I have an idea how we can decide who the candidate for "the people" really is.

[YouDig]

It goes like this. We vote, and whoever gets more votes wins.

Do Bernie supporters like that idea? If we did this and Hillary got, let's pick a number, how about 3 million more votes and, I don't know, 270 more elected delegates, would they then agree that "the people" had spoken?

As for my part, if Bernie got 3 million more votes in this totally hypothetical scenario, I would happily accept that the people had spoken and the candidate of the people was Bernie.

[casperthegm]

1. And who would get to vote?

If we still be excluding millions of independent voters? You know, those people who will be voting in the GE and whose votes that Democrats will want then, even though they excluded them through much of the primary process?

[YouDig]

3. No caucuses and Hillary wins by an even bigger margin.

Open versus closed primaries can be debated. It's really easy to register as a Democrat, it costs nothing, there are no requirements, just checking a box. The rules were known well in advance of the elections, it's hard to call a closed primary undemocratic. Besides, Hillary won most of the open primaries as well as most closed primaries.

The only really vote-suppressing format is the one format where Bernie did best, which is the caucus. Still, the rules are what they are, and I'm not saying that caucuses shouldn't count, but without the caucus advantage, Hillary wins be even bigger margins.

[casperthegm]

10. flawed logic

"without the caucus advantage, Hillary wins by even bigger margins." Not if independents are allowed to vote. As I mentioned in another post, these statements about people knowing the rules and having chances to change their registration- it sounds an awful lot like the GOP voter id laws, doesn't it?

Everyone knows the rules in advance, so just do what you need to do. Aren't we, as a party, up in arms because that's really just code for voter suppression? And yet we do the same thing in the primaries...

[YouDig]

14. Yes, even with independents. Like I said, she's won more open primaries than Bernie.

Nothing suppresses the vote more than a caucus. It's surprising that the Bernie people pretending to care about expanding vote access aren't up in arms about it.

It's arguable whether non-Democrats should participated in selecting the Democratic nominee. If Republicans can participate too, then it just becomes like a general election. I can see both sides.

Doesn't matter though. You have to decide on the rules before an election, not after. Afterwards everyone will argue that whichever format favors their candidate is the best. Berners would be all over closed primaries if he did better in them.

[aspirant]

30. "Nothing suppresses the vote more than a caucus"

How about unregistering hundreds of thousands, a Crosscheck list purging millions, felons being denied voting rights, voting day not being a national Holiday while working 2 jobs to survive et al.

Time to rethink

[DLCWIdem]

40. excuuse me: Who has been on the felon issue, especially in Virginia or don't that count.

[aspirant]

46. Virginia is 1 state, how about the rest?

[Zen Democrat]

64. There's no party registration in Texas. Zero. Every primary, Dem or Rep, is open.

[YouDig]

66. Hillary won big in Texas, if my memory is correct.

[asuhornets]

6. So in order for Hillary to get the independent votes, we must elect Bernie Sanders?

[Zen Democrat]

65. No, in order for Democrats to get the independent votes, we must nominate Bernie.

Those votes are going to Bernie first, Trump second, and few if any to Hillary.

[underthematrix]

7. I agree with President Obama. once people move past their feels

and start thinking about what it would mean to live under a NAZI TRUMP WH and a GP controlled Congress, saner heads will prevail.

[LonePirate]

8. If Independents want to vote in a party primary, they should join that party.

No special privileges should be afforded them if they are unwilling to declare a party preference during a party primary.

[casperthegm]

23. ok, but then you're going to court them for the GE?

Good luck. And that's why Bernie polls so much better than Hillary does vs Trump. He gets the indy vote, while the establishment candidate does not. But at least the party gets to keep it's exclusive club status....

[LonePirate]

27. Um, Repubs also court Independents in the GE.

Party membership is free. It's very simple to join and the Dem party certainly welcomes anyone and everyone. It's no exclusive club.

Independents are not some special group of people everybody needs to bow down to simply because the Independents think their status has earned them that privilege. Again, if they want to vote in a private party primary, they can join that party or they can start their own primary process. Independents simply want to have their cake and eat it, too. The American political process doesn't work that way and it should not cater to such people without any courage to their convictions.

[DLCWIdem]

43. Independents

Yes there seems to be this mythological idea that all independents are to the liberal to the left, but they actually run the spectrum some in the middle some lean right. The Greens lean left but they have their own party and can vote in the primary for their own candidate.

[merrily]

2. In a fair fight? Sure. Fuck the stacked deck though. Twice.

[YouDig]

4. It goes without saying that whoever loses the election will call the decked stacked.

[merrily]

13. Spare us. That the deck was stacked could not have been more obvious from the off and

we were saying it from LITERALLY day one--when the DNC emailed a lying fundraiser for itself the second Bernie made his announcement a year ago.

You know, bs is one thing. BS repeated hundreds of times is just tedious and big yawn. Being authentic is usually more effective.

[YouDig]

16. From the losing side, of course it looks stacked. No evidence, of course, but who ever needs that.

[merrily]

18. What part of my prior post did you not understand?

Here's my second clue to you. Repeating something another poster just rebutted doesn't make the first false statement any more convincing. It just wastes bandwidth.

[YouDig]

22. All of it. From the losing side, your side, of course you're going to say it was stacked.

[merrily]

25. One more time. We said it was stacked the day he announced, not from the "losing" side.

Since you want only to be deceptive and tiresome and repetitive, I'm bored. Maybe you'll up your game next time Meanwhile, Buh bye Have a great day.

[YouDig]

26. You were always losing, from the beginning. Hillary never trailed in the polls.

[aspirant]

32. Polls aren't votes,"from the beginning"

[YouDig]

34. Yeah, but we all knew Bernie wouldn't win, and we all were right.

Bernie just wasn't a strong candidate. Even his supporters know that, which is why all the conspiracy theories.

[aspirant]

42. From our side, we all know Hills won't win the GE

She's a very weak candidate with huge baggage and a FBI criminal investigation hanging over her head.

[YouDig]

44. Your side doesn't have a very good track record.

[aspirant]

49. And either does Hills

a 2008 presidential primary loser and now in 2016 a GE loser

[YouDig]

52. Looking pretty good where I'm standing. I don't know #berniemath, but 3 million votes and 270

delegates makes me happy.

[aspirant]

59. You don't have "standing" just another psychic prediction

[YouDig]

60. You've got psychic predictions plus a losing record. I like where I am.

[aspirant]

61. Hills losing record = 2008 primary, no way around it

and I love where the Revolution is going

[Todays_Illusion]

48. Did realize that you are implying that if Hillaray doesn't gain the nomination, she will scream,

STACKED! Would she dare expose to the ridicule that would draw?

[YouDig]

50. You're right, she wouldn't. She didn't in '08. Some people are adult enough to lose without whining

[Todays_Illusion]

55. Instead, she pandered RFK's name.

[asuhornets]

9. It was a fair fight..

Just like Clinton and Obama was a fair fight...Obama came out on top. This time Clinton came out on top. And the independents will vote for Hillary

[merrily]

15. Very false equivalency. That was a more even match, but the thumb on the scale was for Obama, or

Matthews who now hisssessss over Bernie would not have had a tingle going up his leg for Obama then. I was a strong Obama supporter in 2008 and even I noticed that media was favoring him. Pelosi and others too.

Comparing Clinton v. Obama and Clinton v. Sanders? Not even in the same universe.

[asuhornets]

21. You are talking about the media..

I am referring to the voters..Obama overcame the Clinton machine..Bernie Sanders could not. The media has crucified Hillary Clinton for years...Bernie Sanders was unable to win because of the voters- his voters are less diverse than Hillary Clinton. For some reason he was not able to bring them on his side. As a matter of fact, they rejected him.

[merrily]

24. Huh? You thought I meant VOTERS stacked the deck? Um, nope. DNC, the Party, the media.

As far as the media crucifying Clinton, give me a break. I am so tired of that. They print negative stories about every politician. You don't want negative stories, don't take two years to respond to a subpoena or wipe your server or lie about getting shot at or trying to join the Marines.

But, as between Clinton and Obama, Obama got the better media deal. And as between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton got the better deal.They've been selling her the presumptive nominee since 2012, even before Obama got re-elected.

[asuhornets]

41. Bernie Sanders has been handle with kid gloves by the media, Clinton, DNC, everybody

As far as the email server--sorry won't be any indictments--but the Repugs will continue that lie well into Hillary's first term and maybe her second term. So I guess you will have that to look forward to.

No one has done anything to Sanders to cause him to lose the Democratic primary. Except the voters and it is a shame Sanders is running around about town, making these accusations.

[merrily]

75. Sorry, none of that is true.

[DLCWIdem]

68. I am so sick of false victimization

" Oh the media treats me so badly, I only had to go on talk show after talk show to repeat the same 2 lines from my stump speech. " BREAK up the Banks" and my average contribution is $27". We all know from the FEC that it is 27 from the same person a hundred times. And we all know he didn't have enough voters so he had to go for the 17 year olds. He was the media darling.

[merrily]

69. Tyndall Report, to name just one.

Trust me, no one is sicker of Hillary's false victimization than Sanders supporters.

[DLCWIdem]

47. Actually Chris Matthews seemed quite enthused about Bernie, at first.

[merrily]

56. Um, maybe in your eyes. I never noticed it. However, this campaign is full of false flag ops.

Heaven knows, enough DUers lied about being supporters of Sanders initially. #SandersLostMe. If ever want to die laughing, search DU for the post where people indicated they wanted to support Sanders so Skinner should start a group. I was doubling over every time another DNC tool posted on that thread. So, anything's possible when people have no integrity--and Matthews does not, IMO. Bragged about voting for Bush twice, when MSNBC was rightist. Just like Brock, Matthews' principles go wherever they bring more bucks.

[ucrdem]

5. 740 delegates ahead if you count all of them.

Of course, super delegates don't count until they vote for Bernie, so let's go with 274 primary delegates ahead so far. She wins every which way.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[Matt_in_STL]

19. Except in ethics and judgment

But yeah, if you don't count basic human skills she is totally winning in every which way.

[ucrdem]

33. Ah yes, the values voter.

They went big for Reagan as I recall.

[Matt_in_STL]

38. Yes, because ethics and judgment are the values they voted on...

I often wonder if the Hillary clan reads what they type before they post. Crack a book sometime - they aren't just coasters for you fancy furniture.

[basselope]

11. If ALL primaries were open and there were no cacuses

then we would know.

[7wo7rees]

12. Have to give it to you, YouDig. You are nothing but tenacious and relentless. You walk a fine line.

Impressive and incredibly boring and predictable.

[riderinthestorm]

31. Ikr? 1100 posts in a month.

[Matt_in_STL]

17. And you would not be posting here because Brock wouldn't be paying for Bernie to win

What a magnificent world that would be.

[hellofromreddit]

20. I'm all for it. Open primaries with no voter registration deadline and get rid of photo ID laws.

[aspirant]

35. Now that's Democracy

[Skwmom]

28. It's the person with the long recored of fighting for the people and who hasn't sold out & cashed in

[YouDig]

29. So the people have no say in who the candidate of the people is. Just you.

[aspirant]

36. All the people do, not just registered Democrats

[YouDig]

39. Republicans will get to participate in the general election.

It's a two-step process, first primaries, then the general.

[aspirant]

54. That's the old way, time for the new

[gollygee]

81. You're right, but I do understand the frustration here

I live someplace where many local elections are decided in the Republcian primary. I find that frustrating. I'm sure this year, when we have really known for a while that the president would very likely be decided in the Democratic primary, that it is equally frustrating for a lot of people.

Open primaries can cause problems because, for instance now that Trump has won, Republicans can intentionally troll Democratic primaries if they're open. But closed primaries can cause problems too, and not being open to everyone when the Presidency is being decided is a good example.

[YouDig]

82. Thoughtful post, thanks.

First, let me say that I really hope you're right that the president will be decided in the Democratic primary. In a sane world, that would be true.

You're right that both open primaries and closed primaries can cause problems. And I honestly don't know what is better, I've said before there is a good case for either. I suspect that people, on both sides including mine, are retrospectively arguing for the format that helps their candidate more.

It could easily have happened that closed primaries favored Bernie and open primaries favored Hillary, for example if moderate independents showed up to vote in them. If that I would bet large sums that the Bernie people would be praising closed primaries and the Hillary people would be praising open ones.

It's notable that before the primaries began, nobody made a big deal about this. That's because people didn't know which format would favor who.

[KingFlorez]

37. I don't think that works for some people

Getting the most votes no longer matters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Okay. How much money are we gonna give Bernie to buy superdelegates?

Do we get to replace the leadership of the party with those committed to Sanders success?

Can we first replace the media with those who only breathlessly explain his inevitability?

[Jester Messiah]

51. Maybe if one side hadn't bought the umpires that would work.

Alas, Hillary and her little helper DWS have most thoroughly corrupted the process. This primary is illegitimate.

[Actor]

53. I get your point but you know what, if you erase all voting till now, and

have a nationwide election tomorrow for one of the two, he wins I bet.

[riversedge]

57. waste of time. Hillary has it.

[Binkie The Clown]

58. Not "the people", but the "registered Democrats". The GE will be a whole different animal. n/t

[Todays_Illusion]

62. Sounds like a great idea, but the evidence seems to be indicating there is a special effort

to exclude a certain block of voters from the process in Iowa, Nevada, Arizona, Illinois, New York, and a few other states. And considering the conservative tilt of the HC campaign and the status of election manipulation of the red states. There is no reason to believe that process is working. One could even risk a coincidental notice that the states that voted for Sanders are the least corrupt of our states.

[YouDig]

63. Conspiracy theories are not "evidence".

[DLCWIdem]

70. no they are not and these guys are living on fantasy island. I'm outa here.

[Todays_Illusion]

71. I appreciate that you have to pretend there has been no controversy over, Iowa, Arizona, NY, and etc

to make your statement.

[azurnoir]

72. and what about all the people that were blocked from voting? don't they count?

[cali]

73. Exhibit A. Not well done mind you, but still..

[tom-servo]

74. I don't think democratic voters in this primary had enough exposure...

... to Senator Sanders' message to be positive that the outcome is the will of the people.

[flor-de-jasmim]

76. Or, everyone votes for 1 DEM, 1 REP and 1 INDEP in the primary

then we vote for a single person in November. And... how about we open primary season on January 1st of election year but do not let any state vote until June. That way, people don't have possibly 7 months of buyer's remorse! Because when all is said and done, I bet there is quite of bit of buyer's remorse in primaries, in both parties.

[dubyadiprecession]

77. Math is not their forte.

[Demsrule86]

78. There will be no vote

because we have already done that ...and Hillary won...we don't get to re-vote....time for Sanders to accept he lost.

[frustrated_lefty]

79. Sure

with equal airtime, equal exposure, and greater restrictions on biased commentary from the media. And eliminate super-delegates. Sounds good to me.

[baldguy]

80. But what about Independents and Republicans? Don't they get to vote?

Letting only Democrats select the Democratic nominee of the Democratic Party in inherently undemocratic, doncha know?