Talk:Independent Democrat

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It was shot thru with mistatements, misleading info, and a fact that is at best out of date -- and, if it wasn't recklessly mis-stated, has changed in a fashion that would itself be noteworthy.

1. ...thus assuring Senate Democrats that they would hold the 51-49 majority they won in that year's elections.

   Lieberman caucus status didn't & doesn't "assure" shit. If there is anything that is assured by someone being in a caucus, it's not generally considered notable. The two main Congressional caucuses presumably get budgets that include staff, and those numbers probably eventually fluctuate as a result of members joining or leaving, but a caucus is a tool for organizing votes, not something that can compel them rather than try to influence them.

2. ... officially listed as an "Independent Democrat" in U.S. Senate records ...

   "[O]fficial" is misleading; the editor seems to have justified this by finding info in www.senate.gov. The corresponding page does point to a "Content Responsibility" page that says

   The information on this Web site is compiled under the authority and direction of the Secretary of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

   But actions of the Senate (appearing in the Congressional Record) that its rules attribute to the body as whole are what i think of first, and the content of the rules a close second. JL said he told the Secretary how he wanted to appear and that was all it took. He officially said it, i 'spose, and the Secretary officially (i.e., as a function of their office) published it, but that makes it personal, much more than it makes it official in a sense of interest here.
   Further, it suggests that his party designation is something of official concern to the Senate, while in fact it is more likely added on the Senate & Congress pgs (especially since it, as opposed to who he caucuses with, is irrelevant to the Senate's business) as a courtesy much like that of including his year of birth (as his bio page does); it serves for identification (and occasionally avoiding embarrassing situations -- Reed/Ried, Kerry/Carey -- where a voter mistakenly says something to a member of party X that they'd only knowingly say to a member of party Y).

3. '...listed as an "Independent Democrat" ...'

   Well, he's not, or at least not anymore: he's listed as "ID - CT". I believe that is derived from either "Independent Democrat" or "independent Democrat", and intended to convey at least one of those to those who are anticipating at least one of them. But neither correctly identifies the content; nor does what was described in the article convey the lack of explicitness in what is now listed. It may be that it used to say either "Independent Democrat" or "independent Democrat". (And if it has indeed changed, as the editor implicitly asserts, that is a significant fact for this article: it permits no conclusion in itself, but invites inquiry as to whether the change is a coincidence, or was intended to undercut the air of officiality of JL's claim to be something that relevant others regard as different from merely "an independent".)

4. This is distinct from Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is officially listed as an Independent (not an "Independent Democrat"), but also caucuses with the Democrats. ^[1]

   I grant it is distinguishable, but the difference is indistinct. And its mention here is off-topic, and probably precluded by

   SYNTH

   : in the context in which i found it, it does not serve to inform about the term "Independent Democrat", but to insinuate that JL is more of a D than that damn socialist. A passage before the examples, appropriately sourced with what qualified historians have generalized about the use of the term, may be of some value, but a head-to-head comparison with the only other current impurely-associated partisan is quite tangential to this topic.

--Jerzy•t 09:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent Democrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "independent Democrat" should not have "Independent" capitalized. It's not capitalized in any of the sources that surface, e.g.: Maui News, New Haven Independent, Must Read Alaska. It's such a rare term that it appears only to show up in these out-of-the way journals. Nor does such usage match any of the

Denied by who? Voters or party officials? Xofg (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to summarize the case of Joe Lieberman, lower in the article. It shouldn't be represented as a general case. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]