Partisanship defines you!!!

1) Independents I am simply stating that we can group people into two categories. Those who support a cadidate (who I claim) and those who are undecided (which I don't claim). Independents are either of these. Simply that there are independents does not prove your case. Someone can support a candidate without being a member of the party and they can also be undecided. These supporters are what I claim in my opening. Therefore, the existence of independents is not problematic. 2) History/Polarization History does not gauruntee any situation. That said, polarization is definately more present now. True, there are issues that the parties agree on. But, the key issues of the day like the economy and Iraq, stand in sharp contrast. Issues like capital punishment don't matter as much to voters by any means, polls indicate this. On the issues that due matter, the parties are totally opposite. Whether its health care, social issues, the economy or the war, the differences between any of the republicans versus a democrat are far less. In the past the parties have not been this open with their partisan bickering. Every message from every candidate preaches that partisanship has gotten worse and worse. This whole 'run against washington' strategy is certainly not a new one, I agree, but it is most severe now. Party loyalty in the senate is more rigid now than it has ever been. There will always be bipartisan bills and such, but simply that they exist, or that Sen. McCain has reached across the aisle, does not mean it is common practice. I'm not saying its entirely bad, I'm merely pointing out that its there. Also, past examples do not automatically apply to current events. Simply because something has happened before doesn't mean it is able to happen again, especially when the circumstances are different. 3) Applicability Let's take the example that you have given me. Even in the event that something like the abortion ammendment mattered infintely to that particular voter, to switch from Huckabee to Clinton versus a switch to Romney, would not only give up that value (Clinton doesn't support the ammendment either), but simulataneously forfeit any other republican value the voter holds. Therefore, it would be more advantageous (though not ideal) to support Romney versus Clinton. It would not be the perfect choice, but a much more sufficient one. The only feasible way this Huckabee-Clinton switch would occur is if the Huckabee supporter held more Democratic ideals, and only supported Huckabee for his position on the ammendment. In this circumstance, the supporter in question would certainly not be the viable one that I make my claim about, because they only agree with the candidate on the leading issue. My claim is a simple one. There are so many differences in the parties that switching avid support from the candidate of one to another would be virtually inconceivable. History does not prove this inaccurate. We can not extrapolate results to different circumstances, especially when we don't know the cause of the results (why independents and democrats voted Reagan). Bipartisanship will always be present, no matter how divided the parties are (look at Britain). As the parties stand now, a legitimate and avid switch is impossible due to the dramatic differences on policy.