Many here would agree that I have a lot to learn about politics, so can I ask a few questions?

[Atticus]

Aren't most "independents" just those who don't know enough to have an actual political philosophy?

Aren't there a lot of these the people who really don't care who wins an election, but want to back the winner?

Aren't these the folks most likely to be influenced by who APPEARS to be winning, according to the MSM?

Wouldn't these people be attracted, like moths to a flame, by a party and a president who passionately, loudly, consistently, "fought the good fight"?

Isn't it important, if we are really courting independent voters, to have a loud and enthusiastic and "satisfied" base?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. My view is that describes "undecideds" more than "independents".

I think of independents as a rather motley crew - some of them probably do vacillate. Some of them are just fed up with both parties. And some of them probably just like to play head games with pollsters!

[brooklynite]

2. No - more of a "they're all a bunch of crooks" philosophy...

Independents are generally either disaffected voters (many of the Independents today came out of the Republican Party) or middle of the roaders without a strong enough interest to warrant participating in Party Primaries.

[timeforpeace]

3. In order: they may not like either party. No. No. No, it's personal. Irrelevant.

[City of Mills]

4. Answers

Assuming this is in regards to the upcoming Massachusetts election, my snap judgments:

1. Not necessarily, because although the Republicans mostly do not represent my political philosophy, sometimes the Democrats don't either. How do you group political philosophies into only two groups? I register 'unenrolled' so I may vote in either party's primaries. I wonder why more people don't do the same?

2. I can't say for certain, but in my case I don't want to send a Republican to represent my state in the senate. I win or lose with Martha Coakley, in this case.

3. I'm not sure about that, I think it depends on whether or not such people follow politics closely. I know I'm not influenced by negative ads or Facebook profile picture movements.

4. I would think so...bipartisanship is a noble goal but it requires cooperation from both sides, and that rarely happens on important matters. I don't like to see a party I vote for compromise its principles in hopes of earning a few votes from the 'other aisle'. One of the things I loved about Ted Kennedy is his unabashed 'liberal lion' stance...he made no apologies for what he was. He didn't try to 'appear moderate'. I can respect that, and I knew what to expect from him. Martha? She's no liberal, she's a moderate. Scott Brown is...well...a Republican. Republicans don't compromise. Admirable in principle, but in reality it turns into obstructionism. Their way or the highway. Things don't get done that way.

5. It certainly helps! But it seems like the Democratic Party is suffering an identity crisis, are they a progressive party, are they a party of moderates? Sometimes I feel they depend on the left leaning progressives, then abandon them after the elections...its hard to get enthusiastic when you're in that position.

[branders seine]

5. Here's my $0.02

no

no

hard to say; probably not more than any well-trained American media consumer

probably

yes, especially if the conditions in question 4 pertain

[Eric_323]

6. In Maryland you have to be a registered Dem

to vote in the Dem primary. In Mass i believe independents can vote in either parties primary. So if I lived in Mass I might register independent.