Democrats Losing Independent Voters: GOP Comeback?

It also raises the question: If you switch affiliation twice in a year, how much of a sucker are you?

It is not yet election season, so the GOP has plenty of time to alienate the new converts. Some kind of Social Values strategy will do the trick again this time around as it has in the recent past. Why do people for limited government insist on restricting private matters, (i.e., abortion, same sex marriage, same sex adoption, drug use, etc, etc....).

As an Indie voter let me say...

Yes, the Dems have really disappointed me this year, but the Reps have disgusted me.

"Yes, the Dems have really disappointed me this year, but the Reps have disgusted me."

QFT and /signed

The lib Dems are increasingly repelling everybody but themselves.

That doesn't mean another 1994 is in the making, not currently.

"Some kind of Social Values strategy will do the trick again this time around as it has in the recent past."

Indeed. It's not offensive, but it is annoying. We don't want a DC parent that's stern any more than we want someone fluffy and lovey-dovey who bribes votes from us. (This has nothing to do with childish libs and rads who simply cannot tolerate the word "no" or the concept associated with it.)

"Virtue is back!" is fine, but shouldn't be institutionalized, least of all in Washington.

Two reasons for the shift:

First, Whenever one party takes the reigns of government anger towards policies are directed towards them, whether justified or not. When that party controls all three branches of government this only intensifies.

Secondly, and related to the first point, the Democratic party is leading from the left rather than from the left-center. Because of their near total control (total when Kennedy's replacement is in place) they have felt that they had a popular mandate for liberal policy. Such was simply not the case, and displeasure with the Bush administration did not mean that the public was ready to make a hard left swing. Had Nancy Pelosi fulfilled her promise of "draining the swamp" and engaging in bipartisanship, and pursuit of moderate goals the public would have remained behind her. Instead she and Harry Reid engaged in a strong push to the far left, and the Obama administration engaged in unheard of levels of public spending.

The simple fact is, at least in this point of American history, the nation performs best when no one party controls government alone.

There will most definitely be a shift.
First of all, the party in charge loses seats in an off-year election - every time.
Secondly, in every time in history that a party controls both the Congress and Presidency, they lose massive vote in either the off-year or (especially) Presidential election years.

The reason for the latter, is that Americans are typically mistrustful of government, except the ultra-libs of course. When one party, ANY party, has too much power, it brews mistrust in the citizenry and causes abrupt corruption in the government. You just have to have that checks-and-balances there. If you do not (as the dems have now, and the GOP had in the past), then there is no one to say "no", or "are you sure that's such a good idea?".

As many of you know, I am a Democrat.
Most of the party in DC (not MY party) have totally turned their backs on people like me.
They've embraced the far left. The blue-dogs will show up enforce on election day next year.

Will the independents? Time will tell.