Republican hopefuls jockey for 2016

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Numbers can be misleading at times.

I know. Facts are quite confusing. That's why I don't let them bother me.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I know. Facts are quite confusing. That's why I don't let them bother me.

It IS a fact that most independent voters aren't really independent at all. Most independent voters do lean either right or left and tend to vote that way. Mass is notoriously liberal/Democrat and has an overwhelming number of elected officials that are Democrat. Registered Democrats in Mass outweigh registered Republicans 3 to 1, if you believe that 51% of the registered voters in Mass are truly "independent voters" who regularly vote for the best candidate, then the numbers of elected officials would bear that out, but they don't. Having lived here my entire life I do have first hand insight to this and personally know plenty of people who are registered as Independent or Unenrolled, but 99% of the time they vote Democrat. To say that Independent voters in Mass are what wins elections is a misnomer, the Independent voters in Mass are merely an extension of the Democrat party with a different name. I'm sure the same can be said for Independent voters in states that are overwhelmingly Republican.

But according to Tara McGuinness, a senior vice president at the Washington-based public policy research and advocacy group Center for American Progress, the apparent surge in the number of independents does not mean that most votes in the November presidential election between President Obama and his probable opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, are undecided.

Speaking at the Washington Foreign Press Center April 13, McGuinness said perhaps half of independents actually lean toward one of the two parties. In reality, she said, only about 15 percent of American voters are truly independent, voting sometimes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans, and they are statistically less likely to vote than their partisan counterparts.

My link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2016? I am not sure Romney will make it to the convention. If any of the negative charges stick, look for the Republican convention to be brokered.

[rocks 494]

Having lived here my entire life

This explains a lot.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Americans, he noted, “prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and inclined to judge candidates on their individual merit.” But, he finds, “Very few Americans lack a party preference.”

Although an increasing number of Americans are calling themselves independents, Petrocik argues this is “more a matter of self-presentation than an accurate statement about our approach to elections, candidates, the parties and politics in general.”

So why do so many fixate on what is, in many ways, a phantom population? Perhaps it’s because of the widely held misconceptions regarding what the term “independent voter” truly means.

In the public imagination, independents are a relatively stable demographic made up of engaged but unaffiliated people who can be persuaded one way or another. They are thought of, essentially, as swing voters. No doubt much of the fascination with how independents are thinking is based on that premise.

Which, it turns out, is false.

“There are an awful lot of people who call themselves independent because it’s fashionable in some circles,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “But their voting behavior is predictable. They are not swing voters.”

My link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It IS a fact that most independent voters aren't really independent at all. Most independent voters do lean either right or left and tend to vote that way. Mass is notoriously liberal/Democrat and has an overwhelming number of elected officials that are Democrat. Registered Democrats in Mass outweigh registered Republicans 3 to 1, if you believe that 51% of the registered voters in Mass are truly "independent voters" who regularly vote for the best candidate, then the numbers of elected officials would bear that out, but they don't. Having lived here my entire life I do have first hand insight to this and personally know plenty of people who are registered as Independent or Unenrolled, but 99% of the time they vote Democrat. To say that Independent voters in Mass are what wins elections is a misnomer, the Independent voters in Mass are merely an extension of the Democrat party with a different name. I'm sure the same can be said for Independent voters in states that are overwhelmingly Republican.

Not necessarily. There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans down here in FL. It's more down the middle 40% Democrats vs. 36% Republicans. Based on your model, Democrats should still have an edge in the state and yet, both chambers of the legislature are controlled 2/3 or more by Republicans and all statewide offices except for US Senator Nelson are held by Republicans. If the "independents" are really just an extension of the party registered electorate as you seem to suggest, then there's no rational explanation for this.

Plus, how does this liberal pack in MA end up with 28 years worth of Republican governors vs. 22 years worth of Democratic governors over the last five decades? Shouldn't the Democrats have held the governors office most of the time seeing that the "independents" are all just commies in hiding?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Not necessarily. There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans down here in FL. It's more down the middle 40% Democrats vs. 36% Republicans. Based on your model, Democrats should still have an edge in the state and yet, both chambers of the legislature are controlled 2/3 or more by Republicans and all statewide offices except for US Senator Nelson are held by Republicans. If the "independents" are really just an extension of the party registered electorate as you seem to suggest, then there's no rational explanation for this.

Plus, how does this liberal pack in MA end up with 28 years worth of Republican governors vs. 22 years worth of Democratic governors over the last five decades? Shouldn't the Democrats have held the governors office most of the time seeing that the "independents" are all just commies in hiding?

I am basing my "model" on registered voters, election results and what I witness first hand. I'm not saying that what goes on in Mass is a blueprint for the rest of the country, I'm sure it's different in a lot of places. Florida has been historicaly a Republican state, but not overwhelmingly like the Dems in Mass. My opinion would be that the majority of the 21% of Independent voters in Florida more than likely lean to the right, that would more than bridge the 4% gap between the two parties. I don't think the gap between registered Democrats and Republicans in Florida is significant enough to draw any solid conclusions though.

As for the 28 years of Mass having a Republican Governor, that's a complete mystery, 99% percent of all elected officials are Democrat in Mass. Maybe it's a way of keeping things in check for some people, or perhaps it's a form of "voter guilt", I really don't know.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Teddy B

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Florida has been historicaly a Republican state...

[Teddy B 17,252]

Brilliant! I expect this type of retort from a certain poster here, I guess I'll add you to that list.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Brilliant! I expect this type of retort from a certain poster here, I guess I'll add you to that list.

You might do well to take a look at the "historical" political landscape of FL. When talking about the "historical" political make-up of a state, I think we can agree that we need to look back further than the 90's. And if we do that, we will find that FL was dominated by Democrats for most of the last 100+ years. Then again, why let facts get in the way?

[^_^ 5,021]

You might do well to take a look at the "historical" political landscape of FL. When talking about the "historical" political make-up of a state, I think we can agree that we need to look back further than the 90's. And if we do that, we will find that FL was dominated by Democrats for most of the last 100+ years. Then again, why let facts get in the way?

What is the point in going back that far? The party labels may not have changed but you know and I know that the voter constituencies courted by the parties have shifted a lot in that time. The racist douches in the South who used to vote Democratic back in the day today vote Republican, to just use one example.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is the point in going back that far? The party labels may not have changed but you know and I know that the voter constituencies courted by the parties have shifted a lot in that time. The racist douches in the South who used to vote Democratic back in the day today vote Republican, to just use one example.

This is true. So go back to the mid late 60's and you still end up with a Democrat dominance in FL. When it comes to party registration, Democrats still outnumber Republicans to this day. To suggest that FL is a historically Republican state is laughable.

[^_^ 5,021]

In Presidential elections, there is is pretty much consensus in the media that Florida is a 'swing state'. If the GOP dominated, it wouldn't be a swing state it would be Oklafreakinhoma.

[SMOKE 1,426]

In Presidential elections, there is is pretty much consensus in the media that Florida is a 'swing state'. If the GOP dominated, it wouldn't be a swing state it would be Oklafreakinhoma.

aka: god's country.

[^_^ 5,021]

aka: god's country.

i knew that would bring you out but i figured for later this afternoon.