General Discussion

LWolf

(46,179 posts)

65. You seem to think that "independents"

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:18 AM

Jul 2013

are a block with common goals on issues.

They're not.

I was an independent for most of my voting life; I only registered "D" to protest the 2000 selection. Since then, I've learned that it didn't do me any good to be part of a party, or to work and vote in primaries; the same kind of candidates get elected every time regardless.

As an independent, and as an independent-minded Democrat, I would vote for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat.

"Independent" is supposed to mean that one makes an independent decision about issues and candidates outside of party influence. I do that anyway, regardless of party membership.

The stumbling block to electing candidates that would serve the 99% is that those at the gate, those that have the $$ and influence to determine who will be on the ballot in the general election, will make sure that they won't.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why can't we elect Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to the whitehouse in '16? [View all] madokie Jul 2013 OP

Because the people who really do pick the candidates do not want them. djean111 Jul 2013 #1

And no doubt 2016 will be even worse newfie11 Jul 2013 #2

pretty much. cali Jul 2013 #6

Exactly. They rob us of real choices BEFORE the election. stillwaiting Jul 2013 #16

"those with massive amounts of money get to choose who gets to run" That is how they do it. L0oniX Jul 2013 #57

And those who DO get to run.... Gumboot Jul 2013 #61

Well it's a jobs thing... their jobs ...not jobs for the little people who vote. L0oniX Jul 2013 #63

Yup. Those nominations have been bought & paid for already. Divernan Jul 2013 #39

Nailed it. nt woo me with science Jul 2013 #70

Yep. Obama got same % from small donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004 joshcryer Jul 2013 #96

I think it's worth giving it a try. LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #3

Seven corporations own our media, that's why. HughBeaumont Jul 2013 #4

I'm pretty sure we can, but we'd need to be organized. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #5

We do need to get organized. We need to pick new people to run that will pledge to fight Dustlawyer Jul 2013 #71

We need people who have not been bought, who care about something besides money. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #72

2 New Englanders, both perceived as "liberal" would not win, that is why. nt MADem Jul 2013 #7

Warren is an Oklahoman who has resided in New England just since the 90's also a former Republican Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #36

Warren would not win Okahoma, and she would be portrayed as a "Haavid Perfesser" and denigrated MADem Jul 2013 #83

Bernie can't decide what party he would run with and Elizabeth reminds everybody of the school CK_John Jul 2013 #8

In comtemporary politics, sulphurdunn Jul 2013 #11

Bernie was electe to his second term in the Senate with 71% of the vote. He needs a Party? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #40

Well said! nt Enthusiast Jul 2013 #98

Really? Can you point to someone who HAS shown some 'leadership' so we can evaluate sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #47

+1 Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #77

You forgot the sarcasm thingie.......nt Enthusiast Jul 2013 #99

No Bucks...No Buck Rogers... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #9

I never heard of Obama until he was picked to run for president. djean111 Jul 2013 #12

That is part of the reason he was chosen. LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #20

Obama did not vote against the Iraq War, he was not in the Senate for the vote Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #44

He Was Known In Iowa... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #23

I guess the problem for me there is that Obama was bankrolled, he didn't do this on his own, djean111 Jul 2013 #26

Life Ain't Fair... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #34

this would be a much bigger challenge to established power than McGovern in 72 Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #10

Unless we can elect two "people first" candidates dotymed Jul 2013 #13

I think "whining" means that they are insubordinate to established entrenched capitalist power Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #18

If they run, I'll donate. It may be our last chance to save what we remember of the USA. byeya Jul 2013 #14

Voter suppression, a corprat-controlled media that would be against them from the outset.... Triana Jul 2013 #15

Ralph Nader would say they were too far right, run, and throw the election to the GOP again. nt onehandle Jul 2013 #17

You really think that? Nader is 79 today, he'll be 81 next election. Your scray monster is an old Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #48

Hardly. Ralph would love a Liz/Bernie or Bernie/Liz ticket. . limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #59

Because they are both doing good jobs where they are now, is a good reason to leave them where they RC Jul 2013 #19

+1000 djean111 Jul 2013 #22

We should, it's a dire emergency G_j Jul 2013 #21

We should do a Write-in campaign cprise Jul 2013 #25

This is exactly where I'm coming from madokie Jul 2013 #27

I don't see a choice, we either elect someone G_j Jul 2013 #30

I'd consider voting for them davidpdx Jul 2013 #24

WE CAN! bluedeathray Jul 2013 #28

That is the spirit we need madokie Jul 2013 #29

Because the powers that be don't want to see any real change davidn3600 Jul 2013 #31

All the more reason to do this madokie Jul 2013 #33

Because it would take $$$ n2doc Jul 2013 #32

No problem. They're more useful as Senators. malthaussen Jul 2013 #35

i say this everytime i see a waren2016 here - put warren as potus so she can be neutered by the gop leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #37

That philosophy sure didn't get applied to Obama. djean111 Jul 2013 #43

no but wanted to see the 1st a.a. potus leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #74

So did you say that about Obama? Or Clinton? Biden? Edwards? Almost all the 08 pimary candidates Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #49

no i didnt say that about any of them and e.warren is more useful as senator leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #73

1000%+. That is a choice I would enthusiastically support! on point Jul 2013 #38

Because they are not electable in a general election, that's why. Beacool Jul 2013 #41

There are quite a few reasons "we" can't onenote Jul 2013 #42

heres why rdking647 Jul 2013 #45

Bernie in not only an Independent, he is the only Independent elected to the Senate Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #51

Last I heard Angus King of Maine was another Independent elected to the senate.... Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #58

You seem to think that "independents" LWolf Jul 2013 #65

Warren/Sanders xtraxritical Jul 2013 #46

It is up to the people who vote in the primaries treestar Jul 2013 #50

Because they won't run? LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #52

Why not indeed? They can throw their hats in the ring and make their cases. Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #53

Both 'are' smart persons working for the people who elected them randr Jul 2013 #54

Because Goldman Sachs doesn't approve of them. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #55

Morgan Stanley... xtraxritical Jul 2013 #56

Goldman Sachs picked Obama over Romney in 2012? (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #60

Obama is a member in the House? ...and owns the media? ...only got campaign money from the little L0oniX Jul 2013 #62

Because too many people have bought the lie Bonobo Jul 2013 #64

At least a few of us hasn't bought that lie madokie Jul 2013 #66

Why do people imagine Sanders or Warren would not be subject to the same political realities ... Recursion Jul 2013 #67

Because most of the population will think they are too left wing and not vote for them. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #68

Because as soon as they don't put Bush in jail, Free Bradley Manning Day 1, Allow Snowden uponit7771 Jul 2013 #69

Your insinuations against Obama's critics are false. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #76

No, their insinuations are right on. If a Democrat compromises on anything, the attacks start. stevenleser Jul 2013 #85

I dispute your implicit assumption that appointments are irrelevant. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #88

Thank you for proving my point and proving the point of the other poster. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #89

RIGHT ON TIME!! Thank you for establishing my argument. There's no WAY I would want a job where... uponit7771 Jul 2013 #95

No, they started before that. JoeyT Jul 2013 #93

You are mistaken about two things. Timeline and who "They" are stevenleser Jul 2013 #101

It turned out that concern about the cabinet appointments was fully justified, steven. Ken Burch Jul 2013 #97

No, it didn't. A President is going to govern like they are going to govern. Cabinet members don't stevenleser Jul 2013 #100

The minute they have to make a deal, they'll be personna non grata, and I'll bet that's why Bernie.. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #79

Yes, haven't they learned? treestar Jul 2013 #87

First, are you going to get either of them to run? CakeGrrl Jul 2013 #75

Liberals seem to confuse what goes on "Underground", with what actually goes on above ground. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #78

Bernie doesn't want to and he's not a Democrat anyway. He runs as an Independent so Cleita Jul 2013 #80

because they won't get enough votes to win and are unelectable nationally scheming daemons Jul 2013 #81

Apparently, because the ownership class says no and their upperclass footpads say no TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #82

They'd make quite a sight NoPasaran Jul 2013 #84

And the Puritopians OilemFirchen Jul 2013 #86

I'm in! eom. wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #90

A Massachusetts/Vermont ticket? Yeah, right. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #91

Just for shits and giggles. OilemFirchen Jul 2013 #92

It wouldn't be easy. It might not even work the first time around, but just like they couldn't stop liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #94