Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should Obama just give up on Independents? (Original Post) CTyankee Jun 2012 OP
no he should give up on republicans. Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #1
but they will never love him if he quits catering to them lol nt msongs Jun 2012 #2
I'll second that. Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #9
I couldn't have said it better... Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #10
Actually, he should give up on Republicans Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #11
Love Chris, elleng Jun 2012 #3
Hi, ellen! CTyankee Jun 2012 #6
I was 'independent' until I wanted to vote in Dem primary (for Tsongas!) elleng Jun 2012 #7
No. HopeHoops Jun 2012 #4
only if he wants to be a one term president qazplm Jun 2012 #5
I think he has a point. Every "independent" I have talked to over the last 20 plus years always CTyankee Jun 2012 #8
Just ONCE it would be nice to have a Democrat that didn't betray his base Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #12
if he does, he loses....... bowens43 Jun 2012 #13
how about catering to liberals? There are huge numbers of disaffected liberals NoMoreWarNow Jun 2012 #14
 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
11. Actually, he should give up on Republicans
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:08 AM
Jun 2012

CLAIMING to be "Independents".

It's like it was in the 70's. Nixon won reelection with the largest landslide in history but after Watergate you couldn't find anyone willing to admit they voted for him.

Same goes for Bush with two twists.

Today's Conservatives have a rule. NEVER admit you are wrong. Bush turned out to be unpopular so they claim he wasn't one of them. Even though they voted for him twice and defended him tooth and nail while he was in office even after it turned out he lied about WMDs and then he engaged in torture. He was an embarrassment. Then the Tea Party came along and a Conservative could claim they weren't a Republican since Republicans were unpopular. Ron Paul provided another "Out" for hard core Republican voters to claim they were different from those "Loyal Bushies". Hell, some act like they didn't pay any attention to politics at all until Obama came along,...but their interest now isn't racial and anyone bringing that up is the racist...

The second reason they call themselves "Independents" is to throw off the polls. Think of it as a Freep. This is because they KNOW the Washington Villagers put great stock in what Independents think and base a lot of their moves on polling results of Independents. So all you have to do is say you're an independent when you are really a FOX "News" junkie who would rather dive into a pit full of spikes than let a Commie, Terrorist Loving, Democrat get into office and you have shifted the polls to make it SEEM like the "sensible part" of the country agrees with you,....and your hero Hannity....

Bottom line, these are fake Independents. People who stood in line to vote in 2008 acting like Sister Sarah was behind that curtain pulling a train.

elleng

(130,895 posts)
3. Love Chris,
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 04:06 PM
Jun 2012

but disagree with his premise that Independents are 'insulated from messaging.'

Have no idea what the numbers are, but suspect independents are most likely to pay attention, as distinguished from those who identify as Dem or repug.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
6. Hi, ellen!
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 07:36 PM
Jun 2012

I think what he is alluding to is that a lot of Republicans "pose" as independents. The core independents, according to him, is the thumbs up or down on how they are doing, nothing to do with political parties. That's why he thinks they are "insulated from messaging." It is an intriguing premise.

I agree with Hayes that most Indies are really one party: republiicans, who just don't want to be identified with being republicans, hence their "independent" self labeling. I agree that they are self serving and we'll probably never get them. Hayes tells us he has "caught on" to their game. I think he is right...

It's gonna all come down to who can organize the most low or non voting people that we can get organized and/or to the polls to vote. I think we have the people. The repubs now control the messaging on TV. Simple as that.

elleng

(130,895 posts)
7. I was 'independent' until I wanted to vote in Dem primary (for Tsongas!)
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 07:44 PM
Jun 2012

Thought it silly to identify with one party whatever they did/proposed. That, of course, was a while ago.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
8. I think he has a point. Every "independent" I have talked to over the last 20 plus years always
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 07:56 PM
Jun 2012

turn out to be right of center or hopelessly out of the political sphere (stoned or drunk). Give uo on them!

Concentrate instead of people who will naturally gravitate to your message, not ones alienated from it (they will only get more irritated the more you try to lure them!).

It's hard to corral these folks and is the equivalent of herding cats, but it has to be done...

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
12. Just ONCE it would be nice to have a Democrat that didn't betray his base
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:22 AM
Jun 2012

in the name of being attractive to the mythical middle.

 

NoMoreWarNow

(1,259 posts)
14. how about catering to liberals? There are huge numbers of disaffected liberals
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 08:19 AM
Jun 2012

who think Obama is a massive sell-out, at MINIMUM!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Should Obama just give up...