The real question there is will FReepers and the Tea Party accept that idea even if it’s “proven correct” via victory in the first scenario described?
Trying to step outside of my own conservative leaning and just predict the future, I don’t think Romney winning will convince the conservative wing that we need independents.
I’m going to say it was because he finally got tough with Obama and added Paul Ryan so that even the media is starting to say “Mitt has a plan (WHICH WE HATE), but Obama doesn’t have a 2nd term plan”.
And if Mitt loses, well, that’s obvious.
I don’t think Romney winning will convince the conservative wing that we need independents.
It shouldn’t because that does not logically follow from the inference.
Using pure if/then/and kind of logic:
If the argument is:
Givens:
40% of the electorate votes R
40% of the electorate votes D
20% of the electorate is independent
Theory:
elections are decided by how the 20% of independents are divided
and
Republicans win independents by 9% (i.e 14.5 to 5.5%)
then the logical inference is that Republicans have to win.
If Republicans win independents by 9% (i.e. 14.5% to 5.5%)
and
Republicans lose the election
then the logical inferences is that one of the givens is wrong:
Republicans comprise less than 40% of the electorate or Democrats comprise more than 40% of the electorate or Independents comprise less than 20% of the electorate AND the percentage difference between that 20% and the actual percentage breakdown Independents is > 9%.
Any of those would logically follow. What it would also prove is that winning independents is not required in order to win the election, since Democrats will have lost independents but won the election.