One more time with feeling: for Bernie and others who still don't get it

[Garrett78]

Studies have made it clear that the vast majority of so-called "independents" are highly partisan. They are not centrists or swing voters. They are, for the most part, extremely partisan people who just like calling themselves "independent" for whatever reason. That reason might be that they don't like the partisanship, while they themselves are quite partisan. Here's one of numerous articles that make this very point: https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s.

So, enough already with the "more people identify as independent because they don't like either party" nonsense. Stop feeding the myth.

[Cary]

1. Partisan and annoying...

The ones I know claim to be in the middle when, in fact, they are anything but. They barf up the "both sides do it," but they're phonies. They omit the last part... "both sides do it so Republican lies and smears are ok."

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

4. Impugning guilt on the innocent

Then forgiving themselves by saying essentially, 'Guilt shared is guilt diminished'. Old trick, you have to push back on it everytime bc once they start a narrative like this....they go with it. It seems.

[louis c]

19. WTF are you talking about???

I've tried to follow your posts, which, by the way, are mostly replies that are either incoherent, as this one is, or divisive and negative, as the ones you posted in response to an earlier OP I had today.

Could you please explain who is forgiving whom and whose guilt is shared by whom in the linked article?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

20. Ok.

If you say so. I appreciate it that you said something. I rambled on a few I think. No problem.
Edit...Im going to take it that you were trying to be helpful and not nasty. I see you were the guy I ignored earlier after you got nasty about the polls post. Give up the grudge eh?. I can respond how I want to. Can't people ignore me if I trail off a little sometimes? Good lord. I see what you were talking about but I try to keep it short and sweet. I'm not perfect. I am getting old, not that that is bad, for me, it can be. Just sayin.

[louis c]

28. Ignored?

You replied eleven (11) times to my OP earlier today.

That's some ignoring.

Below I have snipped the dictionary definition of ignore. Tell me if it fits relying 11 times to a post. I surely didn't ignore you.

ig·nore /iɡˈnôr/ verb
past tense: ignored; past participle: ignored

refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
"he ignored her outraged question"

synonyms: disregard, take no notice of, pay no attention to, pay no heed to; More
turn a blind eye to, turn a deaf ear to, tune out

"he ignored the customers"

•snub, slight, spurn, shun, disdain, look right through, pass over, look past;
informal give someone the brush-off, give someone the cold shoulder

•set aside, pay no attention to, take no account of;
break, contravene, fail to comply with, fail to observe, disregard, disobey, breach, defy, flout; pay no attention to

•fail to consider (something significant).

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

30. Yes. I tried to ignore you.

My gosh. If you have a complaint, please lodge it with the room owners. I meet the rules of the room. I wasn't aware I had 'Louis hoops' to jump through as well. This is a Democrat posting place. Sometimes theres an ignore button. I figured it was worth it to put someone on ignore rather than fight w you. You pointed something out. I said sorry. What's the problem? If you have something to say please take it out of the room. Send me an email. I'm not here to argue w you. I'm not your enemy.

[louis c]

33. No, you have to defend your positions in public

This is DU (Democratic Underground), not kindergarten.

Get used to it. You are entitled to your opinion (as long as it furthers the cause of the Democratic Party). But be prepared to defend those opinions.

If you really are an authentic Democrat, you will end up better for it. When you are outside the confines of this site, you will be challenged by the RW assholes who love Trump and are destroying this country. You need to be prepared to hold your political position and withstand a lot worse than you'll get here.

In some cases, you will have to convince people who agree with you but want to still sit out a General election because the Democratic candidate is less than perfect. Then, you will need to explain a binary choice and convince him or her to vote for the Democrat, because any Democrat is better than any Republican in the final election. That's how political parties are built and that's how political math works.

The majority party controls the legislative body, even if it's by one vote (i.e. current U.S. Senate). There are more of us than there are of them. They should never win, if we vote and know how to vote. That's our purpose here. To learn how to convince like minded people to vote in their own self interest.

[Sherman A1]

37. No, in fact no one here needs to defend their positions or opinions

We are free to believe as we wish and to express those opinions within the boundaries set by the ownership/management of this board.

Most of the posts or at least replies to posts are opinions, just as your posts are opinions. You are certainly entitled to them, but everyone else is equally entitled to their opinions.

[louis c]

39. And I have a right to challange that opinion...

...or not, as I see fit. And you can reply, or not, as you see fit.

So, no kidding everyone has a right to an opinion on this site, but we all have a right to challenge that opinion, just as you challenged mine.

So, what's your point?

[Sherman A1]

50. A bit more civility

might be in order.

You "challenge" while perhaps appropriate in your scheme of thinking might come across as being just a bit demanding of answers as opposed to questioning and seeking more information. But carry on as you deem appropriate.

[louis c]

53. Let me remind you...

...that DU was infested with trolls, moles and disrupters leading up to and including the day of the 2016 election. This site was infected and shut down during the most important 3 days since the invention of the internet.

DU invoked the most restrictive measures to regain access, including donations, length of participation and number of posts.

When I see a 2 month member with no donation, 1,000 replies, but just one OP and nearly all of his (or her) replies are non-sensical, negative or disruptive, I will challenge that person. I am trying to encourage people on this site to vote and I will continue to challenge the people who try to discourage our people from voting.

The individual we are discussing replied to an OP of mine commenting on positive polling data yesterday in which he said that all the elections are fixed anyway. I interpret that as a way of depressing the vote. He asked me to stop posting positive polling data with his first of eleven replies.

I, for one, would like to go back to a stricter set of rules for entry onto this site so that we don't fall into the same trap we did 2 years ago.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but some posts do raise red flags to me and I feel a need to challenge those opinions.

You can be as civil as you want, but I honestly think that the Republic is at stake in 2018 and 2020 and that this site can, in its own small, serve a purpose helping to save this country.

I work a real job that includes educating union members on politics and participating on sites like this. Can you imagine, I actually get paid for this. I belong to at least 5 organizations, including the political arm of my state AFL-CIO , as part of my full-time job. I believe in what I do and I take it seriously.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

[Sherman A1]

55. You can be both vigilant and civil

At the same time. It really can be done, might be worth an experiment.

Yes, the current situation is disturbing and cause for concern, yet the country has been in bad places before and will likely be again.

I do not share what appears to be a gloomy view on things. We will as a country persevere.

[louis c]

57. Civil is in the eye of the beholder

I think I am more than civil. But that's just my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours.

By the way, if the Republicans retain the House and Senate in 2018 and Trump is re-elected in 2020, we will lose America as we know it.

That's not a gloomy assessment. That's a realistic call to (political) arms.

Democracies are not lost in a blink of an eye, but through a long, slow corrosion. We are at the point of boil in the adage of the frog and the pot of water.

[Sherman A1]

62. Yes, civility is in the eye of the beholder

Not the writer.

As previously mentioned. I do not share your views on either civility or on the state of the world or the country.

[louis c]

65. That's your opinion and your right.

I've always noticed that anyone who agrees with me thinks I'm quite civil, and those that don't, well.

Too many people in this country and on this site think that because they have a right to an opinion, that includes the right to not be challenged.

That may be the reason we have the President we do. People who agree with Trump are not vigorously challenged.

That's what I do for a living, challenge opinions that either vote for candidates who don't advance their best interests, opinions of those who look to divide our vote (Hilary is the same as Trump, both parties suck, etc.) and people who say "why vote?My vote doesn't matter, the elections are fixed, anyway."

But if you don't think this country is in crisis, we certainly differ on fundamentals.

By the way, this will be my last post on the subject. I'm not going to convince you and you certainly will not convince me.

[Cary]

59. I understood right off.

The poster describes gaslighting 101 to a t.

I'm not sure whether confronting that gaslighting is useful. The whole point of gaslighting is to get the victim to question their reality and to react in a disqualify way.

[louis c]

73. Now I see it...

...it's like Chauncy Gardner in "Being There". Chauncy would say something completely incoherent in the movie and well intentioned, intelligent people would see unintended brilliance in him. That's Chauncy Gardner 101. As you noted, gaslighting would have absolutely no meaning to this article or point.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

77. Thanks for that.

Sincerely.

[sheshe2]

49. Hey Cary.

I did that once. When I first voted. Declared myself an Independent. I thought it was cool when I was young and a hippie and wanted to declare myself free at last! Did not take me long to declare my party as Democratic. That is how I voted and I guess I just grew up back then. Really did not take me long.

[Cary]

56. Generalizations are never perfect and yes, people can grow

Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2018, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

The people I'm generalizing about are clearly "conservative" but for some reason they wish to be considered something else. It strikes me as posturing. They seem to want to be given credit of some sort, or standing. They are purveyors of the fallacy of the golden meme.

Their posturing is an affectation. Their posturing is dishonest. Their posturing is a lie.

I would not lump a young, hippie sheshe in with the people I'm talking about.

[sheshe2]

69. Oh,

I know you weren't talking about me, Cary. Vote Democratic!

[NurseJackie]

68. It's a form of SELF FLATTERY and AGGRANDIZEMENT...

I did that once. When I first voted. Declared myself an Independent.

You're correct. It's a form of SELF FLATTERY and AGGRANDIZEMENT. It's "making a statement" and declaring one's perceived self-worth. While there may genuinely be some independent (lower-case i) souls who are truly middle of the road... it's clear to me that most all of the time, the "independent" who boasts about it, is actually saying "look how smart I am." Or, they're seeking special attention in the form of "you have to 'earn' my vote, what are you going to do for ME?"

VOTE DEMOCRAT!

[sheshe2]

70. Lol

Or, they're seeking special attention in the form of "you have to 'earn' my vote, what are you going to do for ME?"

Yup. We hear that a lot, now don't we.

[NurseJackie]

74. Ain't that the truth?

We hear that a lot,

Ain't that the truth?

[Cary]

76. Yup!

[Cary]

75. I view myself as middle of the road

And a highly partisan Democrat because logic and reason gives me no other choice.

[brush]

2. But then he'd have no raison d'etre.

[Me.]

3. Bingo

he can't save us if there's no issue

[Cha]

13. ..

"save us".. lol

[Me.]

44. ...

[grantcart]

9. and they would have to join the ranks as a regular party member and not as a self appointed savior

where is the fun in that?

[brush]

10. Yep, none of that "just getting the party's work done that needs to be done"...

gotta get in front that camera/mic/spotlight.

[ProudLib72]

11. I said something along these lines just the other day

It is suddenly hip to be a contrarian.

[ismnotwasm]

5. K&R

[SidDithers]

6. DU rec...

Sid

[Cha]

8. ..

Sid

[SidDithers]

12. Mahalo Cha...

Sid

[Cha]

7. Thank you, Garrett!

[Quayblue]

14. K&R

[brer cat]

15. K&R

[Go Vols]

16. From your link

Meanwhile, in the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders has done better among independents than Hillary Clinton has—the Vermont senator has fared far better in open primaries in which independents can vote than in closed contests

I agree

[msongs]

17. independents as in repubs voting for bernie against hillary? nt

[dembotoz]

32. Lol what crap...no just folks we continue to piss off too often

[Garrett78]

43. There can be little doubt that disingenuous people take part in open primaries.

It's impossible to know just how many and if there are enough to alter the result, but we can be pretty sure it happens.

[dembotoz]

45. bullshit enjoy your smoke filled rooms

[Garrett78]

48. Look, I don't lose sleep over open primaries, but...

...it's foolish to think there aren't some people engaging in cross-over voting so as to cause disruption/chaos for a party they oppose.

Now, caucuses are a different story. They really need to go, as they are utterly disenfranchising.

[dembotoz]

51. We are supposed to be the open party. Let's prove it

[Garrett78]

52. One way to do that is to get rid of caucuses, which disenfranchise so many people.

And we can be open to diverse points of view without allowing Republican interference.

[dembotoz]

54. No argument on caucuses.

[stevenleser]

63. We are absolutely not an "open" party. We are not open to bigots, we are not open to misogynists.

Being a big tent does not mean "open".

[dembotoz]

64. but being a big tent should be open to those who support dems but are wary of the central party

and given recent history they have good reason to be

[louis c]

66. Smoked fill rooms gave us...

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK. Not bad. The new, open primary system gave us Trump.

Just saying. You know the old adage about eating pudding.

[dembotoz]

67. Hmmm don't think that bs would play well today

[louis c]

72. No, it wouldn't. We now live in Trump's America...

...and we can defeat him with Oprah

[Tarc]

18. I agree too

What better way to muck up a primary than to have conservatives pretend to be "independent" and weaken the frontrunner?

[Cha]

24. Exactly, Tarc

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Yet another reason open primaries are a very bad idea

They're an open invitation to skew the results; whether it's so-called independents/"progressives" storming the primary, or Republicans suddenly (and temporarily) changing party affiliation to vote for the weaker candidate...often the very same candidate as the preferred "independent" voters'.

[Garrett78]

22. Which shouldn't be read as, "Sanders did better than Clinton in open primaries."

Sanders did better in open primaries than in closed primaries, but Clinton actually won more open primaries than Sanders did. I'm not wild about open primaries, as the door is open for Republican participation and disingenuous results.

But my bigger issue, by far, is with caucuses, which are flat-out disenfranchising. It's rather embarrassing that the Democratic Party still allows for caucuses.

[MrPool]

26. You mean independant GOP

causing mischief yes I agree to.

[loyalsister]

23. The ones I know hate party politics

AND they especially hate the money in politics as well as the demands for conformity and loyalty. Practices and strategies that indeed are common to both parties.

[democrank]

35. I know several Independent voters.

All of them are solidly against:
the amount of money in politics
the well-oiled machines that fight against grassroots attempts at change
all talk, no action

All the Independents I know and interact with regularly (with one exception) are over 65, were Democrats active in the civil rights and women's movement. They're wonderful people I assumed would be Democrats forever. Their sons and daughters are mostly Independents as are their grandchildren. Most of them believe the country needs a third party, one that favors single payer, money out of politics, a concentration of efforts in poverty-stricken areas, among other things. Many of the younger ones want to hear new voices, new ideas.

I happen to believe that interest in a third party is stronger now than I ever remember. We can encourage them to join with us or continue to reject and demean them.

[Blue_true]

25. Bernie isn't feeding the myth. He is painting the incorrect choice he want others to buy into.

It isn't ignorance, it is very purposeful and devious.

[Garrett78]

29. I've lost count of how many times I've had to make the point I made in the OP.

There are so many people ignorant of the studies on "independents" that I can believe Sanders is genuinely ignorant. Given that he's a Senator, that should be cause for some embarrassment. But I would not be surprised if he truly doesn't know that most "independents" are highly partisan.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he does know and is being willfully misleading.

[betsuni]

47. +1

[FakeNoose]

34. Agreed

He wants to be able to tell us Democrats what to do, but he refuses to join our party.
We can't get sidetracked on Bernie Sanders this year, or ever again.
Let's stick together DUers! Eyes forward.

[R B Garr]

40. Exactly!

[Cha]

42. Indeed!

Thank You, Blue_true!

[Garrett78]

61. It's entirely possible Sanders is genuinely ignorant of what studies have shown.

Many, many people are, after all. I've brought up these studies here at DU numerous times but you still see post after post inferring that "independents" are something they are not.

That said, one can argue that a US Senator really ought to know what these studies have shown. Regardless, though, it's irresponsible to be spouting off about how the rise in the number of "independents" indicates a desire for a new political party or a distrust in both Republicans and Democrats.

[Duppers]

27. My stubborn hubs has never voted repub

But he will never tell anyone he's a Dem for fear of offending someone. Yeah, I get furious with him. Fuck offending anyone, I always tell 'em I'm a proud Dem. (We live in the land of military bases. Had my Obama signs stolen off our lawn.)

So here's a Dem who identifies as an Independent.

[samnsara]

31. boy i can relate to this!!! My best friend lives in RI..i dont even know if theres a GOP..

...rep in the state. Anyway Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely....and my dem friends refuse to even call themselves dems because of the corruption. However they are STRONG LIBERAL dems....just NOT in name only

[emulatorloo]

36. Kick and Rec. thanks n/t

[honest.abe]

38. Many are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans since the idiot Bush era.

But they will still vote R no matter what.

[radius777]

41. Exactly, "independent" and centrist are two different things.

Self identified independents are usually to the left flank of Dems and to the right flank of Repubs, or simply don't fit properly within either party (e.g. Libertarians), and so are dissatisfied with that, thus viewing themselves as independent.

Sanders himself is a Democratic Socialist and economic nationalist well to the left of the Democratic Party, a center-left cosmopolitan party.

The major parties will usually attempt to reach out to their flanks, and will bring most in by election day.

But further attempts to attract such voters can often come at the expense of the party base as well as centrist swing voters.

[betsuni]

46. K&R

[Kentonio]

58. So you're saying that independent Bernie Sanders is actually a more committed Democrat

Than many of the people calling themselves Democrats? You know, you're probably right. Good point!

[Garrett78]

60. No. This is what I'm saying:

Most "independents" are very partisan. And, as the article in the OP points out, they tend to be more partisan than partisans from decades past.

The only thing I'm saying about Sanders is that he, like many others, is ignorant (willfully or otherwise) about who "independents" are.

[SunSeeker]

71. K & R

[oberliner]

78. So if they are actually partisan, why do they insist on calling themselves independent?

[Garrett78]

79. I gave a reason in the OP, which was a paraphrase of the reason given in the article.

Another reason, which someone mentioned, could be simply not wanting to tell other people that they're a Democrat/Republican. If they say they are an independent, maybe they won't offend or have to answer questions.

[oberliner]

80. The reason you gave is that "they don't like partisanship"

So, if they don't like partisanship, doesn't that suggest they aren't crazy about either party?

And, related question, do you think they should be allowed to have any involvement in the primaries?

For instance, someone who is generally aligned with the Democratic Party but wishes to be called independent so as not to offend - should they be able to vote in the Democratic primary?

[Garrett78]

81. No, it suggests they're walking contradictions. They themselves are very partisan.

I don't have much of a problem with independents taking part in Democratic primaries. Open primaries do leave the door open for cross-party infiltrators, but such folks *probably* aren't great enough in number to sway an outcome (perhaps Michigan in 2016 was an exception--no way of knowing).

I'm much more bothered by disenfranchising caucuses. It's a bit embarrassing that the Democratic Party still allows for something so anti-democratic. Many people are not able (for a variety of reasons) or inclined to take part in a long, very public event such as a caucus.

I'm also bothered by the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that aren't remotely representative of the Democratic base, lead things off.

But I'm really wandering off topic now, so I'll leave it at that.

[oberliner]

82. Thanks for sharing your perspective

I agree with your comments about caucuses.

Though I do think they are fascinating - they are completely unfair.