Who appeals to INDEPENDENTS for president right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

Maybe PP needs to define what is meant by "marginalizing". Not making it a focus of one's campaign? Or making it fringe and reversing all the policies to make it mainstream or in focus, instead of pushing back only on some controversial situations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

This.

Also, AOC pulled in a LOT of MAGA. She is what a lot of people want >> the billionaires to stop screwing all of us.

Bernie and AOC got some pretty big draws doing events in deep red parts of the country. Economic populism resonates.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with your continued shilling for a foreign country.

Good luck with your one issue obsession and crusade. You are beyond tiresome.

You think it’s just me who is obsessed and doesn’t want to see our politics taken over by a foreign country? Trillions spent on their wars while we can’t provide for our own? You went way too far by taking down pro Palestine candidates. Your cause is over. Move on.

You are part of a small minority. 28% of voters view Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top issue (abs some portion of that 28% is pro-Israel).

So <20% are on your side and prioritize this.

By comparison, 84% prioritize COL, 75% democracy, 75% healthcare.

You’re a fringe player for a fringe cause.

It's because AIPAC-Israel issue is connected to the economy, free speech and other freedoms, and our countries reputation in the world for starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

Maybe PP needs to define what is meant by "marginalizing". Not making it a focus of one's campaign? Or making it fringe and reversing all the policies to make it mainstream or in focus, instead of pushing back only on some controversial situations?

I’m the PP you’re referencing. Primarily, I mean limiting their influence, denying their access to power, making their positions unappealing and socially unacceptable.

How to do this? I don’t have a great answer—looking for a candidate who does. But I do think Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” is perhaps instructive: it reflected a centrist consensus (abortion is an unpleasant thing that should be minimized, but we sure as hell don’t want to go back to coat hangers in back alleys).

This effectively marginalized both the abortion clinic protesters and the “I’m proud of my 4 abortions and I’m going to celebrate them by writing about them in The Nation) crowd.

[Anonymous]

We have broken systems: healthcare, taxes, corruption and partisanship in government, and immigration, along with way too much national debt. I want a candidate who will run on reforming those systems to change things for the better for the majority not the wealthy minority in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

People are concerned about other baggage democratic socialists come with. Also, simply being anti-Israel and saying you want billionaires to pay their share (whatever vague concept this is), isn't going to be enough. You need concrete plan on helping solve socio-economic issues in this country while also smoothing the divide between the masses along radical party line politics.

You are being satirical, right? Trump got elected twice and maga is a radical extremist group. Trump is way past socialist closer to communism. So I really don’t you make much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

They have yet to win an election. Why not wait to see if they can do that before giving them this halo effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

You actually believe it took him more than 15 years to realize what that tattoo was??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

DP. Agree with this. Think she’s well-intentioned and bright but naive. Also fear that the extreme left would capture her administration.

Hard no for me.

Bernie probably would have been elected if the Dem establishment hadn’t intruded. If they try to pull that crap again, they are going to be sorry.

That Democratic Establishment was James Clyburn, an 85 year old rep who has decided to run for reelection. The black gerontocracy continues to thrive and will have a big say about who the nominee will be. And no, they will not be sorry.

Well they are already sorry bc the Dems lost to the worst candidate our country has ever seen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

This.

Also, AOC pulled in a LOT of MAGA. She is what a lot of people want >> the billionaires to stop screwing all of us.

Bernie and AOC got some pretty big draws doing events in deep red parts of the country. Economic populism resonates.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with your continued shilling for a foreign country.

Good luck with your one issue obsession and crusade. You are beyond tiresome.

You think it’s just me who is obsessed and doesn’t want to see our politics taken over by a foreign country? Trillions spent on their wars while we can’t provide for our own? You went way too far by taking down pro Palestine candidates. Your cause is over. Move on.

You are part of a small minority. 28% of voters view Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top issue (abs some portion of that 28% is pro-Israel).

So <20% are on your side and prioritize this.

By comparison, 84% prioritize COL, 75% democracy, 75% healthcare.

You’re a fringe player for a fringe cause.

Look we can agree to disagree but the issues are directly related.

Col - a concern and people can wonder why health care and other social programs arent funded why we spend billions trillions to others.

Democracy. Same issue. We are sending billions to a theocracy that we also let meddle in our politics.

Healthcare- same as Col.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

People are concerned about other baggage democratic socialists come with. Also, simply being anti-Israel and saying you want billionaires to pay their share (whatever vague concept this is), isn't going to be enough. You need concrete plan on helping solve socio-economic issues in this country while also smoothing the divide between the masses along radical party line politics.

These are not vague concepts and AOC has proven that she can work with others.

She is also very charismatic. And young. And real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have broken systems: healthcare, taxes, corruption and partisanship in government, and immigration, along with way too much national debt. I want a candidate who will run on reforming those systems to change things for the better for the majority not the wealthy minority in our country.

Agree 1000000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

Cool. Now apply this logic to Justice Kavanaugh or any number of Republicans that have been pilloried for things they did and said decades ago that you jumped all over. And I'm a Democrat, by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

This.

Also, AOC pulled in a LOT of MAGA. She is what a lot of people want >> the billionaires to stop screwing all of us.

Bernie and AOC got some pretty big draws doing events in deep red parts of the country. Economic populism resonates.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with your continued shilling for a foreign country.

Good luck with your one issue obsession and crusade. You are beyond tiresome.

You think it’s just me who is obsessed and doesn’t want to see our politics taken over by a foreign country? Trillions spent on their wars while we can’t provide for our own? You went way too far by taking down pro Palestine candidates. Your cause is over. Move on.

You are part of a small minority. 28% of voters view Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top issue (abs some portion of that 28% is pro-Israel).

So <20% are on your side and prioritize this.

By comparison, 84% prioritize COL, 75% democracy, 75% healthcare.

You’re a fringe player for a fringe cause.

Look we can agree to disagree but the issues are directly related.

Col - a concern and people can wonder why health care and other social programs arent funded why we spend billions trillions to others.

Democracy. Same issue. We are sending billions to a theocracy that we also let meddle in our politics.

Healthcare- same as Col.

Granted that the Iran war has impacted the economy.

But once that’s resolved? There’s essentially no relationship between COL, healthcare, etc. and Israel.

You certainly have a point re: $$$ and effect on democracy, but AIPAC is a small subset of the much larger problem.

I get that you are trying to center this issue, but I don’t find your efforts to connect Israel to the issues that Americans actually care about particularly convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

Cool. Now apply this logic to Justice Kavanaugh or any number of Republicans that have been pilloried for things they did and said decades ago that you jumped all over. And I'm a Democrat, by the way.

Did kavanaigh admit he made mistakes? I must have missed that