INDEPENDENTS Rule! Join the no-party choice; decide Nov elections.

15-10-2010 02:38AM #1

The CBS Evening News (14 October 2010) reports that Independents are now the largest group of the electorate at 40%, with 33% Democrats and 27% Republicans remaining.

I've never liked either party, especially when they spend most of their time trying to block each other in Congress, evidencing little bipartisan cooperation to solve the nation's serious economic problems.

The so-called Tea Party is not an alternative for Independents, because they are just a faction of the Republican party that has endorsed only registered Republicans for Congress in November (except for one token Democrat). By their endorsements they are in fact Republicans in Tea Party clothing.

Now with the mid-term November elections approaching, it's been reported that over 80% of campaign advertising has turned negative. We now hear more air time with candidates smearing each other, than offering a substantive plan to solve the nation's problems.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/

Overheal · 15-10-2010 03:15AM

This news pleases me. The Forefathers (most of them anyway) never liked the concept of a Party System.

metrovelvet · 15-10-2010 08:09AM

One of the great things about registering independent is that you dont get any political leaflets in your post.

The bad part is you cant vote in the primaries. So does this mean 40% of the electorate are not voting in the primaries?

Denerick · 15-10-2010 10:04AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

One of the great things about registering independent is that you dont get any political leaflets in your post.

The bad part is you cant vote in the primaries. So does this mean 40% of the electorate are not voting in the primaries?

To be fair the primaries are always decided by tiny groups of activists, maybe 5-10% of the electorate. This is why extremes of left and right pop up all the time. Take California for example, that elected an ultra conservative to run against Barbara Boxer. Not so clever.

I am also taking immense pleasure in seeing Meg Whitman stumble in her race against Jerry Brown, who has spent 12 times less than she has.

Mjollnir · 15-10-2010 04:16PM

Denerick wrote: »

To be fair the primaries are always decided by tiny groups of activists, maybe 5-10% of the electorate. This is why extremes of left and right pop up all the time. Take California for example, that elected an ultra conservative to run against Barbara Boxer. Not so clever.

I am also taking immense pleasure in seeing Meg Whitman stumble in her race against Jerry Brown, who has spent 12 times less than she has.

CA also just recently passed that ballot prop that requires open primaries, but I'm not sure when/if it's taken effect yet.

metrovelvet · 15-10-2010 04:27PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

CA also just recently passed that ballot prop that requires open primaries, but I'm not sure when/if it's taken effect yet.

I think California might allow Independents to vote in the primaries.

I dont know Denerick if only extremists vote in the primaries. I know many Americans on both sides of the fence who would be moderates who vote in the primaries.

15-10-2010 05:50PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

CA also just recently passed that ballot prop that requires open primaries, but I'm not sure when/if it's taken effect yet.

Open California primaries go into effect in 2011.

Report from 10 June 2010:
"Californians this week voted overwhelmingly to jettison their traditional party primary system, opening the early contests to all registered voters and allowing the top two vote getters in every race — no matter their party affiliations"

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127749119

CIE · 24-10-2010 05:20AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

One of the great things about registering independent is that you dont get any political leaflets in your post.

The bad part is you cant vote in the primaries. So does this mean 40% of the electorate are not voting in the primaries?

Thank the progressives for that.

kaiser sauze · 30-10-2010 07:33PM

Denerick wrote: »

To be fair the primaries are always decided by tiny groups of activists, maybe 5-10% of the electorate. This is why extremes of left and right pop up all the time. Take California for example, that elected an ultra conservative to run against Barbara Boxer. Not so clever.

I am also taking immense pleasure in seeing Meg Whitman stumble in her race against Jerry Brown, who has spent 12 times less than she has.

Barbara Boxer is likely to lose.

31-10-2010 04:14AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Barbara Boxer is likely to lose.

The polls were much closer earlier in this race. Now it appears that Boxer has eased out ahead by 5.5 average points in the latest polls.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ca/california_senate_boxer_vs_fiorina-1094.html

kaiser sauze · 31-10-2010 04:26AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The polls were much closer earlier in this race. Now it appears that Boxer has eased out ahead by 5.5 average points in the latest polls.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ca/california_senate_boxer_vs_fiorina-1094.html

Oh, that's good news; it looked for a while as though that Fiorina twit might actually have got in.

INDEPENDENTS Rule! Join the no-party choice; decide Nov elections.

Comments