A whole lot of speculation by political pundits, on both sides of the political aisle, is filling the “airwaves” concerning if, where and when a certain Arctic Fox is going to announce her campaign for the Presidential Nomination of the Republican Party.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard or read the following statement:

Palin can’t win. Independent voters will never vote for her.

As early as 1992, the Myth of the Independent Voter was being debunked.  A book by that name, now available in paperback, is summarized in the following manner on amazon.com:

Few events in American politics over the past two decades have generated more attention than the increasing number of voters calling themselves Independent. By the early 1970s Independents outnumbered Republicans, according to many eminent experts on voting behavior. Yet the authors of this incisive new commentary on American politics claim that most of this widespread speculation on declining party affiliation is simply wrong. They contend that most so-called Independents lean strongly toward one of the two parties and resemble–in all important respects–either Democrats or Republicans. Contrary to expert opinion, only a small segment of voters are truly “independent” of either major party.

Based on the most up-to-date 1990 data, The Myth of the Independent Voter provides a roadmap of the political arena for the general reader and scholar alike. Debunking conventional wisdom about voting patterns and allaying recent concerns about electoral stability and possible third party movements, the authors uncover faulty polling practices that have resulted in a skewed sense of the American voting population.

Demonstrating that most of what has been written about Independents for more than thirty years is myth, this challenging book offers a trenchant new understanding of the party system, voting behavior, and public opinion.

On July 7th,2011, Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, wrote about the Myth of the Independent Voter:

There they go again. The presidential campaign season is barely under way but already pundits and pollsters are making misleading claims about independent voters and the role they play in presidential elections. Here are some of the things you’ve probably read or heard in recent weeks:

Independents make up the largest segment of the American electorate.

Independent voters are up for grabs in 2012.

Whichever party wins a majority of the independent vote will almost certainly win the presidency.

These beliefs about the crucial role of independent voters in presidential elections have become the conventional wisdom among the Washington commentariat, reinforced by groups like “No Labels” and “Third Way” that try to promote centrist solutions to the nation’s problems. Recently, the Pew Research Center provided additional support for this theory with a report claiming that independents constitute a rapidly growing and diverse group of voters who swing dramatically back and forth from election to election.

It sounds convincing, but when it comes to media commentary about independent voters, you shouldn’t believe everything you read or hear.

It’s true that independents are a diverse group. But that’s mostly because the large majority of independents are independents in name only. Research by political scientists on the American electorate has consistently found that the large majority of self-identified independents are “closet partisans” who think and vote much like other partisans. Independent Democrats and independent Republicans have little in common. Moreover, independents with no party preference have a lower rate of turnout than those who lean toward a party and typically make up less than 10% of the electorate. Finally, independents don’t necessarily determine the outcomes of presidential elections; in fact, in all three closely contested presidential elections since 1972, the candidate backed by most independent voters lost.

Let’s start with the claim that independents make up the largest segment of the American electorate. That’s true only if you lump all independents together including those who don’t vote and those who lean toward a party. In 2008, according to the American National Election Study, independents made up 40% of eligible voters but only 33% of those who actually voted. Moreover, of that 33%, only 7% were true independents with no party preference. The other 26% were leaners.

And what about those independent leaners? Fully 87% of them voted for the candidate of the party they leaned toward: 91% of independent Democrats voted for Barack Obama while 82% of independent Republicans voted for John McCain. That 87% rate of loyalty was identical to the 87% loyalty rate of weak party identifiers and exceeded only by the 96% loyalty rate of strong party identifiers.

It’s hardly surprising that the vast majority of independent leaners voted for their party’s presidential candidate in 2008. The evidence from the 2008 ANES in the following chart shows that independent Democrats and Republicans held very different views on major issues — views that were very similar to those of their fellow partisans. Independent Democrats were more liberal than weak Democrats and about as liberal as strong Democrats while independent Republicans were less conservative than strong Republicans but just as conservative as weak Republicans.

From foxnews.com:

She [Sarah Palin] stoked the speculative fire once again on Friday, posting a slickly produced video of her trip on the SarahPAC website. In the video, which included shots of Palin interacting with the crowd interspersed with giddy media commentary, the narrator declared the ex-governor is still “grabbing the attention of Iowans and, yes, the media.”

The real tease came at the end, with a written reminder to Iowans that Palin will “see you again” on Sept. 3. That’s when Palin is expected to deliver a speech at a Tea Party rally in Indianola, Iowa.

Charlie Gruschow, co-founder of event host Tea Party of America, told FoxNews.com he doesn’t know what Palin will do at the rally, but that “all we’re being told is that she’s going to make a major announcement.”

Tea Party of America has already started running radio ads in Iowa promoting the event. And the group’s website has a poll asking readers not if but “when” Palin will announce her candidacy

Karl Rove, a Fox News analyst and former adviser to ex-President George W. Bush, said the movement looks “pre-presidential campaign” to him.

“I’m not much of a gambler but I’d put a little more money that she gets in than if she doesn’t, because of the schedule she’s got next week in Iowa, it looks like that of candidate, not celebrity,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

Donald Trump, who had publicly entertained — and then snuffed — the thought of his own presidential campaign, said Monday that he thinks “she maybe is going to go into the race.”

Trump said he previously didn’t think she was entering and told Fox News that she was still undecided when he met with her in New York City this past May. But he suggested Palin’s recent schedule and comments are that of a potential candidate.

He noted that she’s already a known quantity.

“She certainly has a big voice in the Republican Party,” Trump said.

Y’know, judging from the traffic that any Sarah Palin Thread generates at Conservative websites, for somebody whom the “pundits” (professional and amateur) keep insisting is not running or doesn’t stand a chance, she sure is generating a ton of national interest.

Or course, what do I know? I voted for a guy who used to star in movies with a chimp.