Unenrolled Voters Redux - Are Democrats Always Better?

It's time to end voter malpractice. Here are nine specific questions for unenrolled voters.

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?”
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

FindBalance July 26, 2012 at 08:58 PM
SAT - ironic that you picked Suzanne Bump as the example of voting for "the best candidate". Mary Connaughton was by far the best choice - for many reasons - to the point that the Globe even endorsed her and called an ad by Bump's campaign as completey false. So I got a chuckle out of your choice. :-) What I think your example does show, is that when you pick the worst candidate, you get the worst govt.
FindBalance July 26, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Steven Pohl – in response to your statement: "Off topic, but today the Senate passed a bill to extent tax cuts for the middle class. It will be interesting to see if the House (read R's) will follow suit. The R's simply don't care about me." I disagree with your characterization that R's don't care about you if they don't vote for extending tax cuts for the middle class (they want the middle class *and* everyone else to keep the tax cuts – they care about everyone!). If the extension for the middle class is not accompanied by corresponding extension for “the wealthy”, then the wealthy (which includes small business owners, who create 75% of jobs in America) surely will not add jobs to the economy when their taxes go up, and may eliminate more jobs. How does this indicate R’s care for you? They want an economic environment where more jobs are created for people who do not have them, and keep jobs for people who do have one. If you do not want to also extend the tax cuts to the job creators, you are affecting other middle class people because more jobs won’t be created for them to be employed, or possibly even eliminate jobs for other middle class people, even your own job – whomever would lose their job because of this would ironically get no tax savings from an extension of the tax cuts to only the middle class. With all due respect, if you support this, should you be characterized as not caring for the middle class other than yourself?
Concerned Citizen July 27, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Great points, FindBalance. Many small businesses earn between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. They will be greatly impacted by not extending the tax cuts to people earning over $250,000. It will cause cutbacks in their staff and inventory and will certainly stifle their growth. It will be a win for no one.
Concerned Citizen July 27, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Jim, As a lifelong MA resident, I was born into a Democrat family and voted "D" robotically for many years. However, during Ronald Reagan's second term, I realized what a good president he was. I also started to notice how negative and condescending NPR (of which I was a daily listener) had become in their reporting of anyone who wasn't a liberal. Additionally, I became increasingly embarrassed by Ted Kennedy's drunken carousing in Washington. I saw the Democrat Party going downhill and no longer representing my ethics and values and decided to leave. I became unenrolled and started voting mostly Republican. I have come full circle and am now a Republican. The Republican Party isn't perfect, but overall, it represents what I believe in as a hard-working American who loves this country.
Jim Hatherley July 27, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Thanks for adding your comments, Concerned Citizen - they add a little balance to previous remarks. And, thank you for your restraint by restricting your disappointment to just the former Senior Senator's antics. You could have mentioned so many others, including the Finger-wagger-in-Chief, and a number of Bay State Reps who have been a National embarrassment. Still, the larger point is what values to we expect from our elected officials, and is what we are getting just what we the people deserve, or can we do better by heading in a different direction. Hopefully others will be persuaded to follow in your footsteps. All the best.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »