My view from north of your border

[floppyboo]

First, I hope this is still okay. I did not vote for Hillary. That would be illegal. I am Canadian. I joined this site Dec. 2014 when following Elizabeth Warren at a time when there seemed to be a real push to change US politics towards a more social democratic platform.

I haven't been posting here much lately, as I don't see that promising push much at all. It makes me kinda sad to read the reactionary comments and fear-based rationale for moving more towards the centre. (That's how we spell center up here also throw in a 'u' whenever you can honour neighbour colour etc.)

By definition, I would be an independent: I am a member of the NDP, but won't hesitate to vote strategically. I'm also kind of a nerd and like to look at stats. I have looked at registration numbers for both dems and gop over the years. GOP seems pretty steady. Dems get a huge spike before every general election. And then it drops off considerably after every election that I have studied. (I haven't gone back that far, admittedly)

The Democratic party sits, between elections, at 28% [edit -27]. or thereabouts, and the GOP at 35% [edit -31]- with the majority of Americans withholding their allegiance at around 43%. If you look at when party membership peaks for the Dems, it is at primary time. And then it drops off, considerably after the election. My guess? independents that didn't get their candidate.

Why am I mentioning any of this?

It is really time to stop blaming Bernie Sanders for Hillary's loss. Those 'democrats' only became 'democrats' to vote for him in the primary. When he didn't get the nomination, they were free. Bernie stood by Hillary after his defeat, but to think that he can bully his followers into changing their real concerns - the reason they joined the democratic party in order to vote for him - is to not understand the real shift in the majority opinion. Unlike Hillary - he was able to sway that disenfranchised majority of American voters. By continuing to insinuate that Bernie stole Hillary's victory, you are alienating the largest voting block.

[leftstreet]

1. Interesting

I hadn't seen stats like those

DURec

[Fresh_Start]

2. Your statistics are wrong.

So your conclusions are also wrong.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[floppyboo]

4. What are you looking at?

I am at your link - go back to pre-primary and post election data. For instance, Sept 2011 dems 21 ind 46 gop 32

Thanks for providing the data to prove my point

Edit: In any case, the 'poll' you provided is just an opinion poll, not an actual accounting of party affiliation. I've been looking at the numbers a long time. I'm not pulling your leg. I'm not going for emotion here. Just the facts, ma'am. If this 'OP' is still a thing after I've picked my blackberries, I'll take the time to search out the goods for you

[brush]

11. Ahhh...this is 2017 not 2011. And down here we have right-leaning polls and left-leaning ones

You have to take their numbers with grains of salt.

[pnwmom]

49. So where are your numbers? I've looked at them many times and not seen the GOP with that lead.

In my state and others, no one registers as a member of any party, so do we not count in your view?

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
THE PARTIES ON THE EVE OF THE 2016 ELECTION: TWO COALITIONS, MOVING FURTHER APART

2. Party affiliation among voters: 1992-2016

Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.

[floppyboo]

58. I saw those numbers on the link you provided, but they only show 2 parties

no independents. But the link provided earlier by another poster shows dem/gop/indie and if you go back to oct 15, before the primaries, you'll see dem 25/indie 42/rep 29. I think it was Gallup. Post #2

EDIT
Oh oh - I messed up my columns. I always put dems first

that puts a wrinkle in my theory to be sure! I'm sure I could find one poll to prove my point, but I'm not doing this to work backwards to the numbers. My mistake re dems being historically behind the GOP. But still, what my interest is is looking at the change in indie numbers and seeing who benefits when they slip and when - when being the big thing.

Take a look and see what you see. Here is that link http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[pnwmom]

60. I think the the other assumption you're making is that most of those "independents"

are Bernie-style independents, too far left to want to identify as Democrats.

But many of them in my experience are centrists, who vote with Democrats one year and Republicans another, depending on the candidates, or have split tickets in any given election.

[floppyboo]

61. That may be - and certainly seems to be true as that poll shows

almost every shift in indie goes to dems. That's clear. And Hillary did win the popular vote.

What were the indie numbers that didn't vote? Pretty large I think. Guess we won't know if they were too far right or too far left to vote strategically.

I am taking issue, though, with the notion that every indie that did tell Gallup they were leaning dem because of Sanders in the primaries, and then didn't vote, is somehow responsible for not sticking with the program.

[roamer65]

3. My prediction.

In 10 years, New England and NY will be the newest provinces of Canada.

The polarity down here in the States is so bad, it will not survive it.

[brush]

5. Hey, we already had a problem with the Russians meddling in our politics.

We don't need a Canadian with wrong numbers meddling.

Your percentages of repug voters v Democratic voters are way off, giving repugs a pretty large numerical advantage.

Why is that?

[floppyboo]

6. Me giving them the advantage? I just read numbers. nt

[brush]

8. You need to get a better source. Your numbers are wrong.

[floppyboo]

15. I'm guessing you meant to address the poster who put the poll #'s up?

I am looking for the source that shows actual registered voters, and, more importantly WHEN registered. It was a real eye-opener for me. even the poll #'s above show a bit of the story. If you go back to December 2015, when the primaries started heating up. Even then, you have to keep into account that many primaries required democrats to register by November 2015 to be eligible for spring votes.

I totally understand and agree that one should not be able to just join a party in order to sway a decision of long time members and people who have been working on a vision for more than just a few years. That always seemed a bit weird to me. Offer the right people a hotel room and a tiki torch, no telling what kind of misconceptions can ensue (that was a sick joke, and I am sorry, in the best Canadian sorry sense)

I wonder what you all think about which works best - knowing there will undoubtedly be interrupters in any primary. caucus, closed, or open primary?

And maybe my numbers will take more than a few weeks! Because it would be interesting to see the party registration change in closed vs. open primaries.

[pnwmom]

50. You will not find such a source, because only 31 states enable voters to register by party.

And given the opportunity to register by party, many voters choose not to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/state-party-registration_n_5399977.html


To help prepare for our coverage, HuffPost’s Stephen Calabria compiled the most recent official registration statistics from 31 states plus the District of Columbia that enable voters to pick a party upon registering to vote. One immediately obvious characteristic of the data is the huge variability in percentage of voters who remain unaffiliated or unclassified, from a low of 8 percent in Kentucky to a high of 92 percent in Arkansas. One cause for that variability is the degree to which individual states limit primary voting to those formally affiliated with a particular party. These differences also help explain why voters often say one thing when asked how they are registered and another when asked what party they feel closer to. [Registration data spreadsheet]

[floppyboo]

51. I also didn't find what I thought I had seen. Just polls, no actual numbers

I think this one looks familiar, or something similar to it:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
I don't know how to post a pic.
With each rise in the dems, there is a fall after the election for both Clinton and Obama, and an inverse fall and rise in independent.
Maybe all it means is that the indies chose the better of two choices, and then carried on in their independent ways? Which aligns with the point I was making. This poll shows the republicans at a lower % than the dems which is different than the numbers I have seen. I will keep looking - not for a definite # but for a few more examples of polls, as it seems that's as good as it gets!

[pnwmom]

52. You are also overlooking the fact that some partisans are strategic voters.

If their own preferred candidate is assured a win, or they don't care who wins their primary, then they cross party lines to vote for the weaker of the candidates in the OTHER party -- hoping to make an easier run for their own party's nominee in the General. Then, in the general, they vote for their own party once again.

[floppyboo]

54. Kasich in Ohio? Didn't this happen there?

Misleading primary for sure! Open primaries really make all this guessing just a parlour game at some point.

[haveahart]

7. Not completely true. Hold outs and bitter enders made the diff.

[floppyboo]

16. But were they Dems before the primaries? Numbers suggest they weren't nt

[DownriverDem]

24. Sadly

Those folks did not understand our two party system.

[Heartstrings]

9. I, for one, appreciate any input from our friends to the North

Why are we giving him negativity?

Take his stats and run with them, learn from them....he certainly didn't post them for accusation purposes....give him a break!

He's on our side people.....geesh!

[SalviaBlue]

13. I appreciate the input too...

some responses are incredibly rude.

Makes you go hmmm??

[ATL Ebony]

18. Agree, what's up with all the hostility

Thanks for your input floppyboo

[denvine]

35. I second that!

Thank you floppyboo! Geez people, if we don't learn from our mistakes, we can't learn how to win again. It's been a while since we have won, except for President Obama, but even under that wonderful man we lost the Senate, the House and so many Governors and state houses.

[RandomAccess]

40. There's a LOT of authoritarianism around here

and frankly, it stuns -- and offends! -- me.

[ATL Ebony]

56. I noticed and I don't get the logic. I get a good discussion but geez.

[RandomAccess]

59. Me too. REALLY not a good look for Dems.

[boston bean]

10. The only people looking to move to the center are those willing to put 'identity politics' on the

Burner while chasing some imaginary trump voter who is bigoted to vote democratic.

[DownriverDem]

25. Not true

You can't just win with extreme left leaners though. Sometimes we don't see who the voters really are. Many of them are in the center. A Dem win is a hell of a lot better than a repub any day.

[floppyboo]

19. My problem with your reply is the large swing from obama voters

that seems to have been women, both left and right. what do you want to do with them? tell them to all fuck off? Why, on earth, did all those women either a) Not vote for Hillary or b) vote for Trump?

I'm afraid all this identity politics has never really addressed this alarming happening. In 2016, no less. And please don't tell me its a feminist backlash construed in some Russian think tank.

[DownriverDem]

22. Exactly

As a woman, I've been asking myself that question since November. What is it that they thought trump would give them?

[tiredtoo]

26. Still have a few strong female trump supporters as Facebook "friends" ?

My opinion is, they admire what they look upon as a strong autocratic leader. They are basically cultists much like those that drank the guyana grape juice. He can do no wrong.
Sad but that's what i see/hear.

[MyNameGoesHere]

48. Guyana in capital

Did not create this drink you refer to. That was a demonic crazy American.

The Guyanese people or culture had nothing to do with it.

[DownriverDem]

23. We have a two party system

You vote for the party that mostly leans your way or you get the side you certainly don't want. Voting 3rd party is truly a waste of your vote. If trump winning hasn't confirmed this, folks are in denial.

[RandomAccess]

41. "Unhelpful" is

further pushing those disaffected aside.

But by all means proceed -- just don't expect that the DNC will pull this one out in 2020, and probably not 2018.

[LakeArenal]

14. There's nothing like good "Fuck You"

To encourage dialogue and convey your message for unity.

Thanks for the input floppy. Now as so many at DU recommend, we should do our own research and make our own opinions.

Meanwhile, let's focus on midterm congressional elections.

[floppyboo]

17. I didn't hear and FU's - well, maybe the russian one ;)

and thank you to all for allowing me to participate here. We are all on the same planet together, some of us closer than others! I wish you all the best of luck and have met so many good people in 'the states' (another canadianism) who fight the good fight for a broader vision daily - including here on DU! Thank you!

edit: I've heard no one south of the 49th call your country 'the States' - I'm guessing this is a post 1812 hangover - but no one - and I mean no one north of the 49th, except maybe some newscasters, from Gaspe to Vancouver says they are going to 'America' or 'the US'. Everyone here just says 'the States'. hmmm. history has its claws!

[Heartstrings]

20. Thank you!

And please continue your support and input!

[DownriverDem]

21. My Problem With Bernie

Bernie is not a Dem. He joined the Dem Party just so he could run in the Dem Primary. Like you said many of his supporters joined the Dem Party so they could vote for him. Hillary ran on the Dem Platform which was written by Bernie for the most part. What am I missing here? We have a two party system. You go with the party that mostly leans your way. I think many of Bernie's supporters are politically naïve (not all of them). What was it they thought they were doing voting 3rd party? All that did was give us trump. And since many of them are young, they voted to screw their futures especially with the Supreme Court now.

I sure hope folks have learned a very valuable lesson. I repeat: You go with the party that mostly leans your way, period.

[tiredtoo]

27. Bernie votes and caucuses with the Dems.

He ran as a Dem. Your statement is divisive.

[pnwmom]

53. He left the party immediately after the election and has spent the time since then criticizing it.nt

[floppyboo]

29. even up here, with 5 major parties, when the crunch of marking your x comes

you have to know a vote for your conscience is going to be wasted. With a parliamentary system you can regionally vote to get a 3rd or 4th, or even 5th party voice in parliament. (I think of the bloc quebecois, that ran as a national party but only had candidates in one province, but still swayed some major decisions nationally). Or even or most recent provincial election, where the green party, with only 2 members could form a alliance with the NDP to takeover the majority Liberal party elected government!

I do recognize the difference. But I still maintain that blaming Bernie, who was NOT a choice in the election, is very hurtful for the democratic party. He did not push democrats out. He gave independents hope for an alternative choice that wasn't forthcoming. If he didn't run, there is nothing to say Hillary would not only have lost the electoral college, but maybe also the popular vote. It could have been a lot worse! Many those that registered because of him may have not been involved with the democratic party at all. I'd be interested if anyone has looked into that statistically.

[Warpy]

30. He's a Democratic Socialist. They have been shunned by the conservatives

who run things inside the DC beltway. That has been going on for 40 years. It's why he is an independent. He is not welcome in the Democratic Party.

I'm delighted he changed his registration. He tested the waters and found that a lot of people are sick and tired or conservative rubbish and are looking for a better deal for all of us. The conservatives, being conservative and slow learners, are still fighting against this and that's why there are so many Bernie bashers out there.

Clinton was smart enough to adopt 80% of Sanders's platform. Her problem was that she couldn't get her message out past all the blow dried bobbleheads in the media. It's a miracle she won.

If the party keeps running "business as usual" campaigns, it will eventually become a permanent minority party.

[Tanuki]

28. How is the view from JPR?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280212986

[floppyboo]

32. would you also like me disclose all the other sites in the universe I visit?

Are you serious? Holy Moly!
I also read the Washington post, watch Rachel Maddow and also, gasp, like Jim Jefferies. I am also a member of Democracy Now and the Real News Network. I watch CNN too - oh and also BBC, France 24 and

I read books too!!! Would you like a list of my latest purchases?

Here is what I wrote at the link. I find nothing in this shameful. It is curious to me why you would want to point this out. Sorry if you are offended. Hopefully, like me, you'll get over it, and we can have a helpful discussion.


I'm quite sure to get myself into trouble, if not today, certainly tomorrow, or if I find my bigger self, I will be hiding till November. I found DU on google some years ago, lurking forever, not wanting to intrude as a foreigner. Someone had written a surprisingly non-msm progressive article that caught my eye.

It was so refreshing in contrast to the picture we Canadians are fed of RW, warmongering, Empire building, gun-tottin' Americans. Of course, I knew you were out there! I'd been following Democracy Now, The Real News, Thom Hartman, etc. that mirrored my world view of us all born as lovers, where false gods with false promises inevitably lead to mistrust and inequality.

Here at DU, I found that love that extends past borders and biospheres.

I've been waiting and advocating for a time like now since my youth - everything points to this revolution that Sanders has so selflessly championed. It's happening all over the world, and the challenges to change are becoming not only more insipiently dangerous, but simultaneously more transparent with citizen journalism. They can't keep it up. Keep strong!

I've come to recognize names here and happily read your posts. It gives me strength and hope.

Maybe its just this primary business, and November will bring back some democratic discussion here - but for now, or until the axe falls, a fond adieu. See you in JPR.

[Tanuki]

33. Nope. Not interested in any of that, but you are the one who

expressed a seeming preference for JPR and an intention to limit your involvement here. I never posted there and have only rarely checked it out. Did you find it more to your liking than DU?

[floppyboo]

34. I was pushed out. Alerted for the most innocuous questions

and simple facts. Got tired of the abuse.

It's not that I preferred JPR - its just that I wanted to carry on a discussion of democratic principles, and, in the heat of the primaries, I totally get why my pesky questions were taken as offensive barbs here at DU. It was best to check out for a while. I had no business interjecting with questions about YOUR decisions. I try to remain objective. I really had no place in the cat fight!

Maybe things are still a bit too prickly here?

[RandomAccess]

42. Yeah, things are pretty prickly here all right

Sorry for the treatment you're getting. It's --- well, shameful, IMO. I thought your OP was excellent, and don't think you deserve the abuse you've been given.

[floppyboo]

47. This isn't JPR. Nor is it a JPR discussion

It is (or was) a discussion - generally - about the democratic base/independent voters/party registration.

Take a deep breath, and try again.

[BigmanPigman]

31. We blame Comey and Putin more than we ever blamed Bernie.

[lunamagica]

36. Disenfranchised? I believe an overwhelming number of them voted for Hillary

[floppyboo]

37. Yes indeed! I meant existentially disenfranchised. nt

[George II]

38. I think you're oversimplifying what's going on down here, and minimizing the negative effect...

...that Sanders had on Clinton's general election campaign and the result of the election.

[floppyboo]

39. yup. that's the whole intent of my post: to legitimize the minimilizing!

edit for really bad spelling

There is no coded message here. Or were you just clarifying?

[scipan]

46. Please stick around here.

It's refreshing to read your post.

I've been here since 2001 and mostly lurk. There have always been trolls trying to stir up divisiveness but this is the worst I remember. We need to focus on the issues that make us Democrats, not this weird tribalism.

[mahina]

55. Aloha Floppyboo. I appreciate your perspective.

Thanks for taking the time to chime in.

In solidarity, aloha.

[liquid diamond]

57. He never officially conceded to her.

[SoCalDem]

63. Many people vote "the person",until their "person" is no longer a candidate

Whenever a special person comes along, they usually have a good chance of winning..

(unless a nut comes along and prevents it....the Kennedys come to mind)

Charisma and mojo come to mind...

a ho hum person cannot usually win when running against a charismatic person.

It's really that simple...