2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
An "independent" is someone who had trouble deciding between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, right?
Someone who struggled to choose between Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards?
Someone who was indifferent between Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden?
And some here want these highly insightful folk to have a say in the process that decides our party's presidential candidate?
Weird.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)It's someone who doesn’t want to be tied to a party.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They are thinking voters who are sick and tired of the one political part with two faces.
What's weird is that Obama is not familiar with Bernie's positions.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)So nothing that comes after is relevant.
By the way, did you really think that those of us who support a Sanders had a difficult time choosing between McCain and Obama? We did not.
It could've been worse: this could've been a persuasive writing assignment and I could've been your Freshman Comp professor. It wouldn't have turned out well.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...if you go by the rhetoric I've seen.
moriah
(8,311 posts)I wouldn't mind registered Greens getting access to the Democratic primaries in cooperation with their parties, but that would only matter in closed party states.... and would make it possible for Libertarians to vote in the GOP primaries (at least would open up that possibility).
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)...not a very tempting choice. Both parties are about class warfare - against 99% of us. They simply have different social-issue window-dressing to fool their own color of rubes.
I'm tired of the parties treating me as a rube.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)If they're not smart enough to make the right decision, they shouldn't be able to control our lives by voting.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)that they can't say it out loud.
There are Independents on both the Left and Right.
I suspect that there will be allot more on both sides before this is over.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... as presenting themselves to others as being "wise" and "thoughtful". Filled with pride and self-satisfaction. Hey everyone, look at me! I'm "independent". You're gonna have to EARN my vote! 
Or that they were fringe partisans who mistakenly believe that by claiming to be "independent" they're sending a message to the party. As if NOT joining a party will cause the party to suddenly take a hard turn in THEIR direction to become as fringe (and irrelevant) as the voter is trying to be. (How much more vain can one get?)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)in all the party BS and just wants to support the candidate of his or her choice and vote. An independent is someone who doesn't want to be herded into supporting someone he or she doesn't believe in just because that person has a certain letter after their name.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)"Only Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee" party line thinking comes across as a fraternity sorority joiners are superior message. It's a juvenile view of the electorate.
People who consider themselves independent come in all stripes. Currently the much of the message coming from Dems is that Obama has fixed the economy. YET, in my city there is 4% unemployment and 24% poverty. This is a symptom of so much focus on the "middle class" that poor people are supposed to believe they can join by working 3 jobs. Economic inequality is not new either. Many people had the same experience in the 90s and have not forgotten.
Bernie is just finally talking about it, while the status quo Dems brag about how great the economy is. A lot of people consider themselves independent because they are not included in the agenda or the numbers. They don't want a buried throw away line about how some people aren't feeling the recovery. They want some agressive outrage about it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)An independant is someone who thinks both parties are serving the same overlords. They might be on the right, thinking that's the answer. They might be on the left, thinking that's the answer. Where they agree is in looking at both parties and saying "Houston, we have a problem". It's no coincidence that as Congressional poll numbers hit historical Rock bottom numbers, so does registrations for the two major parties. Independants are those voters smart enough to figure out neither party gives a rats ass about anything other than lining their pockets.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Either you give a shit about what the parties stand for, or you don't. What I'm getting from all these replies is that some people disapprove of how the parties are and are basically socially embarrassed by the idea of participating in one. They want the same privileges that go with being a member (voting on party things) but without the downsides (endless stream of fundraising emails, demands for volunteer participation, etc. etc.).
Really I think people should either join a partyor quit bellyaching about it. Don't like the Democrats? Fine, join the Green Party or Working Families Party or one of the other worthy alternatives, or get enough people on a web forum to kick in $100 to found a new party and file the paperwork to register it in as many states as possible, and then work on advancing that party's interests.
Almost every independent I've ever met is more-or-less permanently aligned with one or the other of the main political parties, but likes kvetching about both of them before going on to vote in a largely predictable fashion. My heart sinks when someone announces themselves as 'an independent' at a party or something because they usually go on a highly unoriginal rant about their political views for 5 minutes while I stand around pretending to find their views 'interesting' and 'fascinating' for the sake of politeness.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If a primary candidate from a major party excites a number of Independants, they'll join the party to support that candidate. In 2012 a number of Independants were excited about Ron Paul. He addressed a number of issues important to them, and challenged the establishment. Those supporters went back to being Independants.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It' not like it's difficult to door there's some high membership fee no, you just pick one at the time you register to vote. If you live in a state with closed primaries it's your responsibility to think about the registration deadline ahead of time. I started thinking about the election a year ago and reading up on all the various candidate. US elections are on a fixed calendar so it's not hard for anyone to do if they are actually interested.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Except what we're seeing is that a number of people have joined the party to vote for the primary candidate of their choice, except the party establishment from the get-go has rigged the primary process to ensure nomination by candidate of their choice. The oligarchs are choosing the candidate, and expect everyone to fall in line. Fuck that.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Anyone can participate but you're not guaranteed victory. The notion that large numbers of other people have different preferences seems alien to some Sanders supporters such as yourself. And yet 3 million more people have chosen to vote for Clinton instead of Sanders.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Suppressive debate schedule, suppressing votes, controlling M$M, and all the other ways they're propping up Clinton and knocking down Sanders? The primaries aren't the voters choosing a candidate by a fair and democratic process. They're merely an affirmation of the candidate the DNC establishment has already appointed.
moriah
(8,311 posts)I hope to see it in Presidential General Elections by the time I die.
But the movement for it must start locally. It can be done with verifiable voting. The piloting of machines at localities using it gives plenty of time for analysis of how to secure the votes and work out bugs. You could do full audits in local communities cheaper and catch software bugs and security flaws.
But it's the only solution that will allow a third party to win, because people can actually vote their conscience instead of their fears. And even if for the first few elections the current major parties win, the number of people who only listed them as second choices will influence them.
I love my Party, because it's the best one we've got that has a chance. It's the rules we have, and I am not going to stand outside of the process if I can work inside it until what I have always believed should be the real revolution, ranked choice voting at all levels of government, happens.
And believe me, I am working for that revolution. They have to start from the bottom up, though....
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I live in a place that has ranked choice voting in local elections, and come from a country where it's the norm, so I have been familiar with the concept since I was a small kid (my Dad used to lecture at a community college on these topics and practiced his lectures on me).
Ranked choice voting is IMHO a better system and it's certainly more satisfying and fairer on an intellectual level...but it frequently throws out results that nobody likes. Our last mayor was widely unpopular, but she was the least unpopular candidate at the time of election and ended up getting the job even though she wa only 5th or 6th in terms of popularity on the first ballot. Her tenure was a bit of a disaster. I'm not sure the system leads to improved outcomes and it arguably reduces turnout by making results more complex and less responsive to headline preferences. Maybe people will wise up over the course of several election cycles by my cynical opinion is that most people either emulate or rebel against their parents an that they're lifetime voting patterns are pretty predictable by the time they reach 25, regardless of which voting system is in place.
So don't fool yourself that making a technical change is going to automatically bring about a moral renewal by magically promoting the best candidate. Ain't gonna happen, politics will still suck and politicians will still lie and so on.
moriah
(8,311 posts)But the two-party system is way too locked in at the highest levels.
In elections with fewer contenders (each party's primary process being a runoff essentially for that party), though, it would let Greens vote for their candidate of choice, without throwing their vote away at the best and at the worst failing to cancel out a Republican vote.
The GOP, despite us representing a big tent, are far more fractured in terms of what they value. There's a huge part of the country that wants to stop fighting about social issues and just cares about the budget, and the "moral majority" has become a minority. They are still pandered to each election, though. If any major party fractured as a result, it would be the GOP and I'm not sure exactly how it would fracture, I'm fairly sure that a "financial majority" would emerge.
I would rather fight Congressional battles over budgets for the poor and underserved than constantly have to defend attacks against individual rights -- and even if the Quiverfull movement is successful in trying to breed as many future Evangelicals as they can, even they are fracturing and probably wouldn't unite well.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)need to keep from wandering off into the wilderness.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)This "with us or against us" crap is reminiscent of Bush Jr. Sad that that's what Democrats are embracing these days.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)independents who vote Libertarian and Republican and Democrat depending on the candidate.
Mostly, independents are people who think for themselves rather than buying into the party line like a child would.
LexVegas
(6,024 posts)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)post is a breath of fresh air.
Recommended, bookmarked.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Devoid of fact or understanding.
PufPuf23
(8,754 posts)The specific choice between POTUS candidate is typically self evident for a voter despite not being a member of a political party; whether left or right, Democrat or GOP or Other.
The reasons to join or not join a political party are more than a specific candidate or election for most voters.
I have been a registered and voting member of the Democratic Party since 1972 and have no plans to leave.
What is weird is why an intelligent person like you serves up a polarizing and misleading OP.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)them - so they prefer to be called Independent. I have always been a Dem but over the last many years I have stopped giving any money to the DNC, DSCC, DCC and only give to candidates I support directly. On many surveys from the DNC I would say I would begin giving money again when they grew a spine. In those days I thought they were simply spineless for not standing up for what I had always believed were core Democratic values. Now I think it's not a question of being spineless. Now I realize it's a question of not having any real principles except honoring their corporate donors. So I have been thinking it's time to call myself an Independent as well. I'll never vote for a Republican - but I'm not sure I like the "label" Democrat any more. It has lost its luster and with someone like DWS as the head - and her support of payday lenders - I'm pretty sure my core values and the DNC's are very different.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)An "independent" takes many forms. Primarily, they are unaffiliated. They have not joined a party. That doesn't mean they couldn't decide between Obama and McCain at all. It doesn't mean they are middle of the road in their politics. It doesn't say anything about their political leanings.
It also represents new voters, apolitical until now.
It also represents disaffected voters, fed up with politics as usual.
And on and on.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)They seem to be growing....
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
elleng
(130,726 posts)'Independents' didn't/don't want to choose to align with parties/groups 'forever,' thinking/knowing the group can and likely will change it's posture sometime down the road. WHY self-identify with such a changeable institution, unless/until forced to do so? I didn't, until I wanted to vote in a primary.
jillan
(39,451 posts)People vote for the candidate they feel is most qualified.
Nothing weird about it.
But if you want to lock out the largest group of registered voters from having a say in who is going to be the nominee, that is very weird.
If they need to be registered dems in order to vote, then let them change their registration at the time they vote.
NOT 6 months in advance before they were even paying attention the the election.
The Dem party has been losing it's % of registered voters.
One would think they would want to grow those numbers by making it easier to change their registration at the time of voting.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)that I had to state my party when I registered to vote here.
In Michigan I had never been asked that (first registered at age 21 in 1970 in Dearborn). When primaries occurred the voting machines allowed one to vote for one party only and all of the races below state level were non-partisan.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)
tymorial
(3,433 posts)fueled by identity politics and moral superiority. I don't know why I stay here.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)An independent voter is a thinking voter. An independent voter is usually well informed on the issues and isn't blinded by a (LETTER) after a candidates name.
Long live the independent thinkers.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)That is called an "undecided." Big difference.
The majority of people registered as independents vote and identify primarily with one party, or they are to the left or right spectrum of that party and would not, under any circumstance vote for anyone at the opposite spectrum.
Independent is not synonymous with centrist.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)People self-identify as "independent" (and other labels for that matter) for a variety of reasons, as discussed in this thread that I started: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1885274
TM99
(8,352 posts)Democrat today is someone who fails to realize that their registered electorate numbers have now dwindled below 30%.
Somehow these party faithful believe they can win presidential and mid-term elections without the leftist independents.
Weird, that they would cut off their nose to spite their face but no one ever said that cheerleaders for any team were using full brain capacity but only gut emotional rationalizations.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)They had no trouble. If not for independents, Obama could not have become POTUS.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Don't bother answering, it is obvious.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
mcar
(42,278 posts)