2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you are independent, why do you want to vote in a party's primary.
To me it's like "I don't want to be in the union, but I want to vote for the union president".
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I suspect that describes a lot of us. A lot of us don't understand the reason people are so upset about the (D) when it only requires a simple form to change. The difficult thing to change in this nation is ideology, which Bernie Sanders has had some success in in this primary.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)We aren't electing a party boss, we're electing a president.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... all about being "technical" (ie: "presumptive nominee has not actually been nominated until the convention", and all that) so I figured you'd have a good appreciation for being precise.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)disenfranchises citizens from expressing their political will by voting.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Those who want to influence the party really should. Even in open primary states. I don't see what the benefit is for a progressive to not join the party. The more progressives who join, the more progressive the party becomes.
2banon
(7,321 posts)if only politicians were essentially honest, and actually represent the people of the party and not the Corporations who actually write our laws, and buy off our candidates. If only that were the case, but it ain't .
so that's why.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)The best way to effectively change a party is to do it from within, not by complaining from the sidelines.
That's exactly what we ARE doing. Within the party for the past year.
Try to catch up please, mmm k? .
SMFH.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)It has really opened progressives' eyes. My whole reason for supporting Bernie to run as a Dem was so that Progressive's could take back the party from the conservative wing that has had power over it for decades now.
After seeing the depth of the corruption within the party and the lengths that Party leaders went to to put their thumb on the scale, I decided to leave the Democratic Party and start over with thousands of other Progressives elsewhere. We've found each other. We're starting fresh. We have real hope now for the future and are invigorated about changes we will pursue for the benefit of all.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)It's democracy. Hillary Clinton was who the clear majority of Democratic primary voters wanted to be our nominee.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)using false wording the statement of someone else.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)As a Democrat in a small town in flyover country, I only matter to the national party for a few months once every four years and then, it is only a facade, they just want our votes, not to hear what we actually have to say.
The direction of the party is dictated by those with the money. Lobbyists and corporations with a smattering of really rich people set the agenda.
Yavin4
(35,357 posts)No one is preventing you from voting in general elections for whatever candidate you want.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Squinch
(50,773 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But a cross over ballot has nothing to do with your precious party. Like for real there were also elections to central committees. I care not a whit about those. But I am advocating that any party that closes the primary pays for the costs of running that primary. You want to run your club fine. I do not want to pay for it
And the way it works in California, to no small ironic effect, due to Republicans. Except for the president, everybody is in the pool.
Raster
(20,996 posts)...than the party pays for it. Don't use my tax dollars to subsidize your private club.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)hedda_foil
(16,368 posts)Being independent doesn't mean the voter doesn't care who is eventually elected . Nor should it mean that they have no opportunity to vote in the prism for the person they believe would be the best president. Not being formally affiliated with either of the two major parties should not mean having no say until the very end of the campaign season.
For the record, I'm a 71 year old white lady who has been on the board of my city's Democratic organization. I have always voted D.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But it's really important to me who is heading up the CTU--it affects enormous amounts of stuff in my city, and I pay big-time property taxes for the schools and care deeply about how they are run, how hiring works, how much teachers are paid, how negotiations are carried out with the district, etc. May I vote in the Chicago Teacher's Union election?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you want a say in those party's nominations, then join. Pretty simple really. (that's a generic you, not you specifically).
-none
(1,884 posts)The party is suppose to be impartial until the peopel all have had a chance to vote.
The winner is for the voters to decide, not the party leaders before the campaign has even started.
What we have now is like certain other countries where the state selects one candidate to run and there is no opposition candidate to vote for.
Basically that is what the Democratic party tried to do. Bernie kinda mucked their plans. This old upstart unknown, wasn't supposed to be able to do so well against the person the party itself chose. He was just supposed to be window dressing to make it look as if the people had a choice.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Primaries are a relatively modern idea. And in no case do I think there is any imperative for the party leadership to remain impartial, though that has been the modern tradition, more or less.
Now as for THIS primary, people certainly DID have a choice. We had a couple terrible candidates (Webb and Chaffee) and several good ones (Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley). Obviously the voters down-selected to Sanders and Clinton fairly quickly. And frankly, Sanders did MUCH better than I anticipated he would. But in the end, he just didn't convince enough people.
And as for the "party itself," that's me. I'm a Democrat. I am registered a Democrat (and have been for 32 years), I donate to the party, and I volunteer. The "party" isn't just some shadowy people sitting on the DNC, it's us... the people out here int he trenches phone banking, canvassing, and organizing.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)No, your candidate did not win, but the process was exactly what you describe as what you advocate.
-none
(1,884 posts)That obviously did not happen. So the people actually did not have a fair choice in many states.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)But you know I'm correct, whether you admit it or not.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)you are partially right and it would be best to form a progressive Party. Bernie chose to change it from within, lets sit back and see if the DNC is going to notice us, or is too stubborn to work for the people. I will observe and join accordingly to the better group. It is not my desire to 3rd party the dems, but if they cant change from globalization, I will. It cannot go on the way it is.It is time for an intervention.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Outside of primaries and other certain times, I stay NPA.
I have worked to get Democrats elected in this state all while showing up on the voter roles as NPA. I don't suggest it to many people in Florida. You have to pay close attention in order to do this. Florida has dramatically improved its processes over the last twenty years but you do have to pay attention.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)There are plenty of voters who sometimes vote Democrat and sometimes vote Republican. Those people still have preferences about who they want to become president. I have several friends, all libertarian or Republican-leaning, who genuinely thought that Bernie was a better choice for president than any of the other options in either party at the time our primary came around. I am not talking about strategic voters - they all thought Bernie was the best choice because he is independent of the banks and corporate oligarchs, and they liked his positions on issues like civil liberties and ending the war on drugs. They were not concerned about his social welfare proposals because they figured he'd never get them passed.
Because of NY's ridiculous 6 month party change deadline, none of them could vote for him in the primary. And now they won't be able to vote for him in the general, which will have two candidates they had no say in picking, even though they are US citizens and were ready willing and able to do their civic duty and vote in April. How is that fair?
Squinch
(50,773 posts)what you choose. If you want to vote in the primary, join a party.
I do not want your libertarian and Republican friends to be choosing who we run as the Democratic candidate.
And I am a New Yorker. The fact is that the 6 month deadline was a Republican piece of legislation.
So if your Republican friends were upset that they could not change their party affiliation to decide who the Democratic candidate was, they had no one to blame but themselves.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)They are mostly libertarians who skew a little bit more towards Republican. But several of them said they would have voted for Bernie over Trump. None of them will consider voting for Hillary.
My boyfriend, who has always voted Libertarian for president but is not happy with Gary Johnson, even said last night that if Bernie had gotten the nomination, he probably would have voted for him over Johnson.
I met a guy at the train station when leafletting for Bernie on election day who expressed a lot of frustration at being shut out. He is a regular voter but a true independent - sometimes votes Democrat, sometimes votes Republican. He did not even tell me who he favored this year, but I thought it was really unfair that people like him don't get to have a say. And it's especially unfair in New York, regardless of who put it in place.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)change over to being a Democrat. Yes, it did require that I use google, learn how to do it, and not leave it till the last minute, but ya know...
It's perfectly fair. Independents are informed when they choose to be Independents that they will not be able to vote in the primary. And they still choose to be Independents. If they want to vote in the primary, they simply have to select a party sooner rather than later.
And sorry, I still don't want your Libertarian and sort-of-Republican friends to be choosing who the Democrats run for president. Libertarians and Republicans want the opposite of what the Democrats want. If the primaries are open to them, they will screw with the wishes of Democrats and pull the party right.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)like to smoke pot.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)One of my friends is actually resigning from the party because he feels that it is becoming just that, in those exact words. He says they have started nominating washed up Republicans instead of true libertarians these past 3 elections to try to get a greater vote share, but at the expense of principal. He is so mad about them renominating Gary Johnson that he actually said last night he probably would have voted for Bernie instead in the general election if it were an option.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)I don't think he has been paying attention for a long time.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)But the last 3 presidential elections, the LP nominee has been someone who previously held office as a Republican.
alc
(1,151 posts)Most people think elections are about winning. They're also about providing direction.
If Hillary won big all year, the Ds wouldn't worry about Bernie's issues and Hillary could ignore them in the general. Whether his voters were Ds or independents, the party knows that there are A LOT of people who want that direction. If independents weren't allowed to say "I'm ok with this type of D - Bernie" then Hillary may have won bigger but not have as much idea of the voters' preferences. Hillary now knows to pay attention to those issues in the general if she wants to win those voters. And the party probably wants to pay attention to them over the next few elections unless they are confident those voters will go D anyhow.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I am registered DEM, but I want to vote in the R primary as well as the D, because either the R or the D is going to be prez, thus affecting my life.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I'm an Indy Lib.
And yet our taxes pay for your primaries? You call out to us and say how we "NEED" to vote for the Dem candidate? Yet you won't give a voice in primaries?
This is something which will be changing. Rather soon I suspect. Now that Dems make up only what? 23% of the electorate?
If indy's can't have a say who is nominated then stop courting their votes in the GE. Nobody should be paying taxes for a primary either. That whole "no taxation without representation thing" going on, ya dig?
2banon
(7,321 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)It's complete stupidity.
2banon
(7,321 posts)was your response intended for me?
Yavin4
(35,357 posts)Going back to my union example, when you're in a union you can collectively bargain for better pay and working conditions. When you're in a political party, you can get primaries paid for by the state. These are direct benefits from being in a group.
As for asking for your vote, it's your vote. You may vote for whomever you want in the general election.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)No state should have to pay for closed primaries where the electorate is not allowed to vote.
jamese777
(546 posts)is to have a mix of caucuses, open primaries, hybrid systems and closed primaries. That way the party gets to assess how its candidates perform with differing constituencies: party loyalists and activists, the party's base supporters and independents/members of other parties.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who wish to keep their vote private and others are not going to take part in a caucus.
A primary, though, is easy to take part in, especially if there's a mail-in option.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And handicapped people who can not express their choice during the caucus hours. I would hope they are not included in the next primary election. Since this is the RNC and DNC primaries voting should be to those who are members of the parties, it is not difficult to join and register in either party, effort has to be made, expressing one's desire to vote in a party's primary is not denied since the parties can be selected.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's exactly like that.
jamese777
(546 posts)Exit polls found that 45% of Independents voted for Obama; 50% voted for Romney and 5% voted for third parties. Independents were 29% of the electorate. Democrats were 38% and Republicans were 32%.
It's not just Sanders supporters who are not enrolled as Democrats. I'm a Clinton supporter and I've been an "unenrolled" voter here in Mass for decades. We have semi-closed primaries, so both unenrolled voters and Democrats could vote in the Democratic primary, but no members of another party could.
I'm liberal and I vote for Democrats the vast majority of the time, but I do like to keep my options open, there have been rare occasions over the years where I voted in another party's primary, for various reasons. I honestly don't see any benefit in registering as a Democrat, even though it is the party I have the greatest affinity for.
53% of the registered voters in Massachusetts are "unenrolled" and this is a very liberal state. Many, many people who would be registered as Democrats if they had to pick a party have also chosen not to do so. Seems normal to me.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)...to vote in the Dem primary when that is the one of more interest to you, and to vote in the Republican primary when that is the one that is of more interest to you. Sometimes, for example, your own party's nominee is uncontested, but you might still have a preference about who would be elected in the event that your preferred candidate lost.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But that flexbility doesn't justify you selecting the candidate for a party you do not belong to.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)There's plenty of crossover voting between the two major parties, and it's not always mischievous.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)If they want to vote for a candidate, then that is what the general election is all about.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)to give your candidate the time of day.
...it being a free country and all.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Dumb.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Yavin4
(35,357 posts)It serves no other purpose? That's the only way you'll get involved?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will not join your party like EVER, on the bright side, I will not join the Rs either. And for the same reason. I do not want to be in the same room, with people who get so personal in their attacks that I do not and cannot consider them even friends in passing.
Just wanted to let you know that
But do continue to dial up to a million, or more.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)them get the nomination
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)While most independents vote like partisans, on average theyre slightly more likely to just stay home in November. Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans, says Smidt.
Rising polarizationand the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politicshas had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say theyre independents because they view partisanship as bad and see claiming allegiance to a party as socially unacceptable.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that actually mean? That two weeks before the election or so you declare for the Party you wish to vote for. So it's not like being in a Party is genetic or takes training or has a waiting period. No one has to vouch for you. Just say 'I'm a Democrat' and that's that. Independent no more.
So would it really matter if that person just voted? Not really. Not in any real sense and not in any way that is altered by the two or three weeks in advance they have to do now. Makes it easier on voters, but it proves nothing more about them. It's politics, alliances shift with the winds as you know more than anyone. Are you a 'Hillary supporter' or a 'Hillary detractor'? You have stated both things at various times. According to you and others like you it is because you changed your mind. If you changed your view, can't others do the same?
bonemachine
(757 posts)Or, you know, 6 months...
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I do not feel entitled and have no problem with this.
I can still donate and work for my choice - which I have done this primary season.
rock
(13,218 posts)They want to vote for Bernie. Who is on the Democratic ticket.
-none
(1,884 posts)The DNC is supposed to treat all candidates equally. Not decide the winner before any party member had a chance to say anything.
If a candidate runs as a Democrat, they need to be treated as any other Democratic candidate running. Fairly. Bernie was not.
rock
(13,218 posts)Therefore, he's not a Democrat. There's other indicators mas well.
-none
(1,884 posts)Democrats are supposed to be for the people, not the corporations. Bernie is for the people. What does Hillary stand for?
rock
(13,218 posts)Independents and new voters?
-none
(1,884 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm in Oregon, our closed Primary was won by Senator Sanders by double digit margins. Hillary lost to Bernie here bigger than her loss to Obama. Oregon has two Democratic Senators, 4 out of 5 House members, a blue State House and Governor.
What State do you live in?
rock
(13,218 posts)That's true. But after all I'm only speaking the truth. I live in Indiana, a red state to my disconcerntion.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The difference between the average Democrat and an independent is relatively meaningless.
A Democrat has chosen at some point to register as such as a voter. It may simply be that they liked a particular candidate in a past election, and never bothered to switch because they usually vote Democratic.
But it's not like they went through some super secret initiation ceremony, or are required to work at least 15 hours a week for the party.....Most Democrats just vote, perhaps give some money sometimes.....maybe volunteer-- or not. Otherwise just go about their lives.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)1. I was a Democrat until I saw the current DNC 'leader' doing one of the worst jobs I've ever seen in a supposed leader. I will not put that letter next to my name as long as she is in that chair. I was proud to do so under Dr. Dean, for example. Perhaps when someone competent and not corrupt (only my opinion) takes that seat I'll rejoin.
2. My tax dollars help pay for this. If we're going to be strict constructionists, then pay for your own primary. If you pay taxes, you should be able to vote in a primary, in my opinion.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)If you don't vote in the major party primaries you have no say in who the only two viable candidates will be.
peace13
(11,076 posts)People are allowed to participate in the process. They have a right to it.How hard is that to understand. One day you will have trouble at the polls or you will find out your vote was stolen and it will all make sense to you. Some have empathy others have to experience it for it to be true. Good luck and safe travels!
Dem2
(8,166 posts)It's called "unaffiliated" in my state. I've voted for Democrats every single time. If my state said I couldn't vote in the primary unless I was a registered Democrat, then I would do so.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)ya know I'd always thought the sort of exclusionism I've seen from party members was something the other engaged in, I was wrong
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)it did work this time. The corporations and their stooges won.
Native
(5,935 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)I'd prefer to be an Independent.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Pretty simple.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Probably going independent after the election.
The third way corporatocracy no longer warrants my support.
I'll support only those that hold my personal political belief.
I'm glad I'm almost 65. I'll not suffer what I perceive to be the worst of the next 50 years.
Unless the money addicts are stripped from the political process, I pity your children, your grandchildren.....
And at this point no one with a shot at the presidency will even give it a second thought.
longship
(40,416 posts)because there is no party registration.
In my state, Michigan, for instance, I can't register as a Democrat. Nobody can.
All presidential primaries should be open. Give everybody the right to vote in the primaries.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But only union members can vote for union president
Your analogy doesn't fit.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)the party members. That trick rarely works, though. It didn't work this year, either. It's a big Party.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)and you'd like the opportunity to vote for them in the general election.
The vast majority of Americans are independents, like it or not.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Shows why the two-party system as stands is a monopoly on power for those with money.