Can Democrats win without Independents?

[kentuck]

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.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Simiple answer is,

No!!

[samrockfish]

2. No

No

[tazkcmo]

4. Not if the math is right.

Democrats and Republicans each account for about 30% of registered voters while registered Independents are at about 40% as of 2010. The 2016 numbers reflect the same closeness in D vs R, so neither party can afford not to win Independent votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#Gallup

Which ever candidate can win the Ind vote and at least tie in partisan voting wins.

[kentuck]

8. Most "Independents" actually identify with one national Party or other...

But they call themselves "Independents" for a reason. They reserve the right to disagree with Party dogma and to not march in lock-step with anyone, especially a national political Party. The issues are more important to them than Party label.

[DanTex]

20. This glorification of "independents" is pretty silly.

For the most part, independents relatively ignorant, but like to think of themselves "above it all". It's basically another version of the lie that there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans needs to get their head examined.

[kentuck]

21. If there are more "independents" than Democrats or Republicans, then...

it would be simple arithmetic to understand that the Party that wins the most independents will likely win the race.

[DanTex]

22. Sure, we need to win their votes. That doesn't mean pretending that they are

some kind of enlightened free thinkers, with truly open minds, while Democrats are somehow chained into party dogma.

Because that's not true. And pretending that it is true won't help us win their votes, because living in a fantasy world doesn't help to accomplish things in the real world.

[kentuck]

23. The reality is:

We have lost control of the House, Senate, Presidency, State Legislatures, Governorships, and races all the way down to dog catcher. That doesn't sound very enlightening to me.

By the way, no one is pretending that "independents" are some type of enlightened free thinkers. That is the way some others might define them.

[DanTex]

25. What does that have to do with the discussion we are having?

It's a total non-sequitor. We just lost a big election, so therefore, ummm, independents are wise free thinkers? What?

[kentuck]

29. If you have to ask..

there is no need to discuss it further. You don't have to be "a wise free thinker" to vote for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not enlightened. Very few of their voters are enlightened.

[DanTex]

31. In other words, you don't have an answer.

[kentuck]

44. You are the one that wants to define "independents" as wise free thinkers?

And then wants everyone to agree with that premise. Nobody said that, except you.

[DanTex]

47. No, I want to define them as people pretending to be wise free thinkers.

You were the one who glorified them:

But they call themselves "Independents" for a reason. They reserve the right to disagree with Party dogma and to not march in lock-step with anyone, especially a national political Party. The issues are more important to them than Party label.

Ahh, those dogma-free, label-free independents. LOL.

Here's the thing. When you say "Independent", you're thinking Bernie. But that's wrong. He is a very atypical Independent. More common are people like Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg, Jesse Ventura, etc. Do you want the Democrats to change their message to cater to Lieberman supporters and Bloomberg supporters? Do you think Joe Lieberman does "not march in lock-step with anyone"?

[kentuck]

51. I'm confused by what you consider "glorification"??

Reserving the right to not belong to your Party or not to believe exactly as you do is not a "glorification" position. I think you need to study this a little deeper?

[DanTex]

53. Really? Try re-reading the glowing terms you talk about Independents in.

The other funny thing is that you think that tacking hard left would get more Independent votes to come to the Democratic Party, where in fact the opposite is true. Independents on average are more moderate than Democrats. Yeah, I know, Bernie is Independent, but he's the exception.

So, yeah, I agree with your premise, we need to get Independents to vote for us. That means making arguments that people like Mike Bloomberg and Joe Lieberman would find appealing. Are you up for that?

[kentuck]

54. I don't agree that Mike Bloomberg and Joe Lieberman are average "independents".

They are the exceptions.

What do you consider "glowing" terms?? Because they might think more independently than you? Does that make them less worthy? Unless they belong to the Democratic Party, they are nothing more than dogshit on the bottom of your shoe?

[DanTex]

55. Really? On what basis do you think the are exceptions?

How about Angus King, is he an exception too? It seems to me that you are defining every independent other than Bernie as an "exception". Which, needless to say, means you've got "exception" and "non-exception" backwards.

And, no, I don't think that independents think more independently than me or any other Dem. "Independent" refers to their political affiliation, not their thought process.

[kentuck]

57. Post #8

Most "Independents" actually identify with one national Party or other...

But they call themselves "Independents" for a reason. They reserve the right to disagree with Party dogma and to not march in lock-step with anyone, especially a national political Party. The issues are more important to them than Party label.
=========

That does not make them enlightened or free thinkers. Maybe their Party is not radical enough on some positions or maybe they don't address some issues at all? I don't think they can be key-holed with a label.

[DanTex]

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

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.

[kentuck]

61. Why do you have so much animosity toward "independents"?

I do agree that most "independents" vote either with the Democratic or the Republican Parties. In my viewpoint, if they vote Democratic, they are OK with me. They may as well be Democrats. I do not get hung up if they say they are an "Independent", if they believe in the most of the same things that I believe in. I think it is detrimental to push the label argument too far. Just my opinion.

[DanTex]

63. The question is, why do you have so much worship for them?

I have less animosity towards Indys than I do Republicans. Because Indys (except for the ones who are effective Dems) only vote Rep some of the time, but Republicans vote Republican all of the time.

Indys that vote consistently for Dems are basically the same as Dems. I don't see why they should be treated as different or special or wise simply because they don't check the Dem box on their registration. In fact, I don't see why we should make any distinction at all between them and Dems, in terms of political strategy.

But that's a minority of Independents. The average Independent is a swing voter.

[kentuck]

65. I don't get where you get this "worship" shit?

Exaggerate a little, do we?

"The average Independent is a swing voter." Maybe? I would not know about that.

We do agree that Independents that vote with the Democrats are basically the same as Democrats. I don't see why there should even be a question about it?

[DanTex]

66. Read your own posts, and the glowing words you describe them in.

I wonder if you've ever use such language to describe Democrats. You know: Democrats, the party responsible for practically everything good that's come out of the government for a century (yeah I know, the interstates and the EPA, so let's say 40 years...).

[jrthin]

32. Thank You. nt

[SirBrockington]

33. Basically

i would/did write more, but I've just had two posts removed with regards to another controversial person/topic/individual so Ill just erase the two paragraph addition to my "basically" and leave it at that.

[Sophiegirl]

35. I will keep this in mind...

When, as an Independent, my dumbass, ignorant vote is needed to help elect the next D in my district. I vote strictly D. Always have, always will.

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between Democrats and Republicans. And quite frankly, I'm pretty fed up with folks here who want to demonized anyone who doesn't wear the party patch. It comes off as clique-ish.

I also don't walk around yelling "look at me and how superior I am" because I am not a registered Democrat. That doesn't mean I don't support the Democratic ideals and platform.

You insult a lot of people with this type of talk and the only one who sounds "above it all" is you.

[kentuck]

45. More Democrats need to understand your position.

In my opinion.

[LeftInTX]

5. No

[NCTraveler]

6. No. They have this independents vote.

[bettyellen]

7. Nope- but independents are as partisan as party members. We can't sway those bigots who hate Dems .

What we can do is increase turnout. Independents who vote GOP have always done so, they just like to call themselves independent.

[aquamarina]

9. Great Post

Messaging is the key.

[democrank]

10. NO

[MedusaX]

11. The important question is

How to successfully market candidates to those who do not identify themselves as "Democrats"?

There are several target markets that need to be addressed ...
• Not yet registered & Newly registered voters
• Those who are not considered active voters
• Those who vote but do not identify themselves as members of any party
• Those who identify themselves as "Independent"
• Those who have identified themselves as Repub in the past... but now are not so sure..,
• Those who identify as Green or Libertarian or whatever

You can have the neatest, most useful, best priced, highest quality product in the history of the world....
but you still have to get the word out...
And you only hurt yourself if you purposefully refuse to offer your item to certain groups

[pnwmom]

12. Bernie didn't even bother to acquaint himself with Ossoff's positions, much less support him.

Bernie's message: being a Democrat doesn't mean you're a progressive.

So he implied that Ossoff wasn't progressive, which is flat-out wrong. Meanwhile, Bernie's going to be campaigning in another state for the anti-abortion candidate Heath Mello.

I don't understand Bernie's approach but he doesn't seem to be helping. Disparaging Democrats like Ossoff isn't the way to go.

[kentuck]

14. Does anyone assume that Bernie is always right??

He's just like the rest of us. Sometimes we are wrong.

[pnwmom]

18. Yeah, lots of people around here. n/t

[R B Garr]

34. Nebraska voted for Bernie, so it looks like that's why he

is supporting him. He's supporting the Montana race also, and Montana voted for him. He called the candidate there a "populist", not a Democrat.

The South voted for Hillary -- he didn't lift a finger.

He's recently smeared coastal cities, calling New York and San Francisco"liberal elitists", all of them voted for Hillary. So far, his approach looks biased towards regions and states that voted for him.

[pnwmom]

36. But why is he disparaging him and Dems as not necessarily being progressive --

without even bothering to inform himself about Ossoff?

Why can't he acknowledge that in the modern era ALL Dems are more progressive than any of the Rethugs?

[R B Garr]

41. Exactly. His actions, by who he selects and where, suggest

he is more committed to his biases than to actually getting Democrats elected.

There is no excuse whatsoever for his dismissive and basically uninformed comments about Ossoff. You would think with the disasters Trump has brought on, it would be a default position that Democrats are better than Republicans, but Bernie looks to be more into who enhances his image.

Completely agree with your questions and wonder the same things.

[AngryAmish]

13. We don't need racists.

[kentuck]

15. Who suggested that?

No, we don't need racists.

[denverbill]

16. Many DU'ers seem to think so, given the way they bash Independents like Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders has a 75% approval rating among his constituents, the best of any Senator in the country. Maybe instead of constantly bashing Sanders, more Democrats should emulate him.

[Progressive dog]

48. Statistics can be misleading

The population required for Bernie's 75% approval in Vermont would equal less than 1.3% in California and only slightly more than 10% in Louisiana's (#25 in population). Only Wyoming has a smaller population than Vermont.

[denverbill]

56. Sometimes. How do you account for Sanders doing better than the more centrist Obama in 2012 though?

This is JUST Vermont.
Nominee Bernie Sanders John MacGovern
Party Independent Republican
Popular vote 207,848 72,898 -134,950 margin of victory
Percentage 71.0% 24.9%

Nominee Barack Obama Mitt Romney
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Illinois Massachusetts
Running mate Joe Biden Paul Ryan
Electoral vote 3 0
Popular vote 199,239 92,698 - 106,541 margin of victory
Percentage 66.57% 30.97%

Figuring Democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans, this shows the progressive Independent (Sanders) winning independents resoundingly. A larger victory margin by nearly 30,000 more votes out of about 300,000 cast.

I think it's interesting the Democrats don't even run a candidate against him in Vermont because everyone knows he'll vote with Democrats the vast majority of the time.

[Progressive dog]

60. Bernie got less than the 75% he

had in the poll in an actual election. So it's pretty easy to account for it. It is still a minuscule number of voters compared to just about any other Senate race in the nation.

[DanTex]

17. No. That's why we can't chase away people like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill,

who are able to get votes from independents and moderates in their states, even though they can't pass a progressive purity test.

[kentuck]

19. If another Democrat cannot defeat them in a primary...?

then I guess they must be more in touch with their constituencies?

[wildeyed]

24. Of course not.

But 'independent' represents a large spectrum of political leanings. And I think that people are too hard on Dems about messaging. Our message is harder to sell than the Reps. They use fear and division. Daddy will protect you from "those people" and you won't have to pay taxes! It's a lie, but a lie that people WANT to be true.

And they don't believe in democracy, at their core. I REALLY want every vote to count, even those cast by my political enemies. This is common Democratic Party value. And it puts us a huge disadvantage. They brutally disenfranchise our voters when they have power, but we don't go after theirs nearly as hard when we have the chance.

What I hear you saying is that Dems have to do messaging that appeals to progressives. I don't agree. All politics is local. Plenty of GOP in swing districts said they would not vote to repeal ACA because that was unpopular with their constituents and they would loss their next election if they did that. Dems in conservative areas have to do what they have to do to survive sometimes too.

[kentuck]

26. If people voted on what is in their best interests and the interest of the nation and the world...

...everyone would vote to get a handle on global warming.

But, that is not the reality. If global warming was the only issue Democrats could run on, they would probably lose every race?

We have to adapt to political realities.

[JHan]

28. Yep, it's far more complex than people are making it out to be

There are libertarian leaning "independents" it's a very mixed bag. And I haven't seen a single message from the leadership that scoffs at independents. We have to be the party of local government again, that should be the priority.

[Barack_America]

27. Is 30% a majority?

Then no.

[Tatiana]

30. No, we can't, under the current system.

I totally agree with you. If anyone listened to Ossoff's rhetoric, he doesn't waffle. He's very strong, and I think that's appealing in Southern conservative Congressional districts. Listen to some of his message:

It is in our strong national interest that every American have quality, affordable health care.

We should all be proclaiming this loudly!

Jon will defend women’s access to contraception and a woman’s right to choose and fight any legislation or executive action that would allow insurance companies to discriminate against women.

Nope. No waffles there...

Jon believes it is a violation of core American principles to slander entire religious groups and that it’s unconstitutional to ban anyone from entering our country on religious grounds.

Wow... appealing to core American principles. Republicans apparently don't have any, but many Independents do and will vote for Ossoff because they agree with his argument. We need more Democrats like him who forcefully make the argument for progressive values (even if they aren't identified as such).

[pnwmom]

38. And yet Bernie said he didn't know whether Ossoff was a progressive --

that being a Democrat didn't make him a progressive.

Well, Bernie, neither does being an Independent. There are plenty of rightward leaning independents.

[Tatiana]

46. Well, Bernie is clearly wrong and I'm sure someone will have educated him by now.

Being a Democrat doesn't make Ossoff progressive. However, he is a Democrat and he is progressive. Therefore he is deserving of all the support we can give him and then some.

I'm not sure if Bernie was trying to be cute or he really was unaware of Ossoff. Either way, it doesn't look good. If he's serving in a leadership capacity, he needs to concern himself with the potential members who can increase our numbers.

[kentuck]

52. Progressive should be more than just a label.

It should mean that a person recognizes the political reality and uses it to his advantage. In my opinion, Ossoff did exactly that. He understood that Donald Trump was an issue. Maybe it was just a gut feeling and had nothing to do with "progressive" politics? But, it was and is a winning issue, moreso tomorrow than today.

[SirBrockington]

37. Democrats know how to Govern

Republicans know how to campaign. Republicans can have a pair of twos and make the Dem leadership fold with a Ace King time and time again. It's the same axiom over and over. Dems make the world a better place, Repubs tear it down, destruction, social division etc etc. Dems come in and by some miracle fix it only when things get so bad that the public almost has no choice...then they don't know how to run on the accomplishments nor frame the issues in stark constrast.

An observation of consistent futility along with continuing to put certain representatives in leadership positions that have a long history failure...over and over and over again

[Hortensis]

59. So agree. But let's leave a little blame for bad citizens.

Conservative and other ruthless operatives wanting to cripple governance and/or just defeat the opposition have a hugely effective tool that we do not: Lies. Big, sensationalist lies that feed off ignorance and laziness, lies that appeal to all the worst aspects of character and, especially, lies that are enjoyable--entertaining to read and fun to spread widely, like "grass roots" wildfires, via email.

Btw, appreciated and completely agree with your post giving your opinion about "the single biggest reason she lost."

[Progressive dog]

39. Well stated

[PufPuf23]

40. No. Thanks for a realistic OP. kr

[Xolodno]

42. Depends on which "independents" you mean.

Some call themselves independent...as if it makes them look smarter...but still vote absolute GOP. You can't reach these people.

Then there are independents whom Dem's have not relayed the message to accurately. Sad to say, Romney was right, at his time, in regards there is an electorate on both sides that you cannot convince otherwise, but need to focus on the last 3%. Of course he painted them as gullible, to his detriment.

The message has to reach these people and in way they can understand. No easy task..as Romney was also right to imply many are indeed gullible.

Today, there are more independents, due to people who are disillusioned with the GOP. Attracting these people will not be easy as they are just as likely to sit home. Which can work to the advantage of the Democratic Party, but that's a quick and dirty way to win and doesn't show any progress. If a GOP politician will have an easier time winning them back, if they just sat home the last election. But if they finally buy into Democratic ideas, a GOP politician is not going to easily win them back.

In short, "fuck the independents" as a number here advocate, is not a long term winning solution, but an immediate self gratification.

[Hekate]

43. Can Democrats win without Centrists? It's a big tent.

[kentuck]

49. We need a bigger tent.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

50. No

[beachbum bob]

62. Do independents want America destroyed as much as conservatives?

[kentuck]

64. I would guess that most of the progressive, democratic "independents" would not?

The most radical conservatives have nothing in common with Democrats or the Bernie Sanders-type Independents. Their radical ideas are more closely aligned with the Republican Party, in my opinion.

[Yo_Mama]

67. Tip O'Neill and basic math say "No" - we need a party and candidate slate built from the ground up.

Tip O'Neill's biography, "Man of the House" is a good read still today. Politics is local.

Since Independents are the largest group of voters in many areas, in general elections they rule. But the codicil to that is that a strong campaign platform focused on local interests will inevitably attract Independents.

If we want to reverse the current trend, rather than making every local election a referendum on national politics, we need to start from the local and then integrate local concerns (as expressed by reps) into national platforms.

We're trying to do things almost opposite to the way we did them when we were winning. The make-every-local-election-a-national referendum thing might be good for fund-raising now, but will it produce gains in seats?