2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGentle Reminder: Independents are not needed to win the Presidency
Obama lost independents and still beat Romney in 2012:
By Glenn Kessler
<...>
We dont mean to pick on Beeson two weeks after the election, since his notion that independent voters were critical to the outcome was widely shared by reporters and political analysts.
The Wall Street Journal, for instance, offered this headline Nov. 5: Votes of Independents Could Be Key. The article noted that Mitt Romney had a seven-point lead among independent voters, in a WSJ-NBC News poll, and it quoted a pollster as saying the finding posed a problem for President Obama: You are really flirting with trouble if youre losing independents by this margin.
So what happened? Obama lost independents by a margin of 45 percent to 50 percent and he still won the election handily.
Indeed, in 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee, won the independent vote 54 percent to 45 percent and also lost.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/overselling-the-importance-of-independent-voters/2012/11/19/1c04b598-3294-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_blog.html
djean111
(14,255 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Pick a fricken' lane already!
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)They begin disappearing during the general. By Day 2 in office, you'd never know they were there, except for your pesky memory.
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)You prefer straight-ticket voting?
Cool.
But some people do a lot more voting than just presidential elections every 4 years.
Personally, my local government has had many people I have voted across party lines for. They were simply better known to me and better for my own positions.
Another reason, I hear, people register as Independent is so they aren't bombarded by calls and literature during elections! LOL. They want to be left alone to decide for themselves.
To me, the only reason to have parties is to trap those who want to run for office into a set standard of policy that's already predetermined for them.
Yes?
No?
fredamae
(4,458 posts)and Have acquired Major Political Party Status in OR and CT.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-oregon-independent-party-gains-major-status/
Other party's are also rising.
http://ballot-access.org/2010/11/02/political-parties-gain-qualified-status-in-some-states-lose-it-in-others/
What we "used to know" isn't anymore on many issues....imo
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)than HRC. You discount independents at your peril.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)these are disgruntled/disenfranchised GOP/Libertarians-It isn't that simple. The Dem Party is Bleeding members-especially over the past few elections.....It's a true mixture of People from mainly Both major party's..imo.
Dems are "building" numbers here..a bit-to be ready for the closed primary...but after that and at least by the General..they'll leave again because they do not feel the Dem party represents their values anymore.
A simple fact Dem Party leaders (including local state leaders) have intentionally Ignored, imo.
Bad Thoughts
(2,538 posts)The reason why "independents" did not vote for Obama in 2012 is because many of them were Republicans who quit the party in 2009-2010 because they wanted to punish Republican congressmen for cooperating with the White House and wanted them to investigate birtherism. There are genuine moderates, non-affiliated, that Obama won and whom Clinton or Sanders will need.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Metaphors are often counterproductive to clarity of thinking.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)it was low when romney ran. Turnout is much higher on the republican side now than it was when romney ran.
Independents will be needed on the democratic side to beat the other side.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Her numbers are disastrous with Independents, and the anti-establishment current among voters is several times stronger.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Where are you getting your numbers from?
Thank you in advance.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)and so we would be discussing Clinton-Sanders match-ups, right? At least until the nomination?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Or is this a feeble attempt to counter the idea that actually, if you care about winning the GE, you have a way better chance with Sanders' cross-over appeal?
revbones
(3,660 posts)Let her keep ignoring liberals and independents.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That 45% of them he got? He loses if he doesn't get them. By A LOT.
So yeeeeeeah..... they are needed to win.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Hillary tanks dreadfully among the latter. Of course, she also tanks among independents.
Oh-oh...
awake
(3,226 posts)There are not enough Democrats to win the Presidency with out independents! What world do you live in?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)If we got 0% of independents we'd lose 50 states.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)because Hillary is inspiring Democrats to come out in record numbers just like they did for Obama.
Seriously, I know you all Hillary supporters really do believe that Hillary is every bit as transformational a presidential candidate as Obama, BUT the fact of the matter is that IF she had succeeded in smearing her way to the Democratic nomination in 2008 the same way she is trying to smear her way to the nomination in 2016, we would be looking at the end of the McCain/Palin administration.
Secretary Clinton is not, and never will be, a better candidate than Obama AND for certain she will never be a better president.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Make no mistake about it.
HRC is no Obama, and Bernie has the "socialist" thing to overcome.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Math, this is Cali_Democrat. And math has something to tell you.
Obama's vote totals - Obama's independent voters = CRUSHING GOP VICTORY.
So tell us all about how they're not needed?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)is the case this year you have deluded yourself and seriously misread the electorate.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Obama gets slaughtered without that 45% of them he managed to secure. A detail the OP appears to be amazingly blind to.
earthside
(6,960 posts)A lot has changed in four years ... unaffiliated voters are at near record highs.
Furthermore, 2016 looks as if it may shape-up as a realigning election.
It would seem to be a risky strategy to disregard or underestimate the sentiments of 'independent' voters.
Why Independent Voters Will Propel Bernie Sanders to the White House
Tom Cahill | March 10, 2016
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Hillary and Sanders should be courting everyone. Independents included.
coyote
(1,561 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,538 posts)Democrats need the moderate independents, not those that are trying to hold the GOP hostage with their Libertarian bullcrap.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)The point is "stop talking about independents because we don't have a good answer".
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)but your explanation rings true. Now I can leave in good conscience, feeling fairly confident that I'm not missing anything but more bickering below.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Just sayin
kiva
(4,373 posts)not getting any independent voters and getting fewer independent voters, right?
If no independent voters had cast ballots for Obama, he would have lost; instead he lost independents by 5 percent and won the election.
Which sort of screws with your "we don't need you theory" because presidential candidates do need a percentage of independents plus their party voters to win...but just keep on with that magical thinking.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and Republican voters whom he called 'Obamacans'. DUer Frenchiecat told me back then that the faith community and 'Obamacans' had taken the place of LGBT voters and made our issues unimportant to the Party, this is why Obama was doing those rallies with anti gay preachers you see, to prove his bona fides as a Christian and all.
So this train, it's a boring train. When I see suggestions that Bernie is bad for doing what Barack also did, it's either boring or bigotry. Which would you like me to say? I'm saying it's boring. For now.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)The argument seemingly is
Is it 1) necessary to win more than half of the Independents in order to win the General Election?
2) Obama did not win half of the Independents (he only won 45%), yet he still won the general election
3) Consequently, it is not necessary to win the Independents (that is, win more than half their vote).
But what Bernie supporters are most reasonably arguing is NOT point 1, but instead, " It is necessary to win a substantial number of Independents in order to win the General Election." And Hillary is doing VERY POORLY among the Independents!!!
It is hard to find a poll with a break-out of how Hillary is doing against Trump & Cruz for Independents only; but we can look at Hillary's favorability rating among Independents:
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/26/independents-like-hillary-clinton-less-than-in-2008/
Compare that to Quinnipiac's polling from this year. Between March 2015 and December, Clinton's net favorability -- those viewing her favorably minus those viewing her unfavorably -- sank from plus-3 among all voters to negative-8, an 11-point change. But among independents, that figure went from +4 to -27, a swing of 31 points.
This article was written in January; her favorability since then has undoubtedly declined notably further!!
45% of Independents found Obama favorable enough to vote for him. It would appear that if the Quinnipiac poll is accurate, only 36% (or so) of Independents are finding Hillary favorable. If that winds up translating to a low proportion of Independents ultimately voting for Hillary in the general election, then we find ourselves in a dangerous situation.
BERNIE IS A MUCH SAFER PROPOSITION!!!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You go ahead with just the 30 percent of registered and self-identified Democrats in the country and see how far that gets you.
mathewsleep
(857 posts)Nanjeanne
(5,003 posts)nice
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)A sentiment I wholly agree with.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Unless you consider 45% insignificant.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But please, go forth with the strategy to win based on 30% of the electorate. It worked great in 2010 and 2014.
jeepers
(314 posts)a 12% democratic voter turnout no independents needed. She got 450 delegates and because of those southern victories leads in the primary. Talk about a strong campaign. And lets not forget those rousing wins in Nv Mass and in Iowa
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then she'd be a good candidate.
jeepers
(314 posts)No democrat will win any southern state in the general = no electoral votes to any dem. This is where Hills strength lies. Lets not forget those three rousing victories in NV, Iowa and in Mass
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The fact that it disenfranchised the rest of the country and more than half of the South should have been an indication is was not a sincere proposal.
jeepers
(314 posts)Using Hillarys 9 southern state delegate wins to claim she is the strongest candidate is the real joke
merrily
(45,251 posts)(My deep apologies and much love and empathy to all Democrats in Indiana.)
oasis
(49,454 posts)ladyVet
(1,587 posts)Let's keep telling all the Independents and liberals to sit down and shut up. We only need them for the elections anyway, right? That's the establishment belief, but they're ignoring our American Spring to their peril.
On second, thought....
Yeah. Independents. Who needs 'em?
Gonna be a shock coming to some people in November. Gonna be fun to watch.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)will get to the polls to defeat HRC,
Considering that the repugs after 8 years of
a Dem WH are druling to get in,
Considering that the registered Dems are only
maximally 30% of the electorate,
I admire your optimistic illusion.
beedle
(1,235 posts)2012 there was 37% independents, 32% Dems and 25% Repubs
2016 there are 40% independents, 30% Dems and 24% Repubs
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/
so we've gone from 5% lead in independents to a 10% lead dependents .... Obama won by slightly less than 4% of the popular vote in 2012.
Are you still so sure independents aren't needed?