Partisanship defines you!!!

>>First, your argument for independents is true. I am not claiming that there are no such thing as independents. These people have yet to decide who they endorse and, therefore, do not apply to the debate or my claim.<< You're confusing independents with undecided voters. They are not the same thing by any means. An independent is simply somebody who is not a registered member of a political party. Somebody can absolutely be an independent and strongly favor a particular candidate (and are no less "legitimate" supporters of that candidate than are people who happen to be registered Democrats or Republicans). Therefore, they are absolutely applicable to this debate. And so far in this election season, independents have appeared to most strongly support McCain and Obama. If either of those two doesn't win the nomination, it is very possible that many of their supporters will seek a candidate across party lines. In addition, the fact that these candidates attract so much independent support might indicate that even registered Democrats or Republicans who support them could be susceptible to supporting somebody from the other party. As I indicated, we've already seen at least some Republicans proclaim their support for Obama. >>Yes, candidates have drawn support from across the aisle in the past. This is obvious and I don't deny it. My claim applies to the here and now.<< Of course it does. And predicting what will happen in the here and now often involves studying what occurred in the past. >>The parties have become so polarized and so different on every issue of the day that supporting one party, then supporting the other is impossible without a change. The parties have almost no common ground.<< That's not entirely true. One of the biggest running jokes of the Bush/Gore campaign in 2000 was how much they agreed with each other during the debates. And even below, you admit that there IS common ground on certain issues, but just different ideas of how to go about implementing policy. >>Even on common issues, like securing the border, the two parties and the candidates in them are very different in the way in which we go about it. On amnesty, the war, the economy, education, the bush tax cuts, each and every issue is met by sharply contrasting views. To leave a republican and support a democrat would require a MAJOR shift in personal views on these topics. The only argument you seem to make that would really apply to my claim is that some issues are more important to people and that would make them endorse the other party. This is impossible. Any reason that you would support Romney, for example, would be totally abandoned in your support for Clinton. Your conflict with Huckabee would not be as severe as your conflict with Obama because the differences between Huckabee and Romney are slight, while the differences between Romeny and Obama are drastic, to say the least.<< And some people might believe that even drastic differences are worth dealing with rather than a candidate they find abhorrent. You say "[y]our conflict with Huckabee would not be as severe as your conflict with Obama." Says who?? Every individual in America ranks issues differently in terms of importance. Clearly at least some registered Republicans disagree with you because they've voiced their support for Obama: www.republicansforobama.com It's not unreasonable for an economically conservative, but socially liberal registered Republican to be so turned off by Governor Huckabee's social positions and his beliefs concerning religion and public life that they would find Clinton or Obama more acceptable, even if they disagreed on virtually everything. Now, I agree that there are SOME voters out there (myself probably included) who would not switch party lines unless something truly drastic happened, but this is just not a sweeping generalization one can make about all or even most supporters of a given candidate.