Don't we want INDEPENDENTS to vote DEM in order to win the GE?

Many Hillary Supporters seem to believe that the only thing that counts is attracting Democrats. They often cite the fact that Obama couldn't have beaten Hillary if it wasn't for the Indies (although in Iowa, I believe he still did). Then some say, "well, some of the Super Tuesday states aren't open to Indies"....as though that is an accomplishment, what are they trying to tell me, cause I don't get it? That Obama might lose the primaries?

I thought the point was to attract and grow the party in order to win the General Election. Not have a candidate that doesn't seem to. Why am I feeling that Hillary supporters don't find Independents useful? Do they think that Evan Bayh or Vilsak will do that for Hillary? My understanding is that the bottom of the ticket counts for very little....for the most part....based on our recent experience.

Can I get straightened on this?

If Clinton attracts Dems in closed primaries, she wins those states.

In the general election, no matter who the candidate is, the Independents are going to "trend" Dem.

The point, according to all of the candidates, is to WIN. Neither Clinton nor Obama nor Edwards gives a shit about "growing the party" at this juncture. Later, sure. Now, it's all about winning.

Remember triangulation?

It's designed to pull Republicans in on pet issues that they can agree on.

It brought a lot of "Reagan Democrats" back home, if you recall.

And then what happened in the Congress, the State Legislatures and the Statehouses? For the most part, we only started winning those again after Bill left.

Congress was trending that way ANYWAY, and BC was under constant attack during his entire tenure.

If Bozo the Fucking Clown wins in Nov, Congress will continue to trend left. The GOP just didn't bring it--and the fact that they didn't bring it WITH a GOP president is what fixed their little red wagon.

The Dems hadn't had a firm grip on Congress since LBJ signed that Civil Rights legislation (and he knew that would be the end result, but he also knew it was the right thing to do). We're finally out of that woods--I think if we do a good job, we'll be able to hold on to Congress.

Sure you still want to advocate this? :rofl:

Obama received more independents votes than HIllary, last time I checked. In the context of the GE, 2% points difference between the two candidates does not bode well for Hillary.

they didn't vote the right WAY!!!!!

Heh, heh...

But we want to have our own Party also, why not just be non partisan if that weren't the case? We want to nominate Democrats who we feel good about being Democrats to run for President, not just the Sam Nunn's who run down to caucus with Michael Bloomberg and Christine Whitman. That is the delicate balence. We don't want to give up too much control of our nomination process to Independents or we just might end up with a few too many Joe Lieberman types winning slots on our tickets. Independents chose not to be Democrats intentionally, often they do not share all of our values.

However we DO want to nominate Democrats who are skillful enough to appeal to Independents once they are our nominee in the General Election. Barack Obama has a strong case to make that he can be that Democrat for us. I acknowledge that. But I also see the wisdom in a closed primary system, where Democrats can appeal to other Democrats for their support first, citing their appeal with independents if that is part of a winning case for them, before going out to win over the general public. If most Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton can best advance the Democratic agenda - factoring in their desire to select someone who can win the General Electon, that is meaningful in a contest for the Democratic nomination.

It is still the Democratic Party nomination that is up for grabs, not the Democratic+Independent+Democratsforaday Republican Party.

No one is going to vote Repug. Give me a break, and put down Huck's banjo!

Independent, New York is one of them. And, you can't change your party affiliation just at a whim. The registration changes will only take effect in November. So a repub can't vote in the primaries and change back, unless they do a lot of planning ahead.

zalinda

I really don't get the states that allow "OK, let's see, maybe I'll try being a Democrat for the day" voters decide their party primaries. Certainly you want candidates who can attract independent voters in the general election but it is up to the Democratic Party members to decide who that person will be, not someone there on a whim or even possibly a Republican looking to screw up the Democratic Party nomination by selecting someone they think cannot win in the general.

Pretend I am showing you two pictures, both flowers, I ask you to pick your favorite.

Now lets record which one you prefer.


Ok, now I will show you a picture of the one you rejected along with a picture of Satan. Please choose from that pair.

So - your point is?