More importantly, as an independent running in a general election, I will be able to court so many young voters who refuse to register Democratic and therefore cannot vote in a closed primary. Recent polls suggest that upwards of 70 percent of young voters are now independent. They are more progressive and woefully underrepresented in our political system. We aim to change that. And by running as an independent, we will be engaging with a much wider population of voters, not just Democrats, but also independents, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and others. Make no mistake, even though I’ll be running as an independent, I’m still the real Democrat in the race. I’m pushing a New Deal agenda of jobs for all, Medicare for all, election integrity and campaign finance reform, environmental protection, ending the drug war and mass incarceration, and converting to 100 percent renewable energy. On all these issues, we must take power back from the corporate interests that control our government in Washington, D.C.

Tim Canova as a persistent progressive picks a path, leaving Schultz to see him in the general election.

A/k/a can an independent candidacy of a progressive Democrat sidetrack an entrenched repellant corporatist Democrat in her
"safe haven" district?

The headline was mid-item text from here.

Or web search = tim canova debbie wasserman schultz general election independent

However you reach your view of the Canova approach against an entrenched majority structure and personnel interwtining; read of it with an open mind. A mind that can encompass a better party with no hostile animus springing forward against progressive beliefs and dogma as the legitimate path for the party to take.