Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kentuck (71,610 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:04 AMWhy are the "Independents" doing better than Democrats in Kansas and South Dakota??The Democrat in Kansas dropped out of the race so the Independent could have a chance against the Republican incumbent. The Independent has suggested he will caucus with the Democrats if they maintain control of the Senate? The Democratic Party is shoveling a million dollars into the SD race, not for the Democratic candidate, but for negative ads so the "Independent" might defeat the favored Republican. This Independent has also hinted that he might caucus with the Democrats in the Senate if he wins? What difference does it make whether the Democrat or Independent wins if they caucus and vote with the Democrats? Why are Independents more popular than Democrats in some states? Is this "independent" movement good or bad for the future of the Democratic Party?
NYC_SKP (62,040 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:08 AM1. I remember when Jerry Brown quit as leader of the party.I think that made him a better Democrat. Where a D candidate is a weak candidate, maybe supporting the I candidate is the right thing to do for Democrats in the community.
kentuck (71,610 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:12 AM5. How many "weak" Democrats do you think we have running?Across the country? It's an interesting scenario. Do you vote for an "Independent" with strong progressive values or do you vote for a Democrat that is more conservative or leans to the right?? What impact would that have on the Democratic Party overall?
leftynyc (13,180 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:09 AM12. Personally I would vote for whoeverhas the best chance of keeping a pub out of office. If it's a Democrat I agree with 90% of the time, fine. If it's an independent that I agree with 80% of the time, also perfectly fine. My goal is to keep pubs out of office.
notrightatall (32 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:10 AM2. Basically, Not being a member of the same party as Obama.
Tatiana (11,375 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:10 AM3. I believe that some voters think Independents will be more loyal to their constituentsinstead of to their Party leaders or corporate sponsors. Democrats (especially in swing or "red" states) are being tied to an unpopular President Obama. Republicans are being tied to their support of the rich and/or their lack of real ties to what is going on in their home districts ("Washington Republicans" such as Pat Roberts and Mitch McConnell). Independents are seen as people who might be more effective at implementing change because they aren't obligated to follow party or machine politics.
PeteSelman (820 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:11 AM4. Democratic is poison in the red states.There are people that are turned off by the extremists in the Republican Party but absolutely hate Democrats. Will never vote for Democratic candidates no matter what. Why? Because they've been trained to equate Democrats with liberals (haha!) and to despise liberals. It's pretty simple. With the Independent candidate, they can save themselves from the baggers but not have to vote for a "filthy" Democrat. It's that bad.
kentuck (71,610 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:14 AM6. That is bad.How do we fix it?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody (12,717 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:21 AM8. You don'tThose idiots are lost forever.
LonePirate (2,124 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:18 AM7. Agreed. Moderates on the right may hate the Teagadists; but they hate Democrats more.They will vote for a Tea Party loon over a Democrat; but a sane Independent gives them cover to vote against the Teahadists without voting for a Democrat.
Proud Public Servant (1,351 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:29 AM9. I think it's very simplePoll after poll shows that Democratic policies are popular nationwide, including with Republican voters. But the GOP and the right-wing media have been very successful at demonizing the party name, brand, and leadership. As a result, voters will embrace our positions as long as they're not identified with our party (Exhibit A is the popularity of Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare -- as long as you don't call it "Obamacare"). That creates an oppotunity for independents -- but it's frankly an opportunity that the party bears a lot of the responsibility for, for failing to push back against the GOP narrative about it and failing to forcefully and proactively define itself. I just said this in another thread, but I'll say it again: Democratic candidates, and especially national candidates, used to explicitly say, "I believe x, because I'm a Democrat and that's what we stand for." Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, etc. But it's been a long time since I've heard that line strongly and consistently from our standard-bearers.
Orsino (28,140 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 10:33 AM10. There's got to be some sort of awareness that the GOP is screwing them over......but until Dems make up their minds to sell an unambiguously pro-people agenda...well, as any Cubs fan how likely change is.
cheapdate (1,512 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:03 AM11. If an independent who supports good public policy can actually WINan election, that's good. If all they can do is split enough of the Democratic vote to elect the GOP, that's bad. If you subscribe to the theory that punishing Democrats in elections is a sound strategy for bringing about positive change, then you'll not agree with my conclusions. I don't subscribe to that theory. Winning isn't everything but it has huge advantages over losing. Losses are not easy to make up. Some losses can never be made up.
geek tragedy (41,336 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:14 AM13. As much as we like to sneer at third way centriststhere is a portion of the electorate that votes that way. Also, those are pretty non-diverse, rightwing, rural states.
kimbutgar (1,534 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:28 AM15. The right wing media has been successful in making the brand democratic and liberal bad wordsThey have so demonized the party and brainwashed short attention span people to immediately be turned off by the Democratic party. In terms of branding, Republicans bring to mind the terms fiscal responsibility, family values and strong foreign policy ( all of which they have failed miserably) Frank Luntz has earned his millions. George Lakoff who is a researcher on using words as a form of brain washing explained this phenomena. The sheep don't know any better so Democrats are a bad thing.
11 Bravo (17,650 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:35 AM16. Because the horseshit false equivalency perpetuated by the mainstream media ...has convinced a gullible public that the parties are equally responsible for the totally dysfunctional nature of government.Hell, if I wasn't paying attention I might believe it myself.
librechik (26,174 posts) Thu Oct 9, 2014, 11:39 AM17. because in those states everyone knows Democrats are evil depraved murdering child abusersand there's quite a stigma to becoming one. But Independents obviously don't organize, so they are not really a factor in elections.Except for the laughs watching 11 guys named Eustis and their shotguns run for President of America. Thanks, Newt Gingrich!
Poll after poll shows that Democratic policies are popular nationwide, including with Republican voters.
"Independents" are worse than democrats or even libertarians.At least those idiots believe in something.democrats believe in socialism and handouts, and libertarians believe in dope and surrender. individual choice and minding our own business. There, fixed it for ya.Independents believe in nothing.
