, "What do you mean I "want to add something that's very vaguely worded"? Do you know my motives better than I do without asking me or something?"
Your chosen method is that it is "reasonable to look" at self identification and then "add to that statistics for the conservative lean of self-identified moderates". But you don't define this supposed "conservative lean", and beg the question - your statement only makes sense if a previous question "are there good, sufficient statistics for defining 'conservative'?" has been answered positively. "Lean" is also a very vague word in this context - how much lean? What does it mean to "lean"?
Further, if it's possible to gather these statistics of those who have "conservative lean", why are we bothering with self identification anyway? We already have our answer - we'll refer to those magical statistics to find who is and isn't conservative!
So, what you're talking about adding is
vaguely worded - it doesn't point to something definite, or clear. It is therefore vague.
As for your "wanting", you have a point - someone may have put a gun to your head and said "Don't you dare accept self identified conservatives as all conservatives! Add something - conservative lean of self-identified moderates, or something" and you might stating that it's reasonable to "add" against your will. Or, you might have another explanation - I'm willing to listen. But without strong statistics that correctly categorize who is and isn't conservative and/or leaning, I'm not willing to accept that you didn't want
to, but, by golly, the evidence
forced your hand.
Note that gathering such statistics of who is conservative, or who "leans" conservative, while not accepting self-identification, points back to my questions about magical touchstones. How do you categorize?
As for this:
"Perhaps you'll get around to commenting on whether such data would be useful in fact checking the statement from Marco Rubio that PolitiFact tried to check by using the GOP/Democratic Party leanings of Independents."
I'd as soon argue the use of invisible pink unicorns as for statistics for which I have no evidence of existence or sufficiency. But you can't rank a statement "mostly true" if you have no evidence to support it.
As for this:
"I'd say that any person who previously had no complaint about adding the percentage of Independents who lean Republican to the percentage of self-identified conservatives to test a claim that conservatives constitute a majority has the burden of proof for dismissing the parallel role for the conservative/liberal leaning of moderates. I think a majority would accept the method I've proposed without argument."
What, so someone has to specifically complain, quickly enough to suit you, or the burden of proof shifts from the person making the assertion, to the person who failed to complain? No, I think I'll stick by the old rules; you want to make an assertion, you're the one responsible for backing it up.