Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kentuck

(115,401 posts)
Wed Apr 19, 2017, 05:25 PM Apr 2017

Can Democrats win without Independents? [View all]

Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think so.

The Democratic Party needs Independent voters as much as Independent voters need Democratic voters in order to win at a national level.

Like-minded voters should vote in a coalition, if it gives them a majority. They should not vote strictly Party lines, in my opinion. That is a recipe for a permanent minority. We are well on our way.

Understanding this is anathema to many Democratic Party voters does not make it less true. Looking at recent losses from school boards to state legislatures to the US Senate and House races should inform us of the necessity at hand. We cannot continue the road we have been on for over a decade.

Democrats, such as Jon Ossoff, in Georgia can win in red states, in my opinion. But, they have to be willing to adapt to the districts that they are running to represent. They must understand that local concerns are more important than national concerns when running for national office. All politics is indeed, local.

Ossoff, from Georgia's 6th District, received 48.1% of the total vote in the special election yesterday. However, that is just enough to lose unless he can reach 50% in a heads-up match-up with the Republican. He must find a way to get 2% more of the vote. He must get more Democrats out to vote, or he must receive more Independent votes, or he must persuade some Republicans to his side? That is the challenge facing the Democratic Party.

The national Democratic Party is very weak on messaging and framing the issues. Candidates should not tie their fortunes to such a losing strategy, in my opinion. Democrats have to adapt to their environments. That does not mean they have to adopt a Republican message but it does mean that they have to be able to communicate with Republicans that are dissatisfied with Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

As for messaging, the first priority of Democrats should be to connect every Republican to Donald Trump. If they say they disagree with Donald Trump the person, but agree with some issues, that means they understand Trump is a liability to their re-election fortunes. If they voted for repeal of Obamacare, without a replacement, or support a huge tax cut for the wealthy, or supported the way Mitch McConnell put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, then they are standing with Donald J. Trump. Democrats need to be much sharper with their messaging, if they wish to take back the House and Senate from the Republicans, the Party that truly sucks at governing.

67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Simiple answer is, Wellstone ruled Apr 2017 #1
No samrockfish Apr 2017 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author kentuck Apr 2017 #3
Not if the math is right. tazkcmo Apr 2017 #4
Most "Independents" actually identify with one national Party or other... kentuck Apr 2017 #8
This glorification of "independents" is pretty silly. DanTex Apr 2017 #20
If there are more "independents" than Democrats or Republicans, then... kentuck Apr 2017 #21
Sure, we need to win their votes. That doesn't mean pretending that they are DanTex Apr 2017 #22
The reality is: kentuck Apr 2017 #23
What does that have to do with the discussion we are having? DanTex Apr 2017 #25
If you have to ask.. kentuck Apr 2017 #29
In other words, you don't have an answer. DanTex Apr 2017 #31
You are the one that wants to define "independents" as wise free thinkers? kentuck Apr 2017 #44
No, I want to define them as people pretending to be wise free thinkers. DanTex Apr 2017 #47
I'm confused by what you consider "glorification"?? kentuck Apr 2017 #51
Really? Try re-reading the glowing terms you talk about Independents in. DanTex Apr 2017 #53
I don't agree that Mike Bloomberg and Joe Lieberman are average "independents". kentuck Apr 2017 #54
Really? On what basis do you think the are exceptions? DanTex Apr 2017 #55
Post #8 kentuck Apr 2017 #57
Those aren't really independents, they are Ds or Rs that just haven't registered with a party. DanTex Apr 2017 #58
Why do you have so much animosity toward "independents"? kentuck Apr 2017 #61
The question is, why do you have so much worship for them? DanTex Apr 2017 #63
I don't get where you get this "worship" shit? kentuck Apr 2017 #65
Read your own posts, and the glowing words you describe them in. DanTex Apr 2017 #66
Thank You. nt jrthin Apr 2017 #32
Basically SirBrockington Apr 2017 #33
I will keep this in mind... Sophiegirl Apr 2017 #35
More Democrats need to understand your position. kentuck Apr 2017 #45
No LeftInTX Apr 2017 #5
No. They have this independents vote. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #6
Nope- but independents are as partisan as party members. We can't sway those bigots who hate Dems . bettyellen Apr 2017 #7
Great Post aquamarina Apr 2017 #9
NO democrank Apr 2017 #10
The important question is MedusaX Apr 2017 #11
Bernie didn't even bother to acquaint himself with Ossoff's positions, much less support him. pnwmom Apr 2017 #12
Does anyone assume that Bernie is always right?? kentuck Apr 2017 #14
Yeah, lots of people around here. n/t pnwmom Apr 2017 #18
Nebraska voted for Bernie, so it looks like that's why he R B Garr Apr 2017 #34
But why is he disparaging him and Dems as not necessarily being progressive -- pnwmom Apr 2017 #36
Exactly. His actions, by who he selects and where, suggest R B Garr Apr 2017 #41
We don't need racists. AngryAmish Apr 2017 #13
Who suggested that? kentuck Apr 2017 #15
Many DU'ers seem to think so, given the way they bash Independents like Bernie Sanders. denverbill Apr 2017 #16
Statistics can be misleading Progressive dog Apr 2017 #48
Sometimes. How do you account for Sanders doing better than the more centrist Obama in 2012 though? denverbill Apr 2017 #56
Bernie got less than the 75% he Progressive dog Apr 2017 #60
No. That's why we can't chase away people like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill, DanTex Apr 2017 #17
If another Democrat cannot defeat them in a primary...? kentuck Apr 2017 #19
Of course not. wildeyed Apr 2017 #24
If people voted on what is in their best interests and the interest of the nation and the world... kentuck Apr 2017 #26
Yep, it's far more complex than people are making it out to be JHan Apr 2017 #28
Is 30% a majority? Barack_America Apr 2017 #27
No, we can't, under the current system. Tatiana Apr 2017 #30
And yet Bernie said he didn't know whether Ossoff was a progressive -- pnwmom Apr 2017 #38
Well, Bernie is clearly wrong and I'm sure someone will have educated him by now. Tatiana Apr 2017 #46
Progressive should be more than just a label. kentuck Apr 2017 #52
Democrats know how to Govern SirBrockington Apr 2017 #37
So agree. But let's leave a little blame for bad citizens. Hortensis Apr 2017 #59
Well stated Progressive dog Apr 2017 #39
No. Thanks for a realistic OP. kr PufPuf23 Apr 2017 #40
Depends on which "independents" you mean. Xolodno Apr 2017 #42
Can Democrats win without Centrists? It's a big tent. Hekate Apr 2017 #43
We need a bigger tent. kentuck Apr 2017 #49
No yortsed snacilbuper Apr 2017 #50
Do independents want America destroyed as much as conservatives? beachbum bob Apr 2017 #62
I would guess that most of the progressive, democratic "independents" would not? kentuck Apr 2017 #64
Tip O'Neill and basic math say "No" - we need a party and candidate slate built from the ground up. Yo_Mama Apr 2017 #67
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can Democrats win without...