In some states, the Democratic party's brand is so toxic, that it may be a good idea to run independent candidates

[Yavin4]

Just heard an interesting interview where they discussed an idea by Bernie Sanders for the Democratic party to allow Independent candidates run in some states without running as a Democrat. Now, we're not talking about creating a 3rd party. No, let candidates run as Independent on a strong progressive platform in deep red states. There is some precedence for this. Whenever progressive issues are on the ballot, raising the min. wage, legalize pot, expand the ACA, reproduction rights, they all win. Why not replicate that with candidates.

[Quiet Em]

1. Do they want the Democratic Party and Democratic donors to help finance and support their run

or are they going completely solo with their own money and on their own ballot line?

[Yavin4]

4. They would have to fund their own campaigns.

No help at all from the DNC. Clean hands.

[Quiet Em]

6. and I assume run on the Independent ballot line.

So essentially they are starting their own party.

[Yavin4]

8. Right, but no Democratic challenger.

The national party would agree to stand down.

[Quiet Em]

11. Oh. That's not going to happen.

No way would I agree to that.

[Yavin4]

14. So, you would rather have a Republican in office?

A Democrat has no chance.

[Quiet Em]

23. Democrats are not going to abandon some States so that this new party

can run unopposed. Not going to happen. Run the candidates you want, but you can't insist Democrats clear the path for them.

[Yavin4]

28. It's not a new party.

It's independent candidates running without a Dem candidate in the race because a Dem candidate has no chance of winning.

[HereForTheParty]

30. It already happened in Nebraska - Dan Osborn got 47% of the vote

Democrats wisely stood down. That's ten points better than the last Democrat to run.

[Quiet Em]

36. Democrats put millions into helping Osborn in the final weeks.

The idea being floated by the OP is to take no financial backing from the Democratic Party at all.

[delisen]

56. Hide and Run strategy for anti-Democratic candidates

Just another scheme to get Democratic party to stand down so that a minor party can get a foothold.

[LiberalArkie]

35. I do not think the national has been doing much for some really good Arkansas candidates.

[LisaM]

2. Wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have a good brand, we just need to restore it.

[Yavin4]

5. Not in a lot of states. We're talking deep red states like OH. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

55. It won't move the needle

They are as set in their ways as NJ and California.

[Irish_Dem]

3. Very sad OP.

[Yavin4]

7. Sad, but it's reality.

There are voters who will never vote for a Democrat no matter what. It's ingrained from birth.

[Irish_Dem]

9. I'm not sure you understand what your OP means.

[Yavin4]

12. Enlighten me. n/t

[ForgedCrank]

39. Far too

many insist on galvanized and lock-step leaders at this point.
For example, the reaction here to John Fetterman. He's a guy who knows how to work within his constituent arena. But doing so gets him attacked by hard liners. It's true, he won't promote every single thing that everyone insists on, but he's able to secure the spot rather than a Republican opponent. This is a win, not a loss.
You are on to the right formula here, but getting the inner circle to accept it may be impossible at this point. From my perspective, it appears we've become the anti-Republican party rather than the pro-Democratic party. We simply cannot expect to gain ground if we insist on continuing to run 100 percent negative, 100 percent of the time. We've resorted to attacking individuals directly rather than attacking their ideals where we should be countering arguments with alternative options instead of just calling everyone a rapist, Nazi, or poo-poo head. That simply isn't going to work on a national scale as it only appeals to those who are already within our circle of influence.
We have to get back to party basics and focus on our policy, not soap opera antics in our campaigns and rant about ketchup packets, sofas, and hand size. And we are also going to have to accept more moderate leaders in strategic areas who will appeal to a broader range of voters if we ever hope to win and make forward progress again.

Let the flaming commence.

[Yavin4]

45. I agree.

Most of America doesn't hate Trump to the levels that we hate Trump. We overly relied on Trump's negatives to win the election for us.

[DeepWinter]

52. 100% nailed it

Most everyone I engage with are focused on kitchen table politics. Ie: jobs, bills, taxes. Social justice, LGTBQ, etc is very very backseat when you're just wondering how many days to the next paycheck and what you are going to have to do without. Elements in our Party hate to hear this and reject it.

And to your point, I don't want to hear how much you hate the Republicans. That doesn't win my vote. Tell me what you have accomplished, what you want to do. That wins my vote. Attack ads are for voters alreadly locked in, you're not gaining ground there.

[Patton French]

53. Exactly.

A lot of people think calling the other person a nazi is all you need to do to win. And are shocked when it doesn’t work.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

10. The propaganda is so strong in some states

would be a much better way to say it...there is nothing toxic about helping everybody

Propaganda can be very toxic..the last election has shown us that big time

A spoiled failed tax cheating criminal billionaire is the everyman and the women who worked at McDoanlds is the elite

[dem4decades]

27. So we're going to fix stupid by not running Democratic candidates?

And what does that mean for Democrats that are winning in the blue areas of that state, do we abandon them too? Or support them and tell them not to seek higher office?

[Buzz cook]

13. I disagree.

IMHO in those reddest district where democrats have no chance of winning we should run democrats that most embody what the democratic party stands for.

By that I mean candidates such as Paul Wellstone. People that clearly back the working class and are not timid about it.
If the democratic party is in bad odor, it's because it hasn't stood up for itself. The party has ceded way too much to the right.

[Bo Zarts]

15. Dems would have to run MAGAs in my state, because our party is so toxic here.

GOP/MAGA headquarters - South Carolina

[Self Esteem]

16. Independents don't win unless they align with the party that dominates the state.

Bernie wins because he's a progressive senator of a progressive state.

Angus King wins because he's a progressive senator of a lean-progressive state.

The second you run an independent, the question will be asked, "who will you caucus with?" and the answer will either inevitably be ambiguous or the Democrats (unless they're a conservative who says they'll caucus with the Republicans and at that point, it's all moot).

Maybe it marginally boosts them compared to a rando Democrat. But we have ample evidence that even indies running in Republican-leaning states stand little chance of winning.

Dan Osborn ran in deep red Nebraska and lost by seven-points. Yeah, he did better than Democrats have done ... but better means little if you're not going to win.

Evan McMullin was supposedly expected to be competitive in Utah in 2022 and he lost by 11.

Greg Orman is another one. Ran in Kansas. Polls had the race neck-and-neck in 2014 (final polls had the race tied) and he lost by 11.

I think it's just hopeium at this point to expect an indy candidate who might align with the Democrats to win over a Republican in a deep red state. It just doesn't happen in this era.

To be fair, I'd be shocked if an independent conservative won in a strong Democratic state.

[Yavin4]

21. My answer to you.

The second you run an independent, the question will be asked, "who will you caucus with?"

Few will ask that question. If they do, just don't answer it.

Maybe it marginally boosts them compared to a rando Democrat. But we have ample evidence that even indies running in Republican-leaning states stand little chance of winning.

Dan Osborn ran in deep red Nebraska and lost by seven-points. Yeah, he did better than Democrats have done ... but better means little if you're not going to win.

You contradicted your own point.


As for your other examples, did any of those candidates run as a strong Progressive?

[Self Esteem]

58. Your answers are not sufficient.

Sorry.

Few will ask that question. If they do, just don't answer it.

Wrong. It's asked all the time. It was asked of every candidate I listed and none could give a solid response, which probably played a role in why they lost as badly as they did.

You contradicted your own point.

If you're going to make this point, show me where I contradict my own point. My point is that independent candidates only win when they align politically with the state they're running (IE they will caucus with the party within that state). None of those candidates said they'd caucus with the Republican Party and all three lost.

[Yavin4]

22. Also...

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Political independents continue to constitute the largest political bloc in the U.S., with an average of 43% of U.S. adults identifying this way in 2023, tying the record high from 2014. Independent identification has been 40% or higher each year since 2011, except for the 2016 (39%) and 2020 (39%) presidential election years. Equal 27% shares of U.S. adults identify as Republicans and Democrats, with the Democratic figure marking a new low for that party in Gallup’s trend.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/548459/independent-party-tied-high-democratic-new-low.aspx

[Captain Zero]

46. A lot of "independents" just won't admit

They are a Republican or a Democrat and only vote in general elections. I'm not sure true independent is a valid category of voter. I think out of a 100 "independents" maybe 7-20 really are.

[Self Esteem]

59. So?

Not sure what point you're trying to make except to discredit your own. Even if indies make up the largest political voting bloc, why can't you point to one example recently of a red state electing an independent - let alone one who wasn't conservative?

You can't. They don't exist. Therefore, your whole point is moot.

[HereForTheParty]

33. Dan Osborn said he wouldn't caucus with Democrats

and got 47% of the vote in Nebraska. It would be better than a MAGAt.

[Yavin4]

48. If the independent candidate is a strong progressive, then the Dems won't run an opposition candidate.

If the candidate says that they will caucus with Republicans, then the Democrats would run an opposition candidate.

[Self Esteem]

60. And he still lost.

You're kinda proving my point. He said he wouldn't caucus with either party, as did Evan McMullin and neither won. In fact, both lost by a wider margin than the polls suggested.

But moreover, it speaks to the ambiguity of my point. Something i clearly outlined in my response. You can say you're not going to caucus with the Democrats, but how are you going to vote for majority leader? What value do you bring to he senate when neither party is incentivized to put you on any committee? Osborne would have been a political eunuch with his position of refusing to caucus with either party because wouldn't be appointed to anything by either side. He'd just be a backbencher and nothing more.

Regardless, did Osborne win? No. He lost. He ran a MAGA-lite campaign and still lost. Much of his attacks on Fischer were from the right - not the left.

Every election cycle we hear how independents are the way to win deep red states and not one person can provide an example to prove it's possible.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. Welcome to Michigan

Detroit's Democratic Mayor Duggan will run for governor as an independent. He's popular, and will get many votes from Democratic voters. The actual Democratic nominee will also get a bunch of Democratic votes.

With the Democratic vote split like that, the Republican candidate will sail into the governor's office.

The "independent" candidate is doing us no favors.

[Yavin4]

20. We're not talking about states like MI.

We're talking about deep red states like ARK, OK, SC, TN, MT, ND, SD, etc.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. True, MI is not deep red. Yet.

[MichMan]

32. Giving away all the votes from those who vote straight ticket too

[Noel Kums]

18. When a billion-plus and an incredibly qualified presidential candidate doesn't do it, I don't know what will.

You rarely see the outliers anymore like Beshear in Kentucky.

It seems like most want to be angry and create chaos - and they like it. I don't understand it and never will.

[Raven123]

19. Interesting point.

I remember a survey that found Democratic policies were popular, but those surveyed still leaned toward GOP candidates. The GOP has successfully made “Democrat” toxic to some voters. One wonders if in some places simply removing the label will remove that barrier to listening to ideas

[Yavin4]

25. Exactly. That's the point.

The national party would just stand down, and let the independent candidate establish him or herself.

[BunkieBandit]

38. So we'd be a two party Democratic Party.

What happens when one breaks away? Bad idea.

[Blue_Tires]

34. Y'all really can't see how this blows up in our faces, can you?

[Raven123]

42. No

[Blue_Tires]

49. Thank goodness you're not running the party, then

How can you proudly stand up for your political convictions while at the same time being too scared to admit your party affiliation?

You really think that's going to fly with voters?

[The Wandering Harper]

24. I don't know how much energy I have to put into it

but if I did, I'd be all over primarying a bunch of the local DINOs.
A friend on the city council is angry with their shenanigans and fired up and [redacted]

[JoseBalow]

26. How about run as a fake Repug and switch to Dem once elected?

Win/Win!

[Bettie]

57. Seems to be all the rage in Republican circles

we could do it too.

[doc03]

29. I think the Republican party is equally toxic in other states nt

[P.C.L.D.]

47. K&R

Thank you

[BunkieBandit]

37. No, no, NO!!

There is already the Democratic Party that covers that !! Not a penny for any candidate that is not Democratic.

[tritsofme]

40. If the candidate refuses to pledge to caucus with Democrats, I always think it is a big deal risk that they may join

whichever party has the majority, and that could very well be the Republicans.

[ZonkerHarris]

41. In a Coke/Pepsi America telling people to vote for RC Cola is not good for the big brand.

[liberalmediaaddict]

43. We're not toxic

Trumpism and MAGA is toxic. That's why his supporters like it. They prefer the chaos, division and negativity to what Democrats have to offer.

Democrats have also done well in elections when Trump isn't on the ballot.
Many Americans only turn out to vote for him.

[samnsara]

51. im kinda thinking it the repugs that need to go indy

[sunnybrook]

54. Ceding linguistucs to Repugs is not a winning strategy

In college about 15 years ago I did a research paper on the changing perception of the word "liberal." It was becoming politically toxic, so many politicians adopted the term "progressive." But the term "liberal" had a long history that should have been proudly embraced. What I found out from my research was that the "liberal" as a bad brand did not happen randomly or accidentally. It was a HIGHLY coordinated campaign by the right to make it a derogatory term, and a great deal of it was masterminded by linguist and pollster Frank Luntz. There were very few that defended the word "liberal," with the great Senator Ted Kennedy being an exception.

I see, nowadays, even politicians on our side using the term "conservative" in a friendly or even affectionate manner. But most have abandoned "liberal" and "progressive" may follow the same path.

I understand the brainwashing in red states that villianizes all who are labeled Democrats. There is a very high rate of misinformed citizens, not only in red states but nationwide. But is letting the opposition define us really a winning method? Are there other ways for Democrats to win rather than running from our own brand?

[ismnotwasm]

61. Bernie. Again

Jesus Fucking Christ

[BunkieBandit]

62. There is a difference between Independent

and independent voters as referred to in polls. Those 40 something percent of independent voters don't add up to Independent (Party). Of which probably 50% lean left and 50% lean right. Thus, back to square one. You insist it would not be a third party when in fact it'll be just that. A third party.

[hurl]

63. Could be, at least here

Democrat or Democratic is flat-out toxic in my deeply rural Texas district. It doesn't matter what policies we support here, even if they align with what voters want. The majority here vote strictly according to the 'team' and absolutely refuse to do any research beyond that. We had candidates that pretty well reflected the values people claim here, but they were lucky to get past 25% in the county.

We had an outsider who primaried a popular Republican because she received outside money to shove him aside because he stood against school vouchers. Even though she caused some hard feelings among Republicans who liked the incumbent, and even though most Republicans here did not want vouchers, she carried well over 70% of the vote simply due to being the R candidate. I often wonder whether our D candidate might have done better as an "I," especially since the state and national party did absolutely nothing to help her, seemingly writing the district off as a lost cause.