By Curt_Anderson July 2, 2023 1:43 pm Category: Politics (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Indy! wrote:
Ds: 29%
Rs: 27%
Is: 42% (About 33% of Is vote for one party or the other)

Easy to see who the biggest group is - disaffected Americans.

The supposedly disaffected independents Indy! speaks of are really a mix of the apathetic, indecisive, malcontents and the uninformed. See video below. These independent voters are not political sophisticates with some great insights on effective governance. They fail to grasp that not voting or voting for a third party candidate spoils the chances of the major party candidate who most closely aligns with their views. Ranked choice voting would solve the problem, but we don't have that nationally.

Democrats and young people historically have not been reliable mid-term voters. However, recently Trump, Republicans and the rightwing Supreme Court gave them a reason to vote (albeit to vote against) in the last couple of midterms. Voters are more motivated by anger than by satisfaction. The GOP knows this full well, that's why they get their gullible voters riled up over phony issues like drag queen performances and Hunter Biden's laptop.

(From NBC News)According to survey data released Tuesday by Census Bureau, new data shows that [increases in midterm voter turnout] was concentrated in states Democrats won in 2020.

Turnout rose 8.9 percentage points in Oregon, catapulting the state to 70%, the highest rate in the nation and nearly 20 percentage points higher than the national average.

The South had the lowest turnout, with 48.9% of eligible voters participating. The largest share, 54.7%, voted in the West.

Cited and related links:

1. nbcnews.com
2. brookings.edu

Comments Start Below

by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 2:18 pm Case in point: Yours truly. I was a registered independent when I voted for Dubya in 2000. I had my head up my ass. Swallowed the lies about Al Gore hook, line and sinker. by Donna on July 2, 2023 2:19 pm That ^^^^ was mine. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 2:58 pm Curt still has his head up his ass. The only thing worthwhile in that post was the SNL clip which reminded me why I haven't watched the show in 30+ years. So far as independents - the majority of them are far better informed than any Ds or Rs but let's address the minority you chose to highlight, Curt... "the apathetic, indecisive, malcontents" ...how do you think they got that way? Because the Democrats and Republicans were attending to the problems they face in this country? Or because the two color party couldn't care less about them and made them believe their vote was absolutely worthless? Again - WHY has the LARGEST PERCENTAGE of the country decided to forgo either of the two colors of your party? 🤔 by Indy! on July 2, 2023 3:02 pm Oh sorry - I forgot to add the "uninformed"... Well let's question that one as well. If the independents are so "uninformed" - and let's be real - what Curt and Donna really mean is "stupid"... how are Ds any smarter? The Ds "best prepared candidate in history" lost to a game show host. And both Curt and Donna voted for her. You both also voted for the people who ALLOWED the Court you're now complaining about to be overtaken in a STUNNING manner - switching a 5-4 "left" majority into a 6-3 right majority in the space of less than a decade! That's what YOU voted for - not the independents. Are you SURE you're the smart voters? 😂 by Donna on July 2, 2023 3:06 pm Speaking for myself, for the most part I was an indie because I was uninformed as well as mis- and disinformed. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 3:14 pm "Again - WHY has the LARGEST PERCENTAGE of the country decided to forgo either of the two colors of your party? 🤔" --Indy! In 2016 right before the election, somebody I know made the claim that America is not dumb enough to elect Donald Trump. I responded, "just remember, half of America has a below average IQ". Of course on election day, more than half of the registered voters show up and vote for Republicans and Democrats. I never thought that Hillary Clinton would be more than a knowledgeable and capable president who would respect the office. I didn't agree with all of her positions on the issues. But her opponent was the worst sort of race-baiting populist. On election day, I had another conversation with our mayor, and I said (not knowing Trump would win), that he had already harmed our democracy by proving that a candidate can scapegoat and demonstrably lie with impunity and that voters won't care. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 3:24 pm Well again, Curt - as with every time you make a post like that - you are assuming that you are somehow smarter by continually making the same mistake. You are no different than the inbreds in Alabama who believe the last election was stolen from Trump. They believe they know better than everyone else as well. On top of that - your proposition is straight up wrong at face value. Again - the numbers... 29% D 27% R 42% I No matter how you slice it - 29% is not 50%. 🙄 by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 5:42 pm "29% D 27% R 42% I" --Indy! I shouldn't have to say it, but those numbers do not reflect how people actually vote. Ross Perot and Theodore Roosevelt (as a Bull Moose) were the last non-D, non-R to get anywhere near 20% of the popular vote. Perot didn't win any electoral votes. Normally third party candidates for any office are lucky to get more than a single percent or two of the vote. " You are no different than the inbreds in Alabama who believe the last election was stolen from Trump." --Indy! And you believe the last two Democratic primary elections were stolen from Bernie Sanders. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 6:21 pm No idea what your third party paragraph is supposed to mean. No one suggested that a third party candidate could win the election. Of course the people voting for the third party are not voting for the person they think will win like you - they are voting for the candidates who represent their views. So far as the Bernie Sanders thing, of course I'm being hyperbolic when I say the primary was "stolen" from him - intelligent voters understand this. The reality is the primary was rigged against him in 2016 by Hiilary's minions and then Clyburn and Obama rigged the 2020 primary. So technically it wasn't "stolen" as your literal mind thinks. But as D operatives like Donna Brazile have admitted straight up - it was rigged against Bernie. And of course the Democrats were forced to admit in court that they don't have to nominate the candidate who is chosen by voters in the primaries anyway. So if the election being rigged is not enough to make you think twice about voting for the duplicitous Ds - perhaps the fact your vote is totally meaningless to them might make you ponder something other than voting for "evil" (as both you and the democrats describe it) every 4 years. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 7:15 pm Indy! Brazile's rigged primary claim was a transparent ploy to boost the sales of her book. She eventually recanted: Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Sunday she found “no evidence” that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged in favor of eventual nominee Hillary Clinton, seemingly walking back her recent stinging criticisms of the electoral process. “I found no evidence, none whatsoever” that the primaries were rigged, Brazile said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week." As to the "admission" that the DNC doesn't have to nominate the popular vote winner, that's true of any political party, beauty pageants and American Idol ---they are private enterprises. Btw, if Trump is facing prison, the RNC might want to nominate somebody else. The DNC didn't have to to allow a non-party member, Sanders, to run. In fact, the DNC was more than fair to Sanders--despite what Russian trolls and Trump may have told you. See third link for "The 2016 Democratic primaries were fair. Just ask Bernie Sanders among others." (WaPo)Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn’t really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses. “The party has the freedom of association to decide how it’s gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party,” said Spiva. For a detailed look the right of freedom of association as it applies to political parties, see MTSU.edu link. politico.com washingtonpost.com selectsmart.com mtsu.edu by Indy! on July 3, 2023 1:24 am Yes, Donna Brazile “recanted” when the party put the pressure on her to “recant”. You’re more gullible than even the most gullible of the gullible Ds if you believe that one. How about Debbie Wasserman Schultz - do you believe she was trying to sell books when she admitted to rigging the primaries too? Are you buying that line for a dollar, Curt? 😂 Oh, and the “Russian trolls” thing only works on the rubes like you and Donna who bought the Russia hoax. Just fy for the next time you’re looking for a dig to use against your political betters. 😘 by islander on July 3, 2023 7:35 am WAS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION RIGGED? "This Article makes three central points. First, it contends that the overwhelming weight of evidence makes clear the 2016 Democratic nomination process was not rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. A close examination of both the nomination rules and the popular vote demonstrates conclusively that the race was conducted in a fair manner and the outcome reflected the will of a large majority of Democratic voters. Lost in the controversy over Clinton's superdelegate support was the single most important fact of the nomination race: Clinton defeated Sanders by over 3 million votes. Indeed, whether measured by the popular vote or by pledged delegates, Clinton's margin of victory over Sanders in 2016 far exceeded Barack Obama's margin of victory over Clinton in 2008. Moreover, the joint fundraising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign only involved the general election, not the primary campaign, and the DNC entered into a similar agreement with the Sanders campaign. Contrary to popular impression, therefore, Clinton won the nomination fairly. Second, this Article argues that the Democratic Party rules and state election laws actually hurt Clinton and benefited Sanders.7 Many Democratic caucuses and primaries permitted independents (i.e., non- Democrats) to vote, thus providing a critical lifeline to the Sanders. campaign which depended heavily on the support of independent voters. In addition, the DNC's award of pledged delegates on a proportional basis slowed Clinton's path to the nomination even as she took a commanding lead over Sanders in the popular vote. If the Democratic Party used the Republican Party's delegate rules, which employ a winner-take-all system for a large number of their primaries and caucuses, Clinton would have secured a majority of delegates much earlier than she actually did. Instead of helping Clinton, Democratic Party rules dragged out the nomination race and gave rise to an unnecessary controversy over superdelegates. Ironically, however, a false narrative took hold in the public mind that the Democratic race was "rigged" in Clinton's favor. The widespread perception of illegitimacy tainted Clinton's nomination and gave Donald Trump a talking point he would use to great effect during the general election." scholarship.law.ufl.edu by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 7:38 am Keep tellin yourself...if you need to. by Indy! on July 3, 2023 7:46 am They need to, peebs. Islander’s “proof” is hilarious - Hillary couldn’t have rigged the election because she won! I guess it makes sense on some level because she also tried to rig the general election with her “Pied Piper strategy” and lost. 😂 by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 7:51 am On Friday, when the Supreme Court decisions came out, one of my first thoughts was that, many of the people who are most pi$$ed, fell for the Hillary scam and helped get those Trump Justices nominated. That's my favorite baha baha baha of allllllllllll time! by Indy! on July 3, 2023 8:32 am One thing we’ve never discussed about Hillary and her supporters is their absolutely ASTOUNDING sense of entitlement… that it was somehow her “turn” in 2016 when voters had already resoundingly rejected her in 2008. She was already so out of touch with the country, technology and the heeds of average Americans 8 years prior that we said no - yet to this day - almost another 8 years later, they still pretend like she had some right to the White House. It is so offensive to the true left on so many levels. by Donna on July 3, 2023 9:18 am Good post, islander. Clinton got more votes than Bernie. The dead-enders need to (but won't) get over it. They will continue to whine like MAGAs about an alleged rigged election. by Indy! on July 3, 2023 10:05 am Oh - that reminds me... (found on Twitter - props to whoever created it) by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 10:13 am Donna, Who knew that there were that many people unwilling to accept reality? The candidates of the election deniers lost fair and square. These were not cases in which the elections were extremely close and subject to an automatic recount. There have been recently election deniers of various political stripes: The MAGA election deniers, the Bernie Bros. election deniers and the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) election deniers who were Hillary supporters in 2008. Notably, unlike Trump, neither Hillary or Bernie claim that an election was stolen from them. Common to all of them is their unshakeable belief "we wuz robbed" despite much evidence to the contrary. None of them can offer a plausible scenario in which their candidate would have won minus the supposedly nefarious X, Y and/or Z actions by their opponents. by Indy! on July 3, 2023 2:59 pm You need a fair race to lose "fair and square", Curt. You know - like when Hillary lost to the game show host. She lost "fair and square"... and yet Hillary and all her minions still complain that she "would have won" if only Indy and the other voters with integrity had sold out our principles like you and Donna and voted for a candidate who didn't represent us in any way whatsoever. 🧐 by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 3:19 pm Indy, Hillary did to lose to Trump fair and square---she won fewer electoral votes. The election wasn't rigged. Obviously had she won sufficiently more vote in the right states, including some votes from Bernie Bros. election deniers and Jill Stein voters she might have won. She was not the widely reviled character that you make her out to be. She did win the popular vote by 2.9 million. Various things went wrong for Hillary, some within her control and some outside of her control. Russian meddling gave an assist to Trump (whether he colluded or not). Recognizing that is not election denying. fbi.gov npr.org reuters.com by Indy! on July 3, 2023 3:51 pm Oh yeah, that's the other thing you guys perpetually whine about when it comes to Hillary - the alleged "Russian interference". And you still have the gall to pretend like Bernie supporters - who actual verifiable proof of cheating - are the ones dealing in conspiracy theories. 🙄 by Indy! on July 3, 2023 3:52 pm *have by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 3:58 pm You "have" the same amount of proof that Bernie was cheated as MAGA voters do: zilch. As Rudy Giuliani said, "we've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence". by Indy! on July 3, 2023 6:17 pm We have Democrat leaders who have confessed. 😘 Has Putin confessed to your (snicker) "Russian interference" yet? Mueller investigated it for years and came up with... 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗 by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 6:42 pm OK, Indy! I have to stop you right there... The 448-page Mueller report contains copious detail about how Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, both by using social media to influence American voters with misinformation and by hacking into the Clinton campaign’s computers. Russian operatives also connected with WikiLeaks to release the stolen material. Mueller didn't conclude that Trump colluded with Russia. Nor did Mueller exonerate Trump. Mueller's evidence wasn't conclusive. Putin didn't confess, but Putin's erstwhile chef and pal, Yevgeny Prigozhin, admitted that he had interfered in U.S. elections. No Democrat leader "confessed" to rigging the election. There was no evidence of rigging. What was admitted in a lawsuit brought in Florida was that a political party may make up their own rules including ignoring the primary votes, by virtue of the constitutionally recognized freedom of association. Therefore the lawsuit was moot which was why the lawsuit against the DNC was dismissed. The funny thing is that if Bernie had been awarded the nomination in 2016 or 2020, given he had about 2/3 as many votes as Hillary and about half as many votes as Biden, that would be a scandal. But it wouldn't be illegal. Neither Hubert Humphrey nor Bobby Kennedy won the most Democratic primary votes in 1968. pbs.org apnews.com by Indy! on July 3, 2023 8:09 pm Anytime I hear someone use the term "copious detail" I know they're lying. So I have to stop YOU right there. But I get it - you're fine throwing your vote away on the Ds so be my guest. That doesn't change history. Hillary cheated and she still lost. Bernie would have won. by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 8:11 pm You just used the term "copious detail". I take your point. by Indy! on July 6, 2023 12:24 am One thing we’ve never discussed about Hillary and her supporters is their absolutely ASTOUNDING sense of entitlement… that it was somehow her “turn” in 2016 when voters had already resoundingly rejected her in 2008. She was already so out of touch with the country, technology and the heeds of average Americans 8 years prior that we said no - yet to this day - almost another 8 years later, they still pretend like she had some right to the White House. It is so offensive to the true left on so many levels. by Donna on July 6, 2023 8:11 am Hillary was First Lady for 8 years, a US Senator for 6 years, and Obama's Secretary of State for 8 years, so it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that she'd be supported so strongly by most Democrats in 2016. The support was so strong that only a handful of candidates challenged her. by Curt_Anderson on July 6, 2023 9:19 am Indy, There have been a lot of people who have run a campaign for president and lost. Then decided later and other election cycle they should run again. Apparently they decided America needed another chance to vote for them. Those people include Bernie Sanders, George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, John McCain, Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden. The lesson here is if first you don’t succeed try try again. Some of these people actually did win the presidency eventually some didn’t. by Indy! on July 6, 2023 11:28 am Being First Lady in no way prepares someone for president. Hillary was only a Senator (for ONE term) because Rudy Guliani imploded with an extramarrital affair that went public right in the middle of the campaign. Hillary did absolutely NOTHING of note while Senator - lots of honorary "Flower Day" crap. Hillary was only SecState because Obama felt sorry for kicking her ass and let her play the part at which she was absolutely TERRIBLE. She turned one of the most progressive African countries into an open slave market. So again - this is why you DON'T run her when she is the ONLY person who could lose an election against a GAME SHOW HOST. Hillary was WRONG about EVERYTHING. You guys brought Trump and the conservative Clourt on yourselves by insisting this HORRIBLE PERSON had to run. Buy ALLOWING her to buy the DNC and game the primaries so she wouldn't lose a SECOND time. Which of those people you names did THAT, Curt? 🙄 by Indy! on July 6, 2023 11:30 am Oh wait... ONE of them did - Joe Biden. The Ds rigged the system for him too. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page