Kasich and Cruz dropping out could help Sanders quite a bit.

[thesquanderer]

As long as there was any opposition to Trump in the Republican primaries, people who were simply trying to stop Trump from getting 1237 could vote for one of his opponents.

Now that that option is gone, the "anybody but Trump" voters have no motivation for voting in the Republican primary. They then become available to vote in the open (and in some case, "semi-open" and "semi-closed&quot Dem primaries. While many not-Trump Republican primary voters might just stay home in November, it is very possible that they will consider coming out to vote against him... especially if the opposing candidate is not-Hillary. So looking toward November, many of these anti-Trump people may prefer to have the Bernie option rather than the Hillary option for voting against him, and this could motivate them to vote for Bernie in the Dem primaries where permitted.

So for example, in last night's open primary, about 500k people voted for either Cruz or Kasich. If those options were not available and just 100k of them voted for Sanders, Sanders would have won the state with 59% of the vote instead of <53%. At the extreme, if all 500k "not Trump" voters voted for Sanders instead, Sanders would have ended up with 73% of the vote. It is not at all unreasonable to think that he could have gotten something between those figures.

There are two caucuses yet to come (where Bernie tends to do well), and of the 11 primaries, 6 are at least partially open. It could make a difference.

[CrowCityDem]

1. That's why closed primaries are better late in the process...

We don't need to have a situation where Republicans can pour in and muck up our race. It should be decided by people who actually want to vote for a Democrat.

[thesquanderer]

6. re: "It should be decided by people who actually want to vote for a Democrat."

In the scenario I described, these extra non-Dem voters are still people who may actually want to vote for a Democrat in November, because they don't want to vote for Trump. So giving them some say in who that Democrat is--and perhaps increasing the likelihood of nominating the candidate who is stronger than Trump as a result--can be seen as both fair to those potential Dem voters and also as beneficial to the party, if it increases the chance that these people come out and vote Dem in November.

[CrowCityDem]

9. 40% of independents lean Republican...

and even semi-open primaries at this point give them the power to effect our race, let alone a fully open primary where every Republican could try to torpedo our better candidate. I don't think it's fair to give them a say in our party, not at this point, when the party they align with has already decided.

[NurseJackie]

25. Most "Independents" are actually partisans who FLATTER themselves ...

... and who want to create the ILLUSION that they are "thinkers" and "fair-minded" and "principled". That's my opinion.

[Duckhunter935]

11. Then they need yo be 100%

Paid for by the party and not my tax money

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Exactly!

Want to conduct a private affair? Fine. But don't spend one red cent of public money on it.

[artislife]

26. +1

[LonePirate]

2. Counter point: Wouldn't these people prefer to vote for the Dem candidate closest to their views?

If Hillary is essentially a Republican according to some Bernie supporters, wouldn't these right leaning voters prefer Hillary to Sanders?

[NWCorona]

3. In regards to the op. I think both Hillary and Bernie will pick up extra votes

Not sure who will benefit the most yet tho.

The bigger issue is that trump doesn't have any Republicans to attack now.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. As misguided as it is, Republicans have been trained to hate Hillary Clinton for the last 30 years.

Sure, a few of those Republicans would be policy driven, and they would certainly find Clinton's positions on many things a closer match to their own positions. But for most that are personality driven, they would never vote for a Clinton for anything.

[bettyellen]

12. Cruz voters- going for Hillary? You have to be kidding.

[thesquanderer]

16. True, some disaffected right-leaners may prefer to vote for Hillary, at least on policy. But...

...that has to be balanced with Hillary's huge unfavorables outside the dem base, so there is not a lot of motivation to be had there, to actually come out to the Dem primary and pull that lever.

That is to say, if a right-leaning voter is anti-Trump, and so is leaning voting Dem in November, to get them to come out for an open Dem primary, I think you need to look beyond the "any port in a storm" voters, to those who actually have a strong preference in a choice they wish they didn't have to make in the first place. Based on polling, non-Dems who have a preference would be expected to overwhelmingly prefer Bernie.

Secondarily, with Hillary the clear frontrunner, even those disaffected right-leaning voters who prefer her over Bernie may not feel as motivated to come out and vote for her in an open Dem primay, compared to the anti-Hillary people who want someone other than Hillary OR Trump to vote for in November, both because it is already likely that she will win and also, related to what I said above, their preference for Hillary over Bernie may not be that strong.

But there's a whole other angle on this as well: There are a number of right-leaning voters who actually prefer Sanders' positions on civil liberties (i.e. PATRIOT Act), his less hawk-like positions on foreign policy, his stand against trade policies like NAFTA and TPP. So while Hillary can be seen as more moderate (therefore closer to Republican) in many ways compared to the typically more liberal Bernie, there are also some key areas where the reverse is true.

And it's not always even a matter of what their positions are. There are other reasons people prefer one candidate or another.

Bottom line: outside the Dem base (i.e. Republicans and independents), people tend to prefer Bernie over Hillary. So he is the more likely beneficiary of right-leaning voters who don't like Trump.

[apnu]

4. I think Dem voters will now start to quickly align behind whomever appears stronger.

Hillary's pledged delegate lead is so strong, Bernie has to win blow outs from now until Philly to only catch up.

I think Democrats will start to get behind one or the other, but given that Hillary leads Bernie in every metric, popular vote, PD's and superdelegates, I think things will swing hard in Hillary's favor.

I think the pressure to drop out will intensify on Bernie giving him a great bargaining chip, though few will realize it. He can use that desire to drop out to get a very big seat at the table in the DNC to continue delivering his message. Will he take it? I don't know, and I doubt he'd settle for that.

[artislife]

27. Why would he want a seat

When he has a podium!?!

[apnu]

28. He doesn't have the podium yet.

But seat, podium, in my point they are interchangeable. My point is, he's got a kind of leverage right now. He can wield it to get something, or he can stay in and try for the brass ring, knowing that he risks everything.

That's up to Bernie, not you or me or anybody else. We have no impact on Bernie's decisions and deal making at all.

But make no mistake, he is a deal maker. He is a politician after all, and deal making is what they do. First and last and always.

[artislife]

36. He has the podium now. nt

[Codeine]

7. So that's part of your base now? Cruz voters?

[thesquanderer]

8. I'll take the vote of anyone who doesn't want Trump to be the next president.

And I would not be surprised if "not trump" made up a good chunk of his "support" yesterday.

[firebrand80]

10. Maybe, but still too little, too late nt

[Tarc]

13. The true last gasp of Camp Sanders, now that the supers won't jump ship; soliciting ratfuckery

from the GOP.

[auntpurl]

14. Amazing.

Truly stunning work from Sanders supporters here.

[thesquanderer]

15. I'm not suggesting ratfuckery.

I'm suggesting that many non-Dem anti-Trump people may legitimately want to vote for the Dem in November, and based on Hillary's unfavorables outside the Dem base, might prefer that choice to be Bernie. It might even make the difference between whether they vote or stay home in November.

BTW, it's not either/or... even if crossover votes push Bernie higher now that the Repub contest is wrapped up, that doesn't mean he doesn't still need the supers to jump ship. Getting his delegates above Hillary's is in fact the best shot at maing that happen.

[seabeyond]

17. In open primaries yes. Even more repugs deciding our candidate.

[pinebox]

19. If you want closed primaries then quit spending public cash to do it

That whole "no taxation without representation" thing.

[seabeyond]

29. All one has to do is commit to a party. The whine......

[pinebox]

30. The whine? More like the crap of not having same day registration

[seabeyond]

32. Yes. Correct. Commit to a party or do not vote in our primary. The absurdity of the argument,

the foolishness of the argument that Libertarians, Republicans and baggers should decide our Democratic candidate.

[thesquanderer]

35. Okay, if same day registration is a bad idea...

...what do you think is the appropriate cutoff? How many days (or months) before a primary should someone have to declare their affiliation in order to vote? When does it become so long that it hurts rather than helps the growth of the Democratic party?

[thesquanderer]

21. If these "repugs" end up voting Dem in November as a result instead of staying home...

...and that helps put a Dem in the White House, that's not a bad thing. I'm for whatever keeps Trump out of the White House.

Ultimately, I'm not sure what the answer is, but the current primary system has led to each party putting forth their least liked candidate (outside the base).

In an ideal world, I think I would let anyone vote in any primary (but only one primary), with the additional proviso that if the candidate you select actually wins their primary, your general election vote is automatically cast for that candidate, which would prevent the possibility of "disruptive" voting. In the real world, this would be difficult if not impossible to implement due to the anonymous nature of voting.

[JaneyVee]

22. They wont. Ive seen numerous interviews with them.

[thesquanderer]

24. "numerous interviews" = anecdotal evidence

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that independents and Republicans are much more willing to vote for Sanders than Clinton, too.

[seabeyond]

31. It is Democrats, deciding on our Democratic candidate, in OUR Democratic party primary.

[thesquanderer]

33. Obviously, there are arguments on both sides.

That only Democrats should choose Dem candidates seems logical, but can be counter-productive if it doesn't result in choosing the candidate with the best chance of success in November (which is very possible when Dems only represent about 29% of the electorate). Super delegates are ostensibly a check on that, but as we're seeing, it's not that simple (and you could argue that it's good that it's not that simple, too).

The fact that different states have different rules means that you could choose to live in a state that works the way you want; or if your state has rules you don't like, you can work to change them. But this year, these are the rules we're playing by, for better or for worse. Like all the other rules (proportional representation, caucus vs primary, party registration date cutoffs, etc.), sometimes they can work in favor of one candidate, sometimes the other.

My own pet peeve is how there's no "instant runoff" or equivalent in the general election, which basically works to maintain power in the two parties and make it nearly impossible for an independent or third party to ever gain traction. The fact that so many people are disillusioned with the Dem and Repub parties as they are, combined with the fact that the rules inhibit the growth of any viable alternatives, has in part led to the popularity of both Sanders and Trump, as they are changes that are happening essentially the only way they can, from the inside, but I'm not sure that's the best way for it to happen. But these rules are unlikely to change, because they serve the purposes of the people in power, and those people want to stay there. But it would be great to know that you could always vote your conscience (whether it was Green, Nader, whatever) and know that your vote would "trickle up" to your preferred candidate rather than possibly function as a spoiler. In the long run, that would foster a better democracy.

[seabeyond]

34. As long as the majority of Democrats vote to have a Democrat pick our candidate, I am good with it.

[Zynx]

20. Why would committed conservatives vote for Sanders if he's supposedly the stronger candidate?

[thesquanderer]

23. My premise is that they want Trump to lose. Those are the voters I'm talking about.

First, I wasn't talking about "committed conservatives," I was talking about right-leaning voters who would tend to vote in a Republican primary, which includes a lot more people than just "committed conservatives."

But even among such conservatives, there are many who simply don't want Trump to win. If you don't want Trump to win, then you want to support the strongest possible opposition. So yes, if Sander is "supposedly the stronger candidate," then that would be the one it would make sense to vote for.

Also, many conservatives hate Hillary more than any other possibility.

Also, there are conservatives who actually prefer Bernie's position over Hillary's on civil liberties (i.e. PATRIOT Act), his less hawk-like positions on foreign policy, his stand against trade policies like NAFTA and TPP.

[KingFlorez]

37. Those people would likely not vote in a Democratic primary

Sorry.

[thesquanderer]

38. I think some would.

If they had intended to vote in the Republican primary, and they really dislike Trump, they definitely have some motivation (where rules permit) to vote for the Democratic candidate they would prefer to be able to vote for in November, if they don't want to just stay home.