakes, then go ahead.

So...if we did have a 70-30 split then I personally could be an independent, special little snowflake?

[Razgovory]

If the road only has two paths then they are going be moving in a group even if they think they are chartering their own path.

[Eddie Teach]

So...if we did have a 70-30 split then I personally could be an independent, special little snowflake?

You're a Texan Francophile; you already are.