[writer33]

"Think "Reagan Democrats." There are a lot of people who are conservative on social issues, but who often vote for Democrats on economic grounds. Many union members fit the profile. There's also a cultural element involved, as many African-Americans regard themselves as very conservative, but vote for the Democrat in most election. The same was long true of Jews, Catholics, Southerners, though the old New Deal ties have frayed over the years."

I think the problem with the poll is that these people are identifying themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" or "moderate." Problem with that is that any true conservative or liberal would never be a swing voter. I mean that a person holding those principles closely by either party would not swing their vote.

If a person swings, it's likely that they were never affiliated with one party to begin with. They were always neutral. And I really don't believe in neutrality. Moderates call themselves that because they think it makes them more enlightened. Beneath it all, they believe in something.

[x]

For a lot of people, party affiliation and even ideological labels come from tradition or from what people around them think. They don't think things out from first principles, but take the label that the people around them have chosen. Then they vote on the basis of how the economy's doing. They aren't that interested in political questions as such, just in keeping their jobs or savings. It may be regrettable, but it's a fact of life now.

Also, I wonder how many people list themselves as "swing voters" not so much because they'd vote for the candidate of the other party, but because they are disillusioned with the candidate of the party closest to their own view. Maybe for some people it's not that they are undecided between the two candidates, but undecided between voting and not voting. Some one in the last election who was undecided between Gore and Nader, or between Bush and Buchanan, Browne or Phillips might also count as a "swing voter."