General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

58. Those aren't really independents, they are Ds or Rs that just haven't registered with a party.

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 08:57 PM

Apr 2017

And even then, it would include Lieberman, who identifies with the Democrats.

People who are Independent because the Dems aren't radical enough? LOL. Sure, they exist, but if we're going to be serious about getting more Independents, we're talking about the center (people like Bloomberg), which is much bigger than the radical left.

And, really, if you're talking about leftist radicals, rather than Independents, very few of whom are leftist radicals, then at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind the "Independent" label which very much includes Lieberman and Bloomberg. Use the term "radical leftist". Embrace it, and own it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can Democrats win without Independents? [View all] kentuck Apr 2017 OP

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