At the very least, the vast majority of independents will stay home before voting for Hillary. I don't see her winning the GE personally, particularly if most of the Berners also stay home or do a protest vote which I think they will.

and that is a huge mistake on their part. They see the Bernie or Bust movement as analogous to Clinton supporters' own PUMA claims in 2008, but they ignore huge differences. The PUMA thing really did boil down to "my candidate vs. your candidate." Bernie or Bust is 100% about trying to stop the corruption and monied interests influencing BOTH parties. Independents have no real loyalty to party politics. Bernie or Bust sees both parties as different sides of the same corrupt coin. It's not about "our" candidate vs. "their" candidate; it's about much, much more. Conservative independents will not vote Hillary, because like Republican, the more right-leaning indies have a deep-seated dislike for all things Clinton. Without left-leaning independents "falling in line" and virtually no appeal to right-leaning or even moderate indies, and knowing that independents outnumber each party, it's clear that the DNC is backing a losing candidate.

It's what they do, so they think we will.

But also, they don't care. They would rather have Trump than a progressive.

They assume Independant Sanders supporters will fall in line behind Hillary like they assume Sanders a Democrats will. That's exceedingly bad logic. If Independants preferred Democratic Party establishment politics, they'd be registered Democrats instead of Independants. Independants are needed to win GE by any candidate. Sanders gets 2/3 of them, Clinton only 1/3.

How does one manage not to see that most of the indies who lean left ARE liberals?

Oh well, if I cared about them it would matter. But I don't.

Not anymore.

Clinton will get her share of left-leaning and moderate independents, plus the Obama coalition.

Trump will get his share of conservative indies.

Those that stay home will affect both candidates and will thus be a wash.

And btw, more people hate Trump than any other candidate.

I said my piece a few months ago, and at this point will just sit back and I am enjoying the pretzel logic.

We are now on to how it is all about the independents. Independents on the left will show up in solid numbers for Clintons. I register as independent outside of primary time and I not only voted for Clinton in the Primary, I will vote for her as an independent in the GE. We do understand the Paul Brigade will not be voting for Clinton in the numbers they would for Sanders. Can we at least be honest and define that reality as what is being discussed here with respect to independents.

senseless to participate in a rigged system. These people are today enthusiastic because they see hope in Sanders. It is insanity to think they will participate and support that which they see as the problem. The authoritarians among us don't understand those that don't wallow in the adulation of tough authoritarian leaders and think we should all get in step. They think that the Left can be continually disparaged and then fall in line. Rightly or wrongly Homey don't play that game.

In addition, a lot of Trump supporters are anti-Establishment and will vote Trump over Hillary and Sanders over Trump.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. Start looking for your scapegoat now. Maybe Nader again. Would make as much sense now as in 2000.

in Naples, Florida. "Season" just ended here where Snowbirds come to from all over the country, including California and even Alaska.

Got the Sanders bumper stickers. Got the Trump bumper stickers, including "New Yorker for Trump. Even one for "Just CRUZING Along".

Where are her supporters? She already won Florida. Maybe her supporters don't want to advertise their support? Beats me. Just very strange.

And we don't go to big rallies or vote in online polls very much.

We do show up at the voting booth, though. Quietly, but en masse.

I've never bothered with them myself but I ALWAYS vote. So reminiscent of "how did Nixon win, I don't know anyone who voted for him".

certainly not any people from all these other states around the country. It is not "my circle" of friends I am basing this on.

And prior to the Primary I saw tons of Bernie stickers and no Hillary stickers. Bumpers stickers are real popular with young, white, middle class males.

which showed a break-out of Dems and Repubs and Independents. Then another break-out of Dems, leaning Dem, Indep, leaning Repub, Repub. The Independents were 12%. Those leaning one way or the other pretty reliably vote that way. I suspect based on that research and on the inevitable guilt promotion on the Dem side that the race will be very close and that the Dems and leaning Dem folk will vote for clinton and the exhausted 12% will decide the election. I was never aware of unfavorable numbers in previous elections so have no idea how things have turned out in the past - based on unfavorable numbers. Would be interested if anyone has that info.

I think we would be surprised at the actual size of the corporate astroturf campaign. We sure haven't seen near the numbers that have turned out for Bernie Sanders, it's mostly virtual, digital votes and prepaid lobbyist/delegates.

Including Ohio and Florida, the 2 most important states. But he won in an electoral college landslide.

Hypothetical match-up polls mean nothing. When we get to the general election and it's actually a 1-on-1 race, it's a totally different dynamic than what we have now (multiple candidates vying for their respective party's nomination).

Romney about 49%. This was nearly the same percentage as the total Florida Vote.

If he also barely won the Independent vote in Florida, then so be it. The overarching point remains the same.

a great strategy to win the GE.

When the primaries are over, the independents - which are the largest voting bloc will still be there.
The voting irregularities in red states like Az will still be there.

Ignoring these facts are a recipe for defeat. It boggles my mind.

They prefer Hillary but would settle for Trump over Sanders.

Even if the Democratic Party loses the GE, as long as the Third Way controls the Party they can keep the corporate gravy Train rolling. If the left wing takes back the Party, the RW Third Way loses their spots at the corporate feed trough. This is why the Sanders left is so threatening to them, and why defeating that threat is more important to them than defeating Republicans. It's all about keeping the corporate money rolling in.

What a pantload.
You never fail to make me laugh!!!
Gonna miss you when you decide to leave, old friend.

She even endorsed Republican incumbants and refused supporting their progressive Democratic challengers. DLC/Third Way exists to prevent the left from being elected...not to prevent Republicans from being elected. The same RW financiers funded GOP and the DLC.

Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Not all of them think like you.

The independents wont' vote for her.

And no amount of triangulated double talk, promises and hedging the issues will bring them to her. In addition she will motivate the RW base to come out just to vote against her.


.. It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap...

And in 2012 he narrowly lost them, by less than 5% and he actually won them in swing states that mattered. Hillary will lose independents by more than 20% at this rate and it will affect the outcome of the election.

Yet, but if he were the nominee ...they would...doesn't matter...he lost she won. The supers are not going to give it to him because of iffy polls this far out.

And a real Republican, Independents will choose the real thing every time.

But don't Sanders and his supporters consider Obama and Bill Clinton to be DINOs as well? And they're the only two Democrats who have won the white house in the past three decades. So maybe they were able to draw in enough centrist swing voters to win the election, even without winning the majority of independents. Love it or hate it, the third way appears to be a successful strategy, so saying "independents will choose the real thing every time" doesn't really ring true.

Obama was a fresh face, relatively unknown and ran on liberal policy positions.

Hillary is a relic from the mid 20th century, is riddled with scandal and negative baggage and flip flops her policy positions depending on which crowd she is speaking to at the moment.

And narrowly lost them in 2012 by fewer than 5%. Hillary is headed for a 20% loss with independents this year if she is the nominee.

After 2008, most of these new "independents" are probably tea baggers.

As much as Hillary will lose them by. She's headed for easily a 20 point loss with them.

so, how's that control of Congress, how are all those Democratic governors, how are all those state legislatures doing?

fucking joke...we have a couple of center-right Presidents and absolutely no control, nationally or locally...

Obama would have been able to accomplish a LOT MORE if he had a goddam Congress behind him...

oh, the fucking Third Way forgot about that...they just wanted him to do what the money wanted to be done...

and, in most respects, that is exactly what has happened...

The OP is claiming that Clinton can't win because of independents. My point is just that we won the last presidential election without independents, and to the extent that independents are a factor it's the center right voters that we need to flip, not the left. I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing, but it's the political reality.

Let's quote berni_mccoy from the conversation you had with him above because you are purposely ignoring what he told you for the sake of your argument:

"He won independents in 2008 by a wide margin
And narrowly lost them in 2012 by fewer than 5%. Hillary is headed for a 20% loss with independents this year if she is the nominee."

Stop that. You were just told what happened...and then you pretend like the opposite is true. It's not. In 2012, he barely lost independents. If you think independents are going to break even close to that for Hillary, I want some of that shit you're smoking.

When she takes all sides of all issues?

War? The economy? Austerity? Private prisons? Medical Marijuana? The death penalty?

She holds Republican positions on all those issues and many, many more.

Corporate interests are RW. The public at large is left of center. Corporate money gets RW pols elected and serving them.

head above the crap...barely?

the definition of 'liberal' is a moving target...she might be a modern Third Way liberal, but she is only 'liberal' when compared to the even further rightwing Repubs...

Serious liberal legislation never has for the last 30 years.

There are independents who always have and always will vote for the democratic candidate. We don't need to worry about them. There are independents who will always vote for the republican and we don't need to worry about them either. There are independents who will always vote for the green, libertarian, etc. candidates and who will never vote democratic or republican and we really don't need to worry about them. Then there are a small segment of independents who actually flip back and forth between democrats and republicans. The true swing voters. These are what, maybe 10% of the electorate tops? Not 40% like some people keep arguing.

So I take it that the Sanders strategy is to attract some of those green party voters, non-voting independents, and others from the left and bring them into the Democratic party. The problem with that is that we have been winning without them, so it's not really an important strategy. Say you have a green voter who didn't vote for Obama but would vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. But if Clinton is the nominee he'll vote green again or stay home. So there's no difference. He's irrelevant.

Then on the other side you have the moderate republicans, and Reagan democrats in the center who might actually flip back and forth depending on the candidate. These people are not likely to vote for Sanders, right? This is exactly the territory that Sanders accuses Clinton of occupying, so isn't she the logical candidate to attract those swing voters?

as i said above, how is Congress doing, how are all those governorships doing, how are all those state houses doing?

Third Way wins a couple of big fucking battles...but is continuing to lose the war...

with no harm to their program...

on top of all that, your simplistic division/definition of independents is lacking any factual basis, other than your ability to divide by three...

maybe you can explain why independents are growing and are presently a greater segment the either Democrats or Republican...or are you saying they have always been such...??

The division I described is based on polling. Well, that and common sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

Clearly 40% of the electorate doesn't swing back and forth between republicans and democrats, that's ludicrous.

It's also kind of pointless to look at independents on a national level without considering the electoral map. Think of how many millions of tea party members have probably registered as independents since 2008. They're really Republicans who reliably vote for the republican candidate. They're never going to vote for Sanders or Clinton. But the majority of them are probably concentrated in red states, so while the overall percentage of independents goes up, there is little actual effect on presidential elections.

It's a little strange that Sanders supporters rail against the third way while putting all of their eggs in the "independent voter" basket which is essentially a third way of its own. If there were millions of progressive green party voters who could be brought into the democratic party you might have a point but there simply aren't. In 2012 Jill Stein got under 500k votes nationwide. So what you're really hoping is that some of those center right swing voters will vote for Sanders purely out of an anti-establishment impulse. Which doesn't make much sense when the Republican nominee is likely to be an actual right wing anti-establishment candidate.

If Sanders cannot win the votes of the majority of actual Democrats, he does not deserve the nomination of the Democratic Party. See the connection there?

in the first round of the NBA playoffs, but in the next round they'd have to face off against either the Heat or the Bobcats, 2 much weaker opponents. It's not fair for the Raptors to have a hard team now, when they'll so easily be able to beat either Heat or the Bobcats in the semis.

I demand that that the Pacers step aside and let the Raptors go through!

They would still lose a GE without votes from Independants. Democrats are 29% of registered voters, Independants are 42%. Do math or do meth...your choice. Clinton gets 1/3 of Independants, Sanders 2/3. You DO want to win the election, right?

...caucusing with the Democrats. His voting record is better than every Democrat. He founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was voted it's Chairman every single session of Congress (Caucus is all Dems except Sanders) until he was elected to the Senate. He still is a member of the Caucus, since the Senate has no equivilent. The Progressive Caucus is the largest Caucus outside those of the two parties. And unlike Clinton, he's never been a Republican.

RW, Independents and the Progressives all have issues with her.

Let's count the ways: election fraud (alleged), infiltrating Bernie's campaign, paid online commenters (propagandists), supports outsourcing American jobs to other countries, supports fracking, falsely painting Bernie as anti-minority, supports the military/prison industrial complex, FBI email investigation, supports policies that harm minorities ..

She has a lot of work to do if she wants the independent vote.

Sanders will not do well in the general in that he has not been vetted. The polling cited in the OP is bogus in that Sanders has not been vetted and no negative ads have been run against him http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-superdelegates-pennsylvania-20160424-story.html

...shouldn't be playing the vetted card.

Again, Sanders has not been vetted and would not do well in a general election Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

He/She was interviewed extensively. His/her history was examined in minute detail. His/Her friends and enemies debated his/her strengths and weaknesses. His/her friends said that all of the bad things said about the candidate were lies. Some obviously were but others were not.

After the interview, 60 percent of the people in the company thought the candidate was dishonest and viewed the candidate unfavorably. Of course they rejected the candidate because that is the meaning of "Vetting". If 60% view a candidate unfavorably, the candidate has been vetted and found wanting. Instead they hired someone they found less unfavorable and wondered why they did not have a choice of someone they really liked.

Of course from reading your post, you think that vetting means something different. I read a lot of Hillary survivors crowing about how Hillary has stood up to the the constant attacks throughout her career and I wonder how they can crow about someone who has a 60% unfavorable rating and is viewed by most of the country as dishonest. It seems to me that the attacks (the true ones and the false ones) have vetted her as not a good candidate. She has not stood up well over history other than a small sliver of the electorate who are half of the democratic party.

in the swing states.

Those center-right types like they accuse Clinton and Obama of being. The election is not being decided by greens or socialists!

and I have voted for the democratic nominee since 1992. I am waiting it out this spring to see what happens at the convention. I have watched all the voter sabotage and suppression which has angered me to no end. If Bernie is not the democratic candidate I will no longer be registered as a democrat.

Thanks for the thread, bernie_mccoy.

--independents now make up 42% of the electorate. Among people whom I have canvassed, it it mostly independents who say they will vote for Trump if Sanders doesn't get the Dem nomimantion.