I usually vote D because I can't stomach the Republican far right/Tea baggers. If they'd move back toward the center and promote true republican ideas, they'd get my vote. I actually like Jindal.
IMO that is the R party's problem. They let the fringe dictate the party line.
This is absolute and utter hogwash. It is another myth that has been repeated so many times that it has become "true." Every single time the GOP has nominated an ACTUAL CONSERVATIVE as opposed to a synthetic moderate pretending to be said conservative - every time since 1968 they have won. It is NOT true that the "more right you are" the more electable, no; but the fact remains that if you simply look at who lost for the GOP, they were moderates.
I don't think for even one second any Democrat (please note I am referring to politicians and activists, NOT to you) REALLY cares about the Republicans putting up a middle of the roader "that can appeal across the board." If that were REALLY a winning strategy for the Republicans then no Democrat would ever advocate it. The moment the GOP puts up "dime store New Dealers" like McCain and Romney, they're done. Furthermore, if you'll go back - the moment the nomination is secured, every Democrat politician takes to a mic and starts talking about what an "extremist" the GOP guy, even the one they'll have spent the nomination period saying "shows the GOP is moving away from the far-right fringe." This is not just a Democratic thing, though - EVERY single time the Democrats nominate a Senator, the claim is made that he (or she) is "the most liberal member of the US Senate" or "the governor of the most liberal state in America." (The one thing the GOP folks DO NOT do except for their wishing Dean would win in 2004 is make a lot of comments about a SPECIFIC nominee on the other side during the contested race as if that person would be "good for the country").
When John McCain ran in 2000, Democrats bolted in states like Michigan and New Hampshire to vote for McCain because Bush "was an extremist." McCain did not change one iota from 2000 to 2008 EXCEPT he did call for the (wait for it) "tax cut" that he had opposed in 2000. The moment McCain became the nominee, we were told what an extremist fringe guy he was and how Romney would be a better candidate to "represent the middle of America." Guess what? The GOP (like Charlie Brown with Lucy) listened yet again and threw Romney up there and what happened? Well, rational folks thought to themselves, "how in the world can a Republican have gotten elected governor of Mass?" And the obvious answer was that he wasn't much of a conservative - and if you go look at his voting record, he's Clintonian - he was all in favor of abortion and gay rights (most notably gays in the military) in 1994 when he ran against Ted Kennedy but the moment he left Beacon Hill he turned into Ronald Reagan (the notion that Romney waited until 2007 and suddenly decided to visit a doctor and changed his position on abortion is comically absurd; it was also convenient since it was after he was governor and when he was about to run for the pro-life party's nomination). Furthermore, Romney then managed to look like a slick and phony politician (saying he liked grits in Mississippi was insanely stupid) who would say anything - and then he made it worse by alienating group after group until he had nobody left to offend.
The irony here is that while I hated Romney's political chameleon act, I also think he could have been a rather decent President precisely because he was not rigidly fixed to some things.
It is true the electorate is always changing, but the myth of the far right candidate losing the federal election needs to die. Todd Akin has nothing to do with why the GOP loses at the national level. It's just that when voters have a choice between a committed left-winger and a left-winger/moderate posing as a right-winger, they - for obvious reasons - find the leftist more authentic. And it is authenticity that wins the race. (Gore lost in 2000 because he was seen as a bigger phony than Bush).
The TRUTH, however, is the races are not nearly about the issues to the extent the media likes to pretend. Basically, they boil down to the economy and national security. (For all the outcry about gay marriage or abortion, they do commensurately measure at all - the one-issue voters, or two, are the fringe and they split 50/50 anyway). And for all the outcry about a balanced budget, no candidate ever lost because of the deficit or won because he balanced the budget. Mostly, folks just watch TV/Internet and vote for the guy their idiotic friends tell them, the guy they think "looks" better, or the better-known name. Remember that these same Americans who say X about the issues also list veggies as their top food choice (with an obesity epidemic going on) and say they want more documentaries and History Channel while WWE is drawing huge ratings.
In short, almost everyone lies anyway.
