Another person has gone 'independent'

Ohio billionaire and longtime Republican donor Les Wexner says he is officially done with the party, and was prompted to leave after former President Barack Obama visited the state.

Wexner, the CEO of retail conglomerate L Brands, which owns Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works, announced at a leadership summit in Columbus on Thursday that he “won’t support this nonsense in the Republican Party” anymore, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

The announcement, made at a panel discussion, came the same day Obama visited Columbus before heading to a rally in Cleveland to support Democrat Richard Cordray’s run for governor.

“I was struck by the genuineness of the man; his candor, humility and empathy for others,” Wexner said of Obama.

Wexner said he’s been telling lawmakers that he is now an independent.

“I just decided I’m no longer a Republican,” he said.

Last year, following a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Wexner condemned the racists in a speech to his employees. He said Trump’s tepid response to the violence ― in which a white supremacist killed counterprotester Heather Heyer ― made him feel “dirty” and “ashamed,” the Dispatch reported.

In a speech in Illinois earlier this month, Obama also called out Trump’s lukewarm response to the violence, in which the current president said there were “very fine people” on both sides.

“How hard is it to say Nazis are bad?” Obama said.

Wexner has long donated to Republican causes, including cutting a check to Jeb Bush for $500,000 in 2015 during Bush’s presidential run. The billionaire philanthropist has also donated $2.8 million to With Honor, a super PAC that endorses both Republican and Democratic candidates.

During the panel discussion Thursday, former Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman praised Wexner for standing up to his former party, the Dispatch reported.

“If you don’t think things are right, open your mouth,” Wexner responded.

http://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-donor-les-wexner-announces-191322407.html


This article inspired two questions for me. One is the make up in the US of political membership. The first thing to come up was regarding a gallup poll and asking what others 'consider' themself to be (which may or may not be how they are registered)

the results show that Most are independent, 43 percent, while republicans and democrats represent only 28 and 27 percent respectively.


http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx


The second question is how strongly party registration or affiliation does or should impact an individual citizen's vote. IF we vote mostly and fairly in blind support of party instead of candidate, why have elections? Why not just assume we should give it to the party with the majority registration? Would that give 'independent' candidates a better shot?

obviously, that would not be a good suggestion, because even with independents having a majority, our college repeatedly sends its votes to democrat or republican candidates? So Im left to think that the labels are mostly for the candidates and their colleagues to impose an expectation of blind 'loyalty' to each other in the face of the public.

I dont think the party system is a problem. I do think the culture of 'us verse them' that it encourages is damaging though. I think maybe people look more at what the label is than who the person is or what the issue is, and they pick a side.

In political discussions, it seems to almost always be more about being for or against someone or something that is either a 'republican' thing or a 'democrat' thing, instead of actually debating the support or opposition of that SPECIFIC someone or that SPECIFIC thing.

There seems to be a tendency, if one is democrat, to label a person or an action as something opposable, not on the merits of that something, but by association of it being republican.

and the same is Certainly and very visibly true on the republican side, when one is republican, how they also label a person or action as opposable, not on the merits of that something, but by association of it being demoratic.

So, I say all that as a prelude to the questions:


Can we continue with a party system and find a way for people to not encourage this kind of party blindness?

or should we vote only for candidates and dispose of the party labels?

And if we did. How would we decide the 'majorities' in Congress?

And why again should people care what people like this think or if they quit. Anything?

Because he owns Victoria's Secrete?

I would lump him in with the Hollywood folks who said they would leave if Trump won.....you know...the ones who are still here

I was thinking the same thing. Who cares what this one guy thinks? He will soon find out nobody gives a rats butt about his opinion. He can take his ignorant *** to Africa with Obama.

Sounds like a good plan to divide the Democratic vote.

Why should people care what anyone thinks? Yet they do, or we wouldnt find posts all over the internet about others opinions and thoughts.

but the bigger questions were around blind party loyalty, if the party system encourages it, and if so, is it more damaging than unifying and should it be replaced with something else?

Why should Wexner and Obama leave the nation of their birth (the USA) to go to Africa?

"How hard is it to say traitors are bad?"..Tombs said...As for replacing the current political system which seems to be nothing more than the start of divisiveness..I don't know how about the PEOPLE"S Party one based on transparency and truth..you know that which we are promised election after election yet we never get it..

now that would be a mind blowing concept..eh..As far as truth well we're fixing to get that some time between now and Nov.11..and I'm sure that will open some eyes..as far as Wexner well..one in a sea of many opinions (((yawn))) nothing to see here other than more news to reflect poorly on Trump..the guy will never catch a break..as long as the Butt Hurt Party remains...


WWG1 WGA

Parties are just that - parties, not 'works'.
If everyone only voted for independents for a few elections, all the 'parties' would be out of the picture, and real improvements may occur.

possibly,

or possibly that would result, as usual, with a reflection of alignment/loyalty to party rather than progres.

if most people voted independent BECAUSE it was independent, it may be the same boat we are in. the government is hundreds of people that have to work in a sort of consesus to achieve things, and not as individuals. So does any majority (place label here) really have the consensus of character to represent Americans and not just those aligned in their political philosophy?

Usually everyone pushes their own barrow anyway, while appearing to follow the party line; remove the 'direction' club, and it's just the same, pushing their own barrow, (themselves, community, business etc.), until the independents group up and form new 'parties'.

Or, more parties give more choices than just two; why choose the lesser of just two evils ?

In the US, the 2 major parties try to be "big tent" and water down their platforms so there is something to satisfy a large group of voters. We are also seeing the struggle within both parties as certain subgroups want to pull the parties further to the left or right.

Overall, the democratic party is viewed as big government, socially liberal while the republican party is viewed as smaller government and socially conservative. When these ideals clash with what an individual believes, we get another "independent". It isn't so much that they are truly independent as they are unsupported of part of a party's doctrine. Think of a social liberal who supports smaller government or a social conservative that believes the government needs to do more. These people really don't fit in the party and will be shunned by others within the party.

I suspect eventually we will have a more than 2 party system in the same way European countries do. Several parties will need to join together in some way to form a congressional majority. This is becoming more apparent as the 2 parties struggle to define who they are.

If you're that shallow minded, and have to vote according to how those in hollarwood, or some fool in business votes, then it's clear to me that be duped into most anything. Actually,how else could Bernie Madoff have accumulated so much wealth? He suckered people into his scam.

Rasmussen ran a poll on the appearance of obama in this election. Only 38% really want to see him again. Of course, he's still using the same old tired pitch, of going out and convincing your friends and family to vote dem. I'm all for that. I haven't run anyone off with a stick lately. Reminds me of Jehovah Witnesses, I won't listen to them at all. Last time they were at my door, I let my dogs bark at them. They were making more sense than who they were barking at.

I don't believe any of the polls. AP got out of doing them because they were so wrong. Rasmussen, I question. Oh, and just what happened to 534? I haven't heard a word from them. ABC-CNN? Well, whatever they say, it's just the opposite.

Wexner's opinion means zilch to me. Mark Cuban is full of it too. Hollarwood is mad because Trump took them off the governments money. What's driving the dems fears, is minorities that are doing better under Trump.

If this guy, Wexner was so awh- struck by the "all great and powerful Obama" why did he join the independent party instead of the Democratic Party of Obama .IMHO this guy just wanted to make his self look like he didn't support Trump simply for his customers sakeIndependent usually side with the republicans

That you can explain to me. I don't know why Obama runs his *** there after his black dad left him to starve. He wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for his white grandmother who supported him. He would be just another hood rat without her.

Most people??? Do you have the data on the numbers of people joining the independent party. I bet it's less people joining than it is that is abandoning the Democratic Party ... # walk away !

Many people are registered independent. However, only a few State allow
that in Primary voting!

Some Democrats have come to their senses and voted Republican.

But that doesn't happen often enough.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

the point is about the tendency to blindly align with 'democrat' or 'republican' and how a majority appear to not be labeled as either.

according to the numbers, both republicans and democrats, are far behind independents, so neither can try to really tout how much 'abandonment' the other is having.

East, be careful, your "southern" is showing again.

Obama was born here in the US. That makes him a US citizen, just like you, me, and even kids of immigrants, like I believe out current president is.

I mean, Trump beat the drum on this forever to whip up the racists against Obama, but eventually just let it go when it was verified Obama was born here.

"Saying "go back to Africa" is simply ignorant and divisive.

My grandparents came to America and faced "NINA" ("No Irish Need Apply"). I am not saying that that is anything CLOSE to what SOME Americans still face for prejudice, but it was enough for my grandfather to teach me that finding the BEST person for the job means looking past skin color, what church they attend, and whether they prefer pasta or potatoes with their "gravy". Not for nothing, but Grampa worked hard, came to this country on the bottom, and walked off the field significantly better off

Back to the OP.... If the guy is a top dog at Limited Brands, he probably has some coin in his pocket. Usually, the Republicans can rely on well-compensated guys like him to fund their candidates. If the guy is ticked off enough to not automatically contribute to the Republican candidate, that COULD be trouble for a Republican candidate who previously counted on his money in the candidate's war chest.

Agreed, by himself, no big deal if one formerly-reliable Republican contributor might no longer be counted on to support the effort, but how many of these people "defecting" does it take before the the GOP starts taking notice and getting worried? Money is the fuel of campaigns.

I think that trying to GET RID of anybody with an opposing viewpoint than your own is a DEFINITE SIGN of weakness,and insecurity,as it means that you are showing people that you do not actually believe that you can stand up to these people and beat them with the facts relating to the principles that you believe in.

Or it could be they really don't give a rat's azz about this guy's opinion because it makes no difference what he thinks it has no impact on their life whatsoever ..which would pretty much mirror my views..