look, i don't want to just go "no," but there's so much about this article that weirdly seems to draw a conclusion without really having the data to support it.

look, i don't want to just go "no," but there's so much about this article that weirdly seems to draw a conclusion without really having the data to support it. there's a lot of very clearly biased editorializing that i'm not sure is really supported by what's being shown here. take the example of "independents being more concerned with gun violence in their neighborhood versus the opinions of voters who identify with one party or another, who tend to align with the party." i can see two reads of that: 1) the voter in question is primarily focused on local reality, very engaged in local politics and has a broadly-informed view of the world that is shaped by national trends and by their local experience that colors their ultimate viewpoint. 2) the voter in question is largely disconnected from the news, does not have a lot of perspective beyond their own experience and forms a political value system entirely based on their own interests without considering the needs or experiences of others. one is a very charitable view, one is actually a pretty negative thing that i'd argue is borderline antithetical to living in a large country with millions of people. i don't know that the answer to every question is hyperlocal. you can't effectively legislate gun laws on a county by county basis for reasons that should be really obvious. further, i'm not sure that the fact that people don't have positions that align with only their specific, local needs means that they are just following party elites - it's just as possible to me that a higher number of identified democrats or republicans align with the parties because, y'know, they identify with their platforms? i also feel like the definition of independent in this article, the best that i can understand it, is kind of a poor metric in this particular political climate. i am absolutely independent. i have lamented for a long time that i don't feel like i'm presented with two viable options, so if you were to review my voting history you'd find it biased towards one party over the other so substantially as to say i align with that party. i don't. i align with them enough that i choose to give them my vote over another party, whose solutions i routinely disagree with and whose platform i find unconvincing if not outright offensive in recent years. i am, effectively, boxed into one single option if i want to vote for a candidate who is likely to win. this party has been so consistent in their views up and down the ballot that even though i take the time to listen to debates, read platforms and see whose views align with mine, i ultimately wind up not choosing them time and time again. am i not truly independent according to this metric? i find the idea that i can't find anything to agree with being taken as "i'm being controlled by elites" to be a weird take, particularly in the current climate. i'm not saying that there aren't independent voters who are well-informed. i'm not. but in my experience, undecideds (particularly this year) are poorly-informed, often politically disengaged folks without a lot of skin in the game who are being performative in the act of "decision" while latently harboring an affinity for right- or left-leaning cultural values.