k wrote:
Rather, I still analyze each candidate by comparing their positions on various matters to my feelings about them. To be sure, in this country, at this time, the probability that the results of that activity will be a republican are quite small. That's not because I can't bear the thought of a republican, but because we're simply not likely to agree.

The party itself has essentially no bearing on that.

I agree, except for that last sentence. I've been voting since I turned 18, but not once have I voted for a Democrat. As you mentioned, it's not just because there's a "(D)" beside a Democratic candidate's name, but because I know the party itself, and I've heard what a particular candidate from that party has to say and/or seen what he's done in the past, and concluded that there are simply too many issues on which I disagree with him (and often his party's platform, as well). However, neither the Libertarians nor the Republicans can count on getting my vote by default. I've voted for a few independents, too. I prefer to cast my vote for someone, not against the other side.

Still, party affiliation itself does matter. If an individual Democrat were to go against his party and agree with me on enough key issues to get my attention, his election could wind up giving his party a majority in the House or Senate, affecting the leadership, committee appointments, etc. I'm not saying that's the determining factor, just that it should be considered when "voting for a person, not a party or an ideology."

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog