2016 Postmortem

TomCADem

(17,788 posts) Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:02 PM Dec 2016

We Should Only Let Democrats Choose Our Nominee [View all]

I don't understand the point of letting non-Democrats participate in choosing our parties nominee. Republicans rarely allow open primaries, yet Democrats use them in several states.

Likewise, in a large state like Washington what is the point of a caucus that only a few Democrats can participate in? I can understand a caucus in a smaller, less urban state, but a caucus disenfranchises Democrats who cannot devote the time to attend.

The vote of several WA electors chosen through a caucus that went for Bernie even though Hillary won that State's primary for a Republican illustrates how the system works to disenfranchise Democrats.

I don't mind getting rid of superdelegates, but we should get rid of open primaries and most caucuses, except for smaller rural states.

172 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We Should Only Let Democrats Choose Our Nominee [View all] TomCADem Dec 2016 OP

I completely agree.....n/t asuhornets Dec 2016 #1

Wonder where Ellison and Perez stand on these issues... TomCADem Dec 2016 #3

Perez probably feels the same way...Ellison, i'm not sure-he was a Bernie supporter.. asuhornets Dec 2016 #9

Sanders got many of his "victories" in non-democratic caucuses Gothmog Dec 2016 #108

So do I. n/t asuhornets Dec 2016 #122

Sanders so-called victories were mostly in caucus states Gothmog Dec 2016 #147

If Sanders could not beat Hillary in the Democratic primaries, why would they think asuhornets Dec 2016 #148

I think that those Democrats who voted for Powell lapucelle Dec 2016 #84

Me too shenmue Dec 2016 #63

I hate caucus MFM008 Dec 2016 #2

I disagree. immoderate Dec 2016 #4

I would like the primaries for all parties to be open to all Americans Zing Zing Zingbah Dec 2016 #17

I'm for closed primaries too hollowdweller Dec 2016 #5

Getting Rid of Superdelegates Will Moderate This... TomCADem Dec 2016 #7

This. Bernie would have won and tRump would be a distant memory right now. Joe941 Dec 2016 #12

... SidDithers Dec 2016 #19

+ a bajillion!!!!!! eom BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #81

Except, no he wouldn't have. Maven Dec 2016 #33

Superdelegates aren't the reason Sanders lost. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #36

No, he would have gotten beat worse than Hillary Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #165

If Republicans had BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #79

Dems do not choose losers, BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #80

You're missing the huge elephant in the room. Clinton, Kerry and Gore had elections stolen . . . brush Dec 2016 #104

100% agree. nt oasis Dec 2016 #6

Approximately 30% percent of the electorate is registered as independent RDANGELO Dec 2016 #8

I disagree..Democrats did not benefit from allowing Independents into the party..Not one bit...nt asuhornets Dec 2016 #10

exactly truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #60

One thing I've learned is that some millenials lapucelle Dec 2016 #86

nope. gklagan Dec 2016 #153

Yup. That's why President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Sanders himself lapucelle Dec 2016 #154

They're voting for a different Party because they don't like the Democratic Party gklagan Dec 2016 #157

Nobody truly counted on people from other parties to vote Democratic. lapucelle Dec 2016 #163

Yeah, keep blaming millennials. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #169

What about the bad attitudes of millinials and independents who voiced very loudly not voting for... asuhornets Dec 2016 #123

well, I'm a millennial and my view is very different: JHan Dec 2016 #128

Yep. We need to appeal to independents or we lose. JudyM Dec 2016 #113

"Independents" aren't who so many seem to think they are. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #119

Regardless of party "leaning" or not, Sanders pulled them in far more. JudyM Dec 2016 #129

12 states do have closed primaries mtnsnake Dec 2016 #11

NJ is semi open crazycatlady Dec 2016 #15

The Republicans do have open primaries crazycatlady Dec 2016 #13

The Sanders campaign did make such a push in New York. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #49

I didn't realize NY was so absurdly closed crazycatlady Dec 2016 #52

In NY, only those who can demonstrate lapucelle Dec 2016 #89

I just checked the website-- 6 months out crazycatlady Dec 2016 #91

The deadline is never in the same year as the primary. lapucelle Dec 2016 #98

I live in NY and have been a registered Democrat for over 40 years. lapucelle Dec 2016 #88

I think six months or eleven months is absurd. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #96

I think it's absurd when people who are not members of an organization lapucelle Dec 2016 #97

I don't disagree crazycatlady Dec 2016 #100

when SCOTUS ruled on NY's requirement in 1973, all 3 of the solid liberals agreed that it was absurd JustinL Dec 2016 #118

Thanks, that's a very interesting analysis of the requirement. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #139

the dissent hints at 30-60 days in the final paragraph JustinL Dec 2016 #140

In addition, in 1973 we did campaigns and primaries very differently lapucelle Dec 2016 #149

I think Connecticut is similar to NY NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #146

I won't get into the open/closed debate. I'd hope closed primaries are empowered (more delegates) SaschaHM Dec 2016 #14

LET IT GO! Chasstev365 Dec 2016 #16

This is the perfect time to tweak primary rules... TomCADem Dec 2016 #20

Interesting issue and I can see both sides. I've never liked the opposition meddling in 24601 Dec 2016 #18

31 states have partisan registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #21

I agree NeoConsSuck Dec 2016 #22

except that's a lazy analogy truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #64

Agree Completely The_Voice_of_Reason Dec 2016 #23

On the other hand, if he wasn't allowed to run as Democrat, he could have run as a third party. LisaL Dec 2016 #50

It would more likely have been a plurality BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #78

Only if she got to 270 Electoral College votes mythology Dec 2016 #111

The most hardline BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #126

If you want closed primaries, PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #24

Your post makes no sense. Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #28

Your post doesn't make sense. PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #30

The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #35

I'd be curious to see who they are asking in their surveys. I think it varies depending on PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #38

Around here that means "republican." Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #39

For some, it means Republican. For some, it means Democrat. Very few are swing voters. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #42

Maybe so, Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #46

I suspect there was a fair amount of crossover voting in Michigan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #93

Well then, form a party, Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #37

You talk about people failing to compromise, PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #45

What's to compromise? Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #48

I am a proud Warren wing Democrat, not a Clinton corporatist Democrat. PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #53

exactly truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #67

Most are party loyalists, not wishy-washy. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #34

actually most Independents I know crazycatlady Dec 2016 #71

There've been a number of studies of "independents." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #94

It probably depends on the state crazycatlady Dec 2016 #99

Whatever the reason might be for non-affiliation, the vast majority are partisan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #106

Hillary won 13 open primaries, sanders won 10 La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #54

I disagree. All candidates campaign to get as many voters from the opposite party to support napi21 Dec 2016 #25

I'm all in on closed primaries. Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #26

I would not support the California Democratic Party excluding decline to state registrants. David__77 Dec 2016 #27

Aren't California's primaries top two? crazycatlady Dec 2016 #152

Other than for the presidential primary, yes. David__77 Dec 2016 #161

The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #29

Anyone can declare as a Democrat or Republican for a primary run. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #31

Joe Manchin likely defines the conservative limit across the Democratic spectrum. But since 24601 Dec 2016 #159

A nice definition of the problem. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #160

Yes, completely agree. Closed primaries 100%. No open primaries, no undemocratic caucuses. Maven Dec 2016 #32

If this is about the primaries...Bernie would have run a strong race anyway. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #40

The open vs. closed thing isn't what made it somewhat close. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #44

People had to have a chance to vote for what they wanted. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #55

I didn't write anything that suggests otherwise. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #58

Bernie never said "both parties are the same" and he's not responsible for those who did. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #68

I didn't say he did, but it's the message many spread. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #92

WA is a state with no partisan registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #72

My point is how much both turnout and the results differ between primaries and caucuses. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #95

I agree 100%. BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #41

I'll give you truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #65

There was NO tipping of the scale BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #77

There absolutely was a tipping of the scale by the DNC. potone Dec 2016 #85

That is total and absolute BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #124

I think that getting rid of Super Delegates is a great idea WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #69

If people can't choose a side, then BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #73

What do you do in the case of state's where you do not register by party - like VT? karynnj Dec 2016 #43

Allowing only democrats to choose nominee might be problematic. LisaL Dec 2016 #47

Do you have a link for your allegation about a difference between the parties? Jim Lane Dec 2016 #51

In Texas, I can vote in any primary LeftInTX Dec 2016 #171

Agree... Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #56

It wasn't lost sab390 Dec 2016 #57

I agree so very much bravenak Dec 2016 #59

Maybe only Democrats can vote for them in the general election, too? jfern Dec 2016 #61

Completely agree NastyRiffraff Dec 2016 #62

And then Hillary would have won the primary just like she did. vi5 Dec 2016 #66

The caucus process picked electors, not just delegates? nt LLStarks Dec 2016 #70

Typically, the caucus picks delegates for the state party convention SaschaHM Dec 2016 #74

They had downballot primary with a non-binding presidential preference poll. Just use that. nt LLStarks Dec 2016 #75

They definitely should, but... SaschaHM Dec 2016 #76

We should let only Democrats BE our nominees meow2u3 Dec 2016 #82

In some states, there's no such thing crazycatlady Dec 2016 #87

I didn't know that meow2u3 Dec 2016 #101

19 states do not have party registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #102

That also includes Texas meow2u3 Dec 2016 #105

But once you vote in a primary, then you are locked into that party for the rest of the cycle Gothmog Dec 2016 #109

And the states that don't require party affiliation in their voter registration? PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2016 #83

Damn Straight.. it's our party! Cha Dec 2016 #90

I completely agree. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #103

I want to get rid of caucuses and open primaries Gothmog Dec 2016 #107

Independents now make up 40%+ of the electorate Arazi Dec 2016 #110

The vast majority of whom are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #114

Good luck coming up with all that money to fund private elections. TransitJohn Dec 2016 #112

K&R Gothmog Dec 2016 #115

Utterly and completely the wrong thing to do. Kentonio Dec 2016 #116

If you don't have the support of the base, you aren't going to win in the general election. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #117

If you don't win over enough of the base you won't win the primary anyway Kentonio Dec 2016 #120

Agreed. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #121

You notice the way I was talking about the future there, and you keep bringing up Sanders Kentonio Dec 2016 #131

We're in agreement. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #144

This year's Democratic candidate did have the support of the base frazzled Dec 2016 #135

We're in agreement. That was my point. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #143

The problem is that several states have an open primary by law. Yes we should only let Democrats totodeinhere Dec 2016 #125

States cannot force political parties... TomCADem Dec 2016 #142

And in the 19 states with no party affiliation? crazycatlady Dec 2016 #150

California Dem Party vs Jones. 530 US 567 TomCADem Dec 2016 #155

yes because Democrats did such a good job picking a winner last time...... bowens43 Dec 2016 #127

Sort of Like DNC Platform Member Cornell West... TomCADem Dec 2016 #132

So....I'm confused... vi5 Dec 2016 #130

Get rid of superdelegates, too... TomCADem Dec 2016 #133

That didn't answer my question.... vi5 Dec 2016 #136

I am not trying to favor any candidate. In 2008... TomCADem Dec 2016 #137

I still don't see how it helps us in the future. vi5 Dec 2016 #138

I See Party Primaries as Our Party Selecting Our Candidate... TomCADem Dec 2016 #141

Caucus Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #134

Welcome to DU gopiscrap Dec 2016 #164

Thank You Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #167

Yes, yes, yes. I was assailed back in the spring for mentioning that. George II Dec 2016 #145

I agree! Time to end caucuses and open primaries. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #151

Even in a state without an open primary, a person can often change party affiliation Vinca Dec 2016 #156

First Past The Post (FPTP) Voting gklagan Dec 2016 #158

I'll say it again, the vast majority of "independents" are strongly partisan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #162

I completely agree. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #166

I have no problem with that, but lets overhaul the whole damn thing, including the calendar. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #168

I agree Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2016 #170

I'd be fine with this if there was some way to allow the 40-some % of Indys PotatoChip Dec 2016 #172