Bernie lost among democrats 54-46% according to exit poll. All primaries should be closed primaries

[qdouble]

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/in/Dem

New York and other states have it right. Bernie would be getting slaughtered even worse than he is now if outsiders had no say in the parties choice. What do you think?

[bettyellen]

1. Wow, at least Cali is closed to Republican voters.

[pat_k]

10. Including unaffiliated is effectively the same as completely open.

And in Indiana, I don't think they include party affiliation in the registration, so how the hell do they have a "closed primary"?

And North Dakota doesn't have a registration system at all. You just show up at the polls with some sort of ID.

Give it a rest.

[bettyellen]

15. Indiana was open- it is Cali that does not allow Republicans- it is a "hybrid system". Sorry if it

offends you that open primaries can be fucked with by Republicans- but it is how that works. Especially now.
Take a nap.

[Hortensis]

112. I suspect both parties now agree with QDouble, as the party

leaders in NY emphatically did, on the virtues of closed primaries in today's shabby, unprincipled electoral environment where many outsiders come in not to support the party but to subvert the will of its members.

It seems very likely that both parties in many states will be encouraging their legislatures to change to closed primaries to limit malignant subversion. States like IN and ND may well choose to remain as they are.

As for independents, why should their rights to vote in a party's primary be MORE important than the rights of that party's own members to choose their nominee? Independents always have the choice of registering for a party if they want to vote in its primaries. In fact, they currently have most all of the next two years to register for the next election.

[TSIAS]

70. 3 % of voters identified as Republican

Hardly enough to make a huge difference.

[bettyellen]

71. Wel now that Trump is a done deal that number could climb....

I thought it was lie 6% in Ohio. Hmmmm.

[Jester Messiah]

2. It's more representative of the GE

Guess Hil can't quite close the deal when everyone gets to vote. Shouldn't that be a huge red flag?

[JimDandy]

35. HUUUUUGE Red Flag and they know it.

Name recognition is all she's ever had.

[CentralCoaster]

37. Agree on both counts.

And would add that she had her list of naughty and nice and her war chest.

On a level playing field she'd be defeated in very short order.

[ContinentalOp]

45. She's won the majority of open primaries. Where's the issue?

[pat_k]

3. Bullshit. 70% of states have open primaries.

How come open primaries have been fine every year until this one?

36 states have a Democratic primary or caucus that is:
-- Completely open to all registered voters.
-- Open to registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
-- Open only to registered Democrats, but voter can change on the same day.

If you're interested in remaining elections by type:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511885105

[JimDandy]

36. Yep, not one peep about open primaries before, until Sanders started clocking Hillary's block. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

61. Clocking her block?

She has won open primaries 10-4.

[JimDandy]

65. For a candidate that your team said would never get out of the Iowa

starting block, yes, he is now "clocking her block" with his 19th state win today. And it was also your camp's narrative that: "Bernie is only winning because the states he wins in have open contests that allow Independents to vote."

You all might want to coordinate your talking points.

[ContinentalOp]

66. My "team"? OK

19 wins vs. 25 wins. 1370 vs 1665 pledged delegates. 41 vs. 498 superdelegates. 9 million vs. 12 million popular votes. Maybe I just don't understand what "clocking her block" means. I thought you meant beating. Which he isn't doing by any metric.

[JoePhilly]

117. Your post needs this ...

.... the goal posts are easier to move if you put wheels on it.



Hillary is winning more open primaries, and closed primaries than Bernie is. He's losing. Just a fact.

But feel free t push the goal posts to a new location as necessary.

[JimDandy]

122. Make sure you orient yourself correctly

next time you wander into a post, so you don't get lost again

[NanceGreggs]

84. Not one peep about closed primaries ...

... until Bernie supporters started realizing Bernie doesn't do as well when it's "Dems only".

Do a search for posts from 2004 and 2008, and look at the ones complaining about closed primaries.

Oh, that's right - there are none.

[RichVRichV]

86. Good luck winning the general election with "Dems only".

It's not happening without support from the left leaning Independents. No candidate can win the presidency on just their party vote anymore. And you can't just demand they fall in line like us good Democrats. She has time to try and earn their votes, but right now her numbers with them are abysmal.

[ContinentalOp]

92. Clinton isn't winning "dems only"

Even when Sanders wins the majority of the independent vote it's not like Clinton gets 0% of it. And certainly some independent Sanders voters will switch to Clinton when she gets the nomination. And some non-zero percentage of the ones who won't switch are probably people who usually vote green or other third party and didn't vote for Obama. She's doing fine with the coalition that won us the white house for the past two elections.

[RichVRichV]

95. Check the 2008 primary exit polls.

Even in states Obama lost he won the majority of Independents, just like Bernie is doing now. Hillary isn't winning the Obama coalition, not even close. Right now that general election coalition is fractured and there is no proof she can recreate it in the general election.


I'm glad the unsubstantiated belief that Independents will just fall in line when the time comes gives you peace. I don't share that same sense of comfort. Right now what I see from the data is a hard fall come November if we don't adjust.


-CNN 2008 Democratic Primary exit polls

[ContinentalOp]

96. Why 2008 and not 2012 when he didn't win independents?

Because in between those two elections a little something called the tea party happened to swell the ranks of "independent" voters with people who are never going to vote for a democratic socialist let alone a Clinton!

[RichVRichV]

98. You act as if there are no Democratic leaning Independents.

The Democratic voting block and Republican voting block are close to the same size. If all the Independents were Tea Partiers then we would never win another election. In reality a substantial amount of the Independent vote leans left. But there is no guarantees that they will turn out for us in a given election. This is why we lose, lack of turnout.


The reason I told you to look at 2008 primaries and not 2012 primaries is because he ran unopposed in the 2012 primary. Good luck getting valid voting data from that one.

[NanceGreggs]

100. Perhaps you are unaware ...

... that a primary, whereby Democrats elect their Party's candidate, is not the same as a GE, whereby all are free to vote for their candidate of choice.

Two very different things; two very different processes.

[RichVRichV]

121. You are absolutely right.

In the general election Independents play a much larger role, not all states are in play for us, and some states play a critical role. The general election is much more strategic than the primary. Some of us are paying attention to what November will look like.

[annavictorious]

107. My state NY

has had closed primaries for as long as I can remember. No gaming, no party raiding, no parachuting in, no nonsense in NY.
I'm a party member, so it's never been a problem.

[northernsouthern]

4. Lol

And this is why people hate our party. DNC motto, let them eat cake.

[artislife]

5. Next you will be wanting on Dems and Repubs to vote in the GE

Both parties are imploding.

Oh well. Everything has a life cycle.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. The idea is to pick a candidate to actually win the general election

Not to find the most popular member of your private club.

[AzDar]

16. ^ This.

[Barack_America]

28. Why is this so hard for them?

When independents support a candidate who supports your party's (supposed) core platform positions...you pick that candidate.

But no, we're going with the corporate-sponsored moderate Republican.

Just fucking awesome.

[woolldog]

39. Didn't you make a lengthy post about

how you were leaving DU? What are you still doing here?

[DJ13]

44. I know which of you I would rather see leave

[northernsouthern]

52. Are you asking people to leave?

Or are you just mimicking the DNC with trying to block voters that they can not bribe?

[IdaBriggs]

32. ^== Well said!

[JimDandy]

38. The Superdelegates are quietly wrestling with this fact.

Maybe win the primary with Hillary, or definitely win the GE with Sanders.

[ContinentalOp]

46. Well since she has won most of the open primaries I think we have done just that!

[RichVRichV]

85. She has lost the Independent vote all over the country.

Including in every single close state from 2012. Open primary, closed primary, it hasn't mattered. People who identify as Independent are largely rejecting her and they make up 40% of the electorate.


Independent votes in swing state primaries:

Florida - Bernie: 55%, Hillary: 44% (Trump got ~68% more Independent votes than Hillary)
Ohio - Bernie: 66%, Hillary: 33% (Bernie had about same Independent votes as Trump)
Virginia - Bernie: 58%, Hillary: 42% (Bernie had more Independent votes than Trump)
North Carolina - Bernie: 58%, Hillary: 34% (Bernie got ~45% more Independent votes than Trump)
Nevada - Bernie: 71%, Hillary: 23% (Bernie got at least 50% more Independent votes than Trump)
Iowa - Bernie: 69%, Hillary: 26% (no vote totals released for Democrats)
New Hampshire - Bernie: 73%, Hillary: 25% (Bernie got ~67% more Independent votes than Trump)
Pennsylvania - Bernie: 72%, Hillary: 26% (Trump got ~132% more Independent votes than Hillary)
Wisconsin - Bernie: 72%, Hillary: 28% (Bernie got ~59% more Independent votes than Trump)



Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate that will face serious issues in the general election. Spin it however you want, the numbers aren't lying. She can't win the general off of Democrats alone, and she's currently not winning over the Independents.


-CNN exit polls

[ContinentalOp]

89. Obama won without winning independents in 2012

and Clinton is winning the majority of open primaries.

Maybe look at it the other way around. The general election is not a caucus, and if we eliminated caucuses, Sanders wouldn't be doing nearly as well as he is. 11 of the 19 races he won were caucuses. 11 of the 25 races she won were open primaries. Which of those looks more like the GE to you?

[RichVRichV]

91. You act as if the Independent vote is a monolith.

It's not. You take away the Independent vote from Obama's numbers and he loses the election big time. Hillary isn't just losing the Independent vote like Obama lost the Independent vote (actually he won it in a number of states), if she was we would probably be ok. No, she is getting destroyed in the Independent vote by both Bernie and Trump.



The simple fact is the majority of Democrats who voted for Bernie in the primary would vote for Hillary in the general. The majority of Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary would vote for Bernie in the general. Those are your reliable voters. However neither candidate has anywhere near enough votes off of Democrats alone to win the general election. Bernie has proven he can draw large swaths of Independent voters all over the country, and particularly in battle ground states. Hillary hasn't, she comes up substantially short against Trump and substantially short of where Obama was in 2012.

[ContinentalOp]

94. You seem to be the one treating the independent voters like a monolith

A huge chunk of those Trump indies are tea baggers who would never vote for Clinton or Sanders. Some percentage of Sanders indies are probably greens and other third party or nonvoters who don't usually vote for democrats anyway. It's not like all independent voters are up for grabs by all of these candidates.

I don't know, I'm not going to go through the exit polls state by state, but I'd be curious to see some proof of your assertions. Where are the problem states where she is getting "destroyed" because of the independent vote?

[RichVRichV]

97. Look at post 85. I broke down the Independent votes for all the states that were close in 2012,

including how they fall in comparison to Trump's Independent vote draws in the Republican primaries. The most disconcerting is Florida where neither Bernie nor Hillary are close to him (though Bernie is a lot closer). In every other state Bernie is doing better against him than Obama did against Romney in 2012. Hillary is getting destroyed in those battle ground states on Independent voters. And I mean at levels where even a strong turnout on party votes isn't likely to overcome it.

A huge chunk of those Trump indies are tea baggers who would never vote for Clinton or Sanders.

No they will vote for Trump. So we better have our own stock of Independents to counter them.

Some percentage of Sanders indies are probably greens and other third party or nonvoters who don't usually vote for democrats anyway.

So the strategy is to go for the candidate that can't draw in these additional votes. Let's just lose them, who needs them anyways.

It's not like all independent voters are up for grabs by all of these candidates.

If a large amount of the Independent vote wasn't up for grabs then the same party would win election after election. As it stands the two major parties tend to alternate presidents. Guess which party currently holds the office. Take the Independent vote for granted at our own peril.

[RichVRichV]

119. No he didn't.

Without Independent voters Obama loses 2012. Independents voters vote in the general whether you want it or not. Independents will be voting for Trump, in large numbers based on results. We better have our own Independents if we expect to counter.


As for cuacus versus primary, take that up with the Democratic party. They chose the vote types. Obviously they consider both valid. Who is voting is more useful info than how people are voting. And according to your own stats Bernie has won a non-negligible number of primaries (42% of his wins). Sounds like he does ok in them.


Open or close, primary or caucus, Hillary is losing the Independent voter. That is a problem.

[RockaFowler]

108. Independents couldn't vote in Florida

Where do these numbers come from??

[RichVRichV]

120. Exit polls.

They are asking voters to identify based on party affiliation. These are people who switched to Democrat in time to vote in the closed primaries but identify as Independent.

[bettyellen]

60. The idea is that if we let Republicans vote they will do the opposite. No sale.

[DefenseLawyer]

116. So you actually think "Operation Chaos" is a thing?

That's funny.

[bettyellen]

123. You're such a charmer. I bet you win hearts on the campaign trail.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. what a baffling clutch of sore winners at camp weathervane

Look, your horrible candidate is still going to win the nomination, unless she manages to get disqualified somehow, so just stop with the bitter nonsense about independent voters.

YOU NEED THEM TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. What part of that do you not understand?

[yodermon]

8. Such an inclusive and inviting party you got there.

Is it a club? Or a set of values & principles for government?
Oh, it's a club.
Gotcha.

[Sparkly]

9. I agree.

If it's an independent candidate with independent voters, go for it. The Democratic party is not helped by this.

[awake]

11. It is a good thing only Democrats are allowed to vote in the GE

oh wait I just realized no one can win in the fall with out the votes of independents. If one can not win independents in the spring how can they win them in the fall?

[TheDormouse]

13. hehehe

[Raine]

23. Exactly! nt

[Sparkly]

25. By the fall, it's a different election

Because the RNC would mop the floor with Sanders -- sorry. There is a REASON they have left him alone, and only attacked Clinton. They would love to run against him.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Obama won without independents

[TM99]

80. In 2008 Obama

had the independent voters in very large amounts.

In 2012, he lost them. He luckily still won.

But...

That "trouble" for Obama was ultimately not enough to push the election for Romney. But future presidential candidates likely can't ignore independents, who make up one of the fastest-growing groups of the American electorate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state

This was written four years ago and independents are a great percentage now than they were then.

Be careful of assumptions.

[TheDormouse]

12. How long should someone be registered as Dem to be able to vote

for the nominee, in your opinion?

[casperthegm]

14. What do I think?

I think that is a great way to continue to shrink the party, which is down to 29% of voters now. So yeah, exclude independents and talk down to the younger generations, calling them naive, embrace fracking, Wall Street, regime change, and no fly zones. That's an awesome strategy to build the party. Good luck with all that.

[hollowdweller]

17. I'm a Bernie supporter but I agree

I think primaries should be closed. I also think we should do away with the superdelegates and make primaries winner take all.

[Nanjeanne]

18. Yes - let's only let Dems vote for the nominee. And let's not let Independents vote for the Dem

candidate in the GE. That will show them!

[Urchin]

68. Good point.

[Ash_F]

19. Sounds like Sanders is the right candidate to grow the party!

[Dem2]

20. Bernie got 101000 votes from independents, Hillary about 43000

That 58,000 vote margin is the reason he won the state.

[Luminous Animal]

21. How, um, democratic of you. Yep. Let the nominee be decided by 26% of the electorate.

States run primaries. Citizens are taxed in order to run those primaries. Citizens should have the freedom to vote for whom they wish. Closed primaries reduce support in the electoral process. We want MORE people voting and engaged, not fewer. CA Dems decided to embrace non-affiliated voters because we have so damn many. The earlier you can get a voter to support your party, the better the chances you will have that voter for many years to come.

But, if Democrats want closed primaries, if they want to lock out voting and tax paying citizens, they should pay for the Democratic primaries out of their own pocket.

[Garrett78]

22. Some of those non-Democrats would vote for Sanders in the GE were he to be nominated.

The problem is that some of them undoubtedly wouldn't. Some are manipulative, disingenuous people who take advantage of open primaries. Meanwhile, it's safe to say the folks voting for Clinton will vote for her in November. And many of those voting for Sanders will vote for Clinton in November.

All that aside, Indiana is a state Sanders should be expected to win. It fits the profile of a Sanders state. Tonight was just a continuation of the pattern.

[Peace Patriot]

24. Naw, that would be foolish. Independents will determine the GE.

Are you forgetting, also, that 126,000 Democratic voters' registration were CHANGED to "no party" without them knowing, in Brooklyn alone, making them ineligible to vote in the Dem primary when they arrived at the polls? "Surprise, surprise! You don't get to vote, suckers!" Same thing in Arizona. 4 to 5 hour lines there; and if they outlasted this outrage and reached the head of the line, that is when they were informed they couldn't vote. You want to exclude all these fools and suckers and "late-comers," too? And, heck, while you're at it, why not exclude all other newly registered Democrats, anybody who registered within, say, the last four years? What do they know about coronations? How about we just let the Democratic Party elite--the so-called "super-delegates"--vote and no one else? If Democratic voters won't obey the dictates of their betters, what do we need ordinary voters for? Kick 'em out.

[ContinentalOp]

48. They didn't determine the GE last time. Why would they now?

[Yurovsky]

26. The only rules the HRC folks want enforced...

are those that make impossible for any to challenge Hillary.

BOW DOWN. SUBMIT. OBEY.

It's what Goldman Sachs wants...

[Sparkly]

27. .

[DrDan]

29. yep - closed

[paulthompson]

30. No

Each year, more voters are independent instead of Republican or Democrat. It's about one third each now, and trends show independents will be the largest faction soon. A lot of those are reliable Democrats who just don't want to belong to the party.

If all the primaries were open, I believe Sanders would win. If all of them were closed, Clinton would win. Clinton is very disliked by independents, she usually loses those by about 70 to 30. Thanks to closed primaries, like New York and Pennsylvania, we could end up nominating the most disliked Democrat in our lifetimes, with negative ratings of about 55%. That's messed up, because in a general election those independent votes count just as much as a registered Democrat vote.

Frankly, the Democrats are damn lucky the exact same thing is happening on the other side, with Trump winning the nominatiion despite even higher dislike numbers. As a result, we could get a general election between the two most disliked presidential candidates in the last forty years, at least. That tells me the primary process is not working well.

[ContinentalOp]

49. She has won the majority of open primaries, so how do you figure he would win if they all were open?

He only does well in caucuses.

[SheilaT]

57. I didn't realize Indiana was a caucus state.

So glad you set me straight there.

Oh, and New Hampshire was a caucus and Iowa a primary. For some silly reason I had them backward.

[ContinentalOp]

59. Here's the breakdown

Open primaries:
Clinton wins: South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri
Sanders wins: Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana

Clinton wins those 10-4

Semi-open primaries:
Clinton: Ohio, Massachussets, North Carolina
Sanders: New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island

Tied 3-3

Closed primaries:
Clinton: Louisiana, Florida, Arizona, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania
Sanders: Democrats abroad

Clinton wins 8-1

Total primary wins:
Clinton 21-8

But on the other hand, Bernie dominated the caucuses, 11-4

I think it's fair to say that she has done much better in primaries and he has done much better in caucuses, wouldn't you say?

The remaining races include 3 caucuses and 10 primaries which doesn't bode too well for him imo.

[SheilaT]

69. You said, and I quote

He only does well in caucuses.

I noted the "only", and now you're restating it, more correctly.

The fact that Hillary does well mainly in closed primaries or caucuses, does not bode well for her in the general election.

[ContinentalOp]

75. I meant in terms of a category.

If you look at the different types of elections in terms of categories you have:

Caucuses: Sanders won them 11-4
You could break it down in terms of open, closed, etc. but he wins on all of those.

Open primaries: Clinton won those 11-4

Semi-closed primaries: Sanders won those 3-2

Closed primaries: Clinton won 8-1

All primaries: Clinton wins 22-7

So when I said he only does well in caucuses, I meant in general looking at caucuses vs. primaries as categories. Not that he never won a primary. Sorry for the imprecise claim. I was responding to the idea that "If all the primaries were open I believe Sanders would win." She wins open primaries overall as a category, and primaries in general as a category, Sanders wins the majority of caucuses and semi-closed primaries. I don't see how having all open primaries would help him!

[paulthompson]

73. One problem

The problem with your analysis is that the South factor overwhelms it. Clinton won the South by 2 to 1. She would win most Southern states regardless if they're open or closed primaries, because she's so popular there. Eight out of her ten open primary wins were in Southern states. The other two she won by only one percent of the vote.

Sanders typically does better by about 10 points in open vs. closed primaries. Look how he would have lost Indiana by a fair amount if it was closed vs. how he won it by a fair amount since it was open. I haven't done the math, but I'm sure that would gain him more than the 280 or so delegates Clinton is currently winning by. Even in the South, Clinton's margins of victory would have been smaller, netting her fewer delegates.

[ContinentalOp]

77. Ah right, the "south doesn't count" argument.

The flip side is that if every state held open primaries, there would be no caucuses and there goes his 11 state caucus advantage.

[JimDandy]

82. Hey CO, we're going to agree here!

She won voters in those state not because they were southern states, but because the large majority of Dems in those states are conservatives/religious conservatives. In the Dem Party, Clinton consistently wins conservative Dems and Sanders wins progressive Dems.

[ContinentalOp]

87. State for state though she wins either way.

She won 2012's red states 11-8, but she also won the blue states 12-10.

[JimDandy]

88. Again, the real difference is the kind of voter they each are getting...

Que sera, sera.

[ContinentalOp]

90. Yeah, slicing and dicing the electorate can be interesting.

You say independents, I say democrats, women, black and latino voters. At the end of the day though you just have to look at the big picture: total votes won and delegates won.

You have to admit that this independent voter argument is a pretty odd one. Sanders supporters are basically saying that even though she's leading in delegates and popular vote, we should nominate the candidate who is losing overall but winning (in some states) among one certain particular demographic.

I don't think you would embrace this argument if the shoe was on the other foot. The fact is that Obama won in 2012 without winning independent voters, but Democrats can't win without black and latino voters or without women. So imagine if Clinton was losing right now but doing better with women and her supporters tried to argue that she should be the candidate because you can't win without women. You definitely wouldn't be having it!

[JimDandy]

93. Catch up with you later...

Got to get to a few other posts first and then:

[paulthompson]

101. Disagree

"You have to admit that this independent voter argument is a pretty odd one."

I will not say that's an odd argument. Independent voters make up about a third of all voters. Furthermore, they make up the vast majority of swing voters that determine who wins and loses. That makes them the most important voters to court, period.

As far as caucus vs. primary results, Sanders won those caucuses by overwhelming numbers, often 70 or 80% of the vote. I believe 538 did an analysis that said Sanders got a boost by the fact they were caucuses, but less than 10 points. So he would have won those by landslides anyway. Why? Just a freak of demographics, since most of those turn out to be overwhelmingly white states, and Sanders has done better with white voters than non-white voters overall. Also, the caucus states just happen to mostly be small population states with not many delegates, and the primaries have been in the big population states.

So I don't see how it can be disputed that Sanders would have done much better if all the states were open primaries. One might argue that maybe it wouldn't make up the entire 280 delegate difference, but it certainly would be close. For instance, he lost about 100 delegates in the last two weeks alone in the New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, etc primaries. The results would have been very different if those had been open primaries. Look how he won Rhode Island by about five points but lost Connecticut by about five when the two neighboring states have similar electorates. Not surprisingly, Rhode Island was the only state with an open primary that weekend.

And the fact that Clinton did much better in the South is not some lame excuse. That's a simple fact based on the statistics.

Also, I don't know what you mean, that Obama won in 2012 without independent voters. If he lost independents by as much as Clinton is losing them now, he would have lost the general election for sure. I just looked it up, and in the nine key swing states, he got over 50% of independent voters in three of them, and over 40% in the rest, often close to 50%. So it wasn't his strength, but he kept it close. Whereas Clinton regularly loses independent voters by 70 to 30 against Sanders. And in general election match up polls, she still does badly with them. That's why she's about 20% underwater, meaning 20% more of the electorate dislikes her than likes her. That's a VERY big problem. She's damn lucky that the Republican frontrunner is also widely disliked, or she'd lose in a rout due to her problem with independent voters. Nobody has ever won the presidency with dislike numbers that high.

Plus, the number of independent voters has grown significantly since then. People are quickly abandoning both parties. Look at the stats if you don't believe me.

[The Midway Rebel]

31. No.

Party politics is dead.

[GulfCoast66]

58. Then why did Bernie join one?

Your comment is nonsense. If party politics were dead Bernie would be running as an independent. But he is smart enough to know that an Independent candidate will not win anytime soon.

I like Bernie, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking that without the Democratic Party Establishment either of our Candidates would win.

If Bernie miraculously manages to win more actual votes and non-super delegates, the party will rally around him because that is what the party does. Including pretty much all Hillary supporters here. But since a decent percentage of his voters are not party member, their support is not assured.

And that is why Hillary supporters can get so defensive. We all know that a good many of Bernie's supporters will vote for Trump rather than Clinton, even some on this site. And we do not want those types having a say in our primaries.

[The Midway Rebel]

74. "Those types" are citizens too.

"We all know that a good many of Bernie's supporters will vote for Trump rather than Clinton, even some on this site. And we do not want those types having a say in our primaries."

A good many? "We" don't know that.

Perhaps if the the party represented the people it would be important, but it has strangled itself with leadership like the Clintons and Debbie Wasserman Schutlz. Clinton supporters keep insisting that Bernie isn't is a Democrat, so maybe they are right. Party politics is dead, Bernie just help put the fork in it.

[pmorlan1]

33. Maybe

you can just screen voters before they vote and if they support your candidate then you will allow them to vote and if not they don't get a vote. I never thought I'd see the day that my Party would be afraid of voters. We always wanted more voters not less but the Hillary crowd only wants certain voters in. They are in favor of a gated community not building a Party.

[Beacool]

34. On that point I do agree.

I think caucuses shouldn't exist and primaries should be closed. I've been saying it for years. Want to vote in a party's primary? Then join that party or wait until the GE.

[bunnies]

40. Democrats are a third of voters.

Wining a half of a third ain't shit. MATH.

[slipslidingaway]

41. The Democratic party does not need or want Independents! The party will summon them when ...

needed and expect the majority of independents to run to their side when called.

[passiveporcupine]

42. I love how you guys need a rigged game to win

and that's OK with you, because you are authoritarians. You like telling other people what they can and cannot do.

[cali]

43. It's completely impossible to hold closed primaries in states that

don't register voters by party. That's close to 20 states. No. You can't force states to register voters by party.

[JimDandy]

63. Unfortunately, the Repub party in Idaho actually did force the state to register voters by party

in 2011. They filed suit and won:

IDAHO REPUBLICAN PARTY v. YSURSA, BEN In his Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Idaho

INTRODUCTION
This case presents the question whether the State of Idaho’s use of an open primary system to determine nominees for the general election violates the Idaho Republican Party’s First Amendment rights. Because the open primary permits substantial numbers of independent voters, as well as voters associated with other political parties, to “cross over” and participate in the Republican Party’s selection of its nominees, the Court concludes that, by mandating such a nomination process, the State violates the Party’s constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association.

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/ELECT/ClosedPrimaryOrder.pdf

The defendant, a Republican, didn't put up much of a fight for the people of the State of Idaho.

That is why instead of 22 states that don't register voters by party, there are now only 21:

Alabama -- open primary
Arkansas -- open primary
Georgia -- open primary
Hawaii -- open caucus
Illinois -- semi-open primary
Indiana -- open primary
Michigan -- open primary
Minnesota -- open caucus
Mississippi -- open primary
Missouri -- open primary
Montana -- open primary
North Dakota -- open caucus
Ohio -- semi-open primary
South Carolina --open primary
Tennessee -- open primary
Texas -- closed caucus
Utah -- closed primary
Vermont -- open primary
Virginia -- open primary
Washington -- open caucus
Wisconsin -- open primary

[whatchamacallit]

50. Oh boo hoo

[Live and Learn]

51. Slaughtered? Such vile, destructive language choices you guys choose. Why is that? nt

[GreatGazoo]

53. Only if the GE is also closed to anyone not reg'd Dem (or living in Brooklyn)

We have to pick the most electable candidate for the GE.

[Jbradshaw120]

54. Then we shouldn't have

Publicly funded primaries. If the state pays for them then that shold be totally open. It is wrong to tax independents to fund an election they can not participate in. Period.

[Cheese Sandwich]

55. You're confusing democrats with Democrats.

Watch the D. Capital letters matter in this case.

[SheilaT]

56. Well of course!

Besides, independents don't matter at all in the general election, do they?

[B Calm]

62. All primaries should be open. The right to vote for a candidate that inspires

the voter should never be limited to if you are registered to a political party. You want the party to grow, not turn them away!

[FrodosPet]

64. I think closed primaries should be completely funded by the party that wants to exclude people

If an election is publically funded, it should be open to everyone. No one should have to pay for a partisan activity that they cannot participate in.

[Urchin]

67. Maybe The National Election

Should be a closed election, too.

[LostOne4Ever]

72. Here is what I think

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Make the primary take place on a single day, Get rid of Super-delegates, get rid of Caucuses, and use a party funded hybrid/semi-open/semi-closed primary system* to decide the nominee for the party.

Heck, if it is possible we should get rid of delegates altogether and just based it on vote count alone.



*[/font]Specifically if you want to vote in said party's primary you have to register with that party (then and there), and are are bound to vote only for that party's choice of nominees in the primary.

[Nyan]

81. ...and get rid of voting machines. nt

[basselope]

76. More reasons all primaries should be OPEN.

[Silver_Witch]

78. I think Exit Polls are Bullshit

I think people say things that they think they should say to pollsters. The best thing that could happen is for all polls to go away!

Voting is personal and private and should be that way!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. All primaries and caucuses should be open. It would be far more democratic.

[Betty Karlson]

83. I guess you resent his win in Indiana?

I don't - it shows he can pull in lots of independents. And that is good news for the GE. Clinton is distrusted and loathed by over 70 % of the independents. If a significant amount of Independents don't vote D in November, even if just by staying home, 2014 would pale in comparison to the downticket losses, with Clinton on top.

Sanders, on the other hand: if he manages to GOTV all the new voters and independents (and even some peripheral Republicans) he has brought in, we'd be looking at a landslide of historic proportions: House and Senate back in our control, and swingstate Louisiana.

I'm feeling the Bern. For the good of the Democratic Party, for the good of the USA, and for the good of the world.

[pansypoo53219]

99. and she still lost. how would the general be better for her?

[Chezboo]

102. If all democratic primaries should be closed, then all democrats should pay for them

- not the taxpayers. You up for that?

[MFM008]

103. Register properly

If people are unable to register properly to vote perhaps they shouldn't be trusted to draw a line to an arrow tip.

[pdsimdars]

104. Yea, that's such a "smart" way to choose a candidate for the GE.

You get someone who will get 55% of the 30% of voters who are Democrats. Sure way to not have a CLUE about winning the GE.
Bernie got 45% of Democrats but he also gets around 70% of independents who make up 42% of the voters. Hillary does not do that.
So, you get the one that Democrats like slightly better who will LOSE the GE. Woo-hoo, great thinking. . . or not!

[jmousso75]

106. Bernie lost among democrats 54-46% according to exit poll. All primaries should be closed primaries

That is not a democracy. That is voter suppression.

Remember, Hillary needs us to win. She will not win without the independent vote because there will be some democrats who will not vote for her.

[Eric J in MN]

109. Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine Pelosi

...is an organizer who believes in open primaries as a way to get people involved.

[Duckhunter935]

110. The the party needs to pick up 100% of the cost

Taxation witbout representation. Start chipping in and quut making us pay for your party.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. Spoken by another person who won't look too far back to properly judge history...

Verified, no doubt through a CNN reference.

If you want the Democratic party to re-vitalize, then continue to invite a whole bunch of Democrats who either left it (think of THOSE reasons) or are enthused by it's re-vitalization. Now.... WHO'S doing THAT?

Without the super delegates, she's only ahead by 302 delegates.

All primaries should be democratic and therefore open... PERIOD.

[Armstead]

113. What the hell is an "outsider"? Someone who didn't go through the secret Democratic rituals?

Someone who didn't go through Animal House pledging and initiations like a college fraternity?

[99Forever]

114. Good thing only "real Democrats" get to vote in the General Election!

Eh brainchild?

[yardwork]

115. It's up to the states how they set up their primaries.

Hillary is still winning the nomination.

[mcar]

118. K&R