Last week’s blog, So, let me try again, only this time with more specific questions for unenrolled voters.
Keep in mind that unenrolled voters are actually the majority voting block, both in Westborough and Massachusetts. In other words, so-called “Independent” voters have the capacity to dominate elections, aided and supported by registered Democrats who account for about 37% of the vote. Only 11-12% of the registered voters are Republicans.
Here are nine specific questions for unenrolled voters:
- If unenrolled voters claim to vote for the “best candidate,” as a number of respondents confirmed last week, does that mean that they actually almost always believe that the overwhelming majority of Democrat candidates have been “the best candidate?” … For sixty years? Doesn’t this defy statistical probability?
- Do social issues matter to Unenrolled voters? While the “right to choose” is closely identified with Democrats, most Republican candidates in Massachusetts have tended to go along, so this is unlikely a “reason” to dislike Republicans. However, would “right to life” Republican candidates be viewed more favorably by unenrolled voters? How about other social issues – would Republicans be better off expressing more conservative positions than just behaving like moderate Democrats?
- Several posters claimed that they could not tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans. While this clearly points out communication failures by Republicans for some voters, what do unenrolled voters want or need to know more about to make that distinction? Or, have Democrats controlled Massachusetts for so long that Bay Staters just suffer from State-wide “Stockholm syndrome?”
- Does corruption in government make a difference to unenrolled voters? Three consecutive Democrat Speakers of the House (and others) have been found guilty of corruption in the past two decades, and the fourth is currently being investigated by the Feds according to the Boston Globe. Should Republicans conclude that the unenrolled voters approve, and willingly accept, this kind of mal-governance?
- While corruption may be a “messy” word for some people, how about the issue of personal integrity? Does integrity matter any more to unenrolled voters? The Democrats have given us many elected officials, from Senator on down, whose integrity and personal values have been, to be kind, embarrassing, if not contemptible - even criminal. And yet these politicians, and that Party, continue to be re-elected. Should we conclude that the Democrats, by running Elizabeth Warren for Senator, fully understand that unenrolled voters see lack of integrity as a non-issue?
- Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, how about the quality of candidates from both parties throughout the years? Should Republicans just simply accept that Democrat candidates are always better? If that is the case, perhaps this is why we never needed to know from where Deval Patrick came, or what made him qualified to be Governor as his entry level political position? Or what about the fact that even though the State is filled with experienced, many-termed Democrats in Boston and Washington, not one was deemed suitable to be put forward for Senator? If Warren, with no political experience, was a wiser choice, doesn’t this create even a little doubt among Independent voters about the caliber of the current list of incumbent Democrats? Unless, of course, all Republican candidates, by definition, are always inferior to all Democrats, no matter how inadequate, or lacking?
- What about the issue of taxes? Does it matter that Democrats spend, then tax, and spend and tax to essentially confiscate and redistribute personal wealth? Or, are unenrolled voters just concerned that successful Republican candidates would be far more inclined to lower spending, eliminate waste, and reduce the size of government? Is this the real problem? Considering the increasing tax bite of Federal, State and Local governments, if taxing more is the ticket to victory, let’s make sure the Republicans get the message before they get completely discouraged.
- Or is it that unenrolled voters just turn to the media and the Boston Globe for their information? We now know more about Mitt Romney at age 15 than we know or have learned about President Obama’s life story after four years. Is this really acceptable to unenrolled voters?
- Then again, perhaps it’s just the Party logo that is the issue. If so, we need instant feedback from unenrolled voters because Republicans see elephants as a highly intelligent group that does not forget, as contrasted with donkeys …
I began the last blog by asking unenrolled voters for a little help and understanding regarding their voting tendencies, and that request still stands. Please tell us what has made you think that with all your votes for Democrat candidates over the years that you have always been voting for the “best candidate.” Or, have you ever had a severe case of voter’s remorse?
Or, perhaps you just leave the voting to voters registered to the political parties.
But here’s the thing – we’ll never get a more balanced government, one that is more responsive to more people, if unenrolled Massachusetts voters think that the “best candidate” is always Democrat. History tells us differently.
It’s time to end voter malpractice. Let me hear what you think.