So, NH was a semi-open primary, apparently.

[bluewater]

With non-Democratic "undeclared" voters (meaning not registered as Democrats or Republicans) participating in large numbers.

41% of New Hampshire voters are "undeclared".

[keepthemhonestO]

1. right

and I heard that they are allowed to change their registration from Dem to repub and visa versa on a primary night. Also saw tRump encouraging them to go contaminate the vote! So not sure what NH results actually mean.

I saw last night on the news that 3 recent elections, NH did not pic the candidate for the General election.

[Dem2]

5. You can only pick D or R if you were previously undeclared

But as I noted below, Kornacki looked up the undeclared vote and read the numbers out loud. I didn't memorize them, but they tracked the Democratic vote very closely, so this is a red herring issue IMO. For the record, I'm an "undeclared" voter - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[squirecam]

10. And repubs could NOT switch by then.

The deadline had expired for them weeks ago.

[keepthemhonestO]

23. ok

I swear I thought I saw something where there was a table and people could walk up and change right then and then vote. strange. That is good to know.

[bluewater]

26. People who are reistered as "undeclared" were allowed to vote.

Those "undeclared" voters make up 41% of the NH electorate.

Being "undeclared" just means they were not REGISTERD Democrats or Republicans. Most probably have an actual preference.

One poster here said he thought the breakdown was actually 1/3 leaned Democratic, 1/3 leaned Republican, and 1/3 were true independents.

[squirecam]

33. No

There was no surge of alleged “independent republicans” coming to rat the primary.
Please stop spouting this nonsense without evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/new-hampshire-primary-live-results-democrats-make-final-push-n1134096/ncrd1135301#liveBlogHeader

There was no jump in independents or first-time voters in Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary, according to early results from the NBC News Exit Poll.

There was an expectation that the number of independents participating in this year’s Democratic primary might be higher than previous years, since the Republican contest is not competitive. That does not seem to have happened: 43 percent of primary voters report being registered as undeclared on the voter rolls, which is in line with prior Democratic contests when there were also hotly contested Republican races.

[bluewater]

43. Yes. Voters registered as "undeclared" were allowed to vote in the Democratic primary in NH.

That simple fact seems to keep escaping you.

NH was a semi-open Primary in that regard. You did not have to be a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT to vote in the NH Democratic primary last night. You were allowed to vote if you were REGISTERED as "undeclared".

Over 41% of the NH electorate IS REGISTERED as "undeclared".

lol

Well, I have repeated that explanation, what, 3 times now?

I think I have made my point as clearly as I can.

Thanks for the discussion.

Enjoy your day.

[squirecam]

44. You have not made your point

Provide ANY evidence that “independents” normally voting in the republican primary switched to vote in the democratic one......

There isn’t.

In fact, the evidence I posted showed they stayed in the republican one, or stayed home. There was no surge of voters to indicate a ratting going on.

You wanted evidence. I posted it. Now you refuse to acknowledge it.

[bluewater]

46. lol My point is simple and has been proven.

Voters who REGISTERED as "undeclared" were allowed to vote in the DEMOCRATIC Primary in NH, along with REGISTERED Democrats.

That is what makes the NH Primary a semi-open primary. Those REGISTERED as "undeclared" make up over 41% of all New Hampshire voters.

What's hard to understand about that?

Honestly, I really can be any clearer on that point.

NH was a semi-open primary.

Enjoy your day.

[squirecam]

47. No that was not your point

You tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that unaffiliated republicans came into our primary to rat it by voting “moderate”. The evidence I posted showed that didn’t happen.

Your own words (from post #12):

So, the "undeclared" voters that were, as one person posted, at least really 1/3 Republicans and those that were also lean-Republican would be expected to vote for whom?

Assuming they were actually voting for their preferred candidate and not trying to just cause chaos, they would be voting for a "moderate" over a progressive candidate, right?

[bluewater]

56. lol we were discussing REGISTERED "undeclared" voters, that still seems to escape you.

That STILL seem to be escaping you.

Many DU-ers, myself included , feel open primaries are bad for the Democratic party in that they allow Non-Democrats to have too much say in selecting our candidates.

In New Hampshire last night non-Democratic voters, those undeclared for either party, were allowed to vote and influence the outcome.

Again, those "undeclared" voters make up 41% of the NH electorate. That's a very considerable number.

In NH, "undeclared" IS AN OFFICIAL REGISTRATION CATAGORY.

once again, that OFFICIAL "undeclared" Registration category comprises over 41% of the NH electorate.

[squirecam]

57. Stop digging.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/new-hampshire-results?icid=election_marquee

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (43%)
8% - Biden
23% - Pete
4% - Gabbard
23% - Amy
26% - Sanders
4% - Steyer
7% - Warren


You tried to claim the results were tainted by ratting. They were not.

[jmg257]

58. Wow - those are almost exactly like the final results!

Bernie: 25.8
Pete - 24.5
Amy - 19.8
Warren - 9.3
Biden - 8.4

Only Warren & Amy did a tiny bit better with undeclared - good on them!!

On Edit:

Registered as a Democrat:

Biden - 10%
Pete - 23%
Amy - 21%
Sanders - 26%
Warren - 11%

[squirecam]

59. Imagine that

Nt

[bluewater]

64. Warren did 4% worse with the registered undeclared.

But that wasn't enough to impact her viability.

[jmg257]

67. Yes - Amy did a little bit better...a big issue going in was the battle for the undeclared.

Lots of articles on that.

hey as long as they vote Dem!!

[squirecam]

68. NH takes its job seriously

There was no ratting going on. Sanders won because the people voting for him believed in him.

Warren and Biden lost because their voters didn’t show up, or went elsewhere.

[jmg257]

69. Going in, semi-open could make you nervous, but with so many discontent with trump,

it seems like a good move...get them involved in looking elsewhere! i.e. with US!!

[bluewater]

71. "You tried to claim the results were tainted by ratting." FALSE, nice strawman attempt. ;)

Um, no, I was wondering who the REGISTERED "undeclared" voters actually voted for.

So, the "undeclared" voters that were, as one person posted, at least really 1/3 Republicans and those that were also lean-Republican would be expected to vote for whom?

Assuming they were actually voting for their preferred candidate and not trying to just cause chaos, they would be voting for a "moderate" over a progressive candidate, right?

And those registered undeclared voters DID vote for moderates more than registered democrats did, but only by a 2-4% points.

As for "ratting", I explicitly said lets assume no one was trying to cause chaos, but you ignored that.

Nice attempt at a strawman argument on your part, but I made no positive claim that "unaffiliated republicans came into our primary to rat it".

Did I raise the possibility that REGISTERED "undeclared" voters might have voted differently than registered democrats? Yep.

But I repeatedly just asked for links to data showing what the results actually were and I accepted those exit polls when they were presented.

That's a far cry from the strawman argument you are trying to make saying :

You tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that unaffiliated republicans came into our primary to rat it

But, hey, thanks for the discussion.

Enjoy your day.

[keepthemhonestO]

21. oh ok

Thanks, I didn't watch all night. I must have been confused by something I read or saw.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

35. Works the same way in Maine primaries

All party switching must be done 2 weeks prior. Only ones who can register as Democrat on primary day and still vote in Democratic primary are unenrolled people.

I believe we are actually doing a presidential primary in Maine this year because way too many people showed up to caucus in 2016. They had long lines.

[Dem2]

37. Good, because caucusing sucks

It's an outdated method and ripe for confusion or worse.

People must have switched to "undeclared" by October 25th according to a poster here. I did go the the NH SoS page and they were clear that you can't switch on election day, but I was too lazy to delve into the details.

[CentralMass]

27. When you are registered as undeclared, when the election, such as this primary has Democratic snd

republican ballots, they ask you which ballot you want. If NH is like MA, that ballot selection changes your registration to the party of the ballot you chose. Yohu then have to go back and reregister as undeclared if you want to remain so. There is no seperate ballot for independents (undeclareds)

[squirecam]

2. What is your point?

Nt

[True Blue American]

4. More cheating

By Republicans. No surprise.

[squirecam]

6. Cheating how?

Specifics please.

[wisteria]

30. +1000000

[bluewater]

7. My point is NH was a semi-open primary.

Many DU-ers, myself included , feel open primaries are bad for the Democratic party in that they allow Non-Democrats to have too much say in selecting our candidates.

In New Hampshire last night non-Democratic voters, those undeclared for either party, were allowed to vote and influence the outcome.

Again, those "undeclared" voters make up 41% of the NH electorate. That's a very considerable number.

[squirecam]

8. And?

How did they “influence” it? Did they cause one candidate to win or lose?

Because the evidence last night was they were in line with democrats.

[bluewater]

12. Um, everyone running was a Democrat.

So, the "undeclared" voters that were, as one person posted, at least really 1/3 Republicans and those that were also lean-Republican would be expected to vote for whom?

Assuming they were actually voting for their preferred candidate and not trying to just cause chaos, they would be voting for a "moderate" over a progressive candidate, right?

[Dem2]

14. I assume most of those 33% "undeclared" Republicans either didn't vote, or voted (R)

As I've said over and over again, they voted in-line with Democratic registered voters, implying that any hanky-panky they might have wanted to do wasn't effective (happened in very small numbers.)

[bluewater]

18. That's quite the assumption.

And, again, could you please provide a link or two showing that the undeclared tracked the same as registered Democrats?

That's a serious request, I would love to be reassured.

[squirecam]

17. Did you watch the returns on MSNBC last night?

Because this question has already been answered. These voters were similar in their choices as the registered democrats was.

As to “republicans” voting, they cannot do that. So do you have any evidence of actual wrongdoing?

http://sos.nh.gov/VotePartyPrimFAQ.aspx

Can I vote in a primary if I am an undeclared voter?
Yes. An undeclared voter may vote in a state primary or a presidential primary. You will be required to choose either a Republican or Democratic ballot when you go to vote. The last day a registered voter can change their party affiliation before the 2020 presidential primary is October 25, 2019. Supervisors of the checklist are required to meet on that day at least between 7:00-7:30 p.m. to accept party changes

[bluewater]

20. "Because this question has already been answered."

Ok, could you just provide some links showing that? Anything from official sources?

I would love to be reassured.


You seem to be missing the point athat many of those "undeclared" voters are actually Republican or lean-Republican voters.

[squirecam]

28. No they are not

There was no surge in “independent” voters this year. No evidence at all that people crossed over to “rat” the primary.

So please stop with these accusations unless you have actual evidence.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/new-hampshire-primary-live-results-democrats-make-final-push-n1134096/ncrd1135301#liveBlogHeader


There was no jump in independents or first-time voters in Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary, according to early results from the NBC News Exit Poll.

There was an expectation that the number of independents participating in this year’s Democratic primary might be higher than previous years, since the Republican contest is not competitive. That does not seem to have happened: 43 percent of primary voters report being registered as undeclared on the voter rolls, which is in line with prior Democratic contests when there were also hotly contested Republican races.

[bluewater]

34. You seem confused about what "undeclared" voters are in NH. It's an official catagory.

41% of the voters in NH are REGISTERED as "undeclared".

Those REGISTERED as "undeclared" are allowed to vote in either primary, making the NH a semi-open primary.

They don't have to CHANGE their registration, because 41% are ALREADY REGISTERED as "undeclared".

Again, "undeclared" is an official registration category in NH.

If you have links showing the number of "undeclared" voters that voted last night, would you please share those?

Thanks.

[squirecam]

36. No you are the one confused.

No republicans could possibly vote.

All the undeclared voters could ALWAYS vote. Including in 2016 when Bernie got 72% of independents. Were they ratting the primary then?

The link I posted shows NO EVIDENCE that independents who normally voted in the R primary tried to rat our primary this year.

Please provide evidence to support your claims. Or stop making them.

[TwilightZone]

77. This is kind of the OP's thing.

Make unfounded or misinformed assertions, then pick fights with people over semantics when the allegations are proven misleading or contrary evidence is provided.

Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure it's intentional.

[squirecam]

78. Yes

Nt

[bluewater]

80. Now the strawman argument becomes an ad hominem attack?

Seems so.

[HeartlandProgressive]

81. Failed to win a discussion?

Some people like arguing, but can't handle counter-arguments without sinking to personal attacks.

[bluewater]

79. "No republicans could possibly vote." You still seem confused.

No one is saying registered Republicans could have voted.

There is a separate, official category in NH called "undeclared".

Those registered "undeclared" voters were allowed to vote in last night's Democratic primary along with the registered Democrats.

Why are you bringing up Republicans and and saying "No republicans could possibly vote."

[Dem2]

24. Thank you

I watched the returns and focused heavily on Kornacki when he read the undeclared breakdown.

It was Bernie high 20's, Pete mid-20's to 18% for Klobuchar (only one I recall clearly.) Perhaps the final totals are available somewhere, Kornacki said out loud that there wasn't much variance between undeclared and total for all voters.

[bluewater]

25. Again, are there links to anything official you could provide?

I have been asking for that and not getting a response.

There must have been some actual data to base any reporting on, right?

[Dem2]

31. Live TV

I've searched specifically to try to help you, but there is no video available for each segment last night. Perhaps there will be at some point. I saw the segment along with another poster here, it was reassuring to see that the undeclared aligned with the total of all voters. If there was a major discrepancy, one would think he or one of the many commentators would have picked up on it.

[bluewater]

38. All righty then. No links to any actual data.

Just a commentator's claim on MSNBC?

Ok. That is that then. There's not much point in belaboring the lack of official data then.

I believe you heard what you say you heard.

Please understand why I continue to want to see the actual data to backup that commentator's assertion.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Dem2]

40. What evidence do you have?

Why are you putting the burden of proof on those of us who watched the results last night and are reporting what we saw?

What point are you attempting to make here?

[bluewater]

41. You made the positive claim the "undeclared" tracked the same as registered Democrats.

The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not on me to disprove it.

That's how discussions/debates work.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Enjoy your day.

[Dem2]

42. Hmmm, I'm not liking this sort of discussion

I feel you shouldn't be attacking those who have put forth information which they have witnessed while providing no information from your side of this argument.

I didn't start this thread. Back up your assertions.

[bluewater]

45. You made the positive claim, the burden of proof is upon you.

Sorry, but that's how things are.

Think about it.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to defend their accusation against the defendant, not the other way around.

Holder of the burden[edit]

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2]

So, again, thanks for the discussion. But I rather it end on a polite note.

Cheers!

[squirecam]

51. Bluewater

Doesn’t want evidence. I’ve posted proof showing that there was no surge of unaffiliated republicans coming over to vote in the primary.

[jmg257]

55. Oh there's proof...

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (43%)
8% - Biden
23% - Pete
4% - Gabbard
23% - Amy
26% - Sanders
4% - Steyer
7% - Warren

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/new-hampshire-results?icid=election_marquee

[bluewater]

61. Thanks for the link, but you posted only half the story.

Biden received 8% support from the undeclared versus 10% for registered Democrats.

Warren received 7% support from the undeclared versus 11% for registered Democrats.

Klobuchar received 23% support from the undeclared versus 21% for registered Democrats.

So there was a difference of several percentage points for these candidates, but not enough of a difference to change the delegate assignments or to impact Warren or Biden getting to the 15% threshold.

Thanks. I am reassured that the registered undeclared voters did not substantially impact the final results.

[jmg257]

65. Yes - thanks - the bar below the Undeclared noted the Registered as Democrats

Before voting today, were you
Registered as a Democrat:
Biden - 10%
Pete - 23%
Amy - 21%
Sanders - 26%
Warren - 11%

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (43%)
8% - Biden
23% - Pete
4% - Gabbard
23% - Amy
26% - Sanders
4% - Steyer
7% - Warren

[Dem2]

70. Nice

Thanks, have a heart for your effort.

[jmg257]

75. Aw - thanks so much!! Cheers!! nt

[Dem2]

62. Seems so

This is why I research my assertions before I post them.

Either that or I'm curious and ask for opinions.

Implying that there was hanky-panky here without any evidence other than some pundit's who suggested that we "watch out" for such a trend is no evidence at all.

[squirecam]

66. Exactly

Nt

[bluewater]

72. You keep pushing strawman arguments.

Now they are even veering off into becoming ad hominem attacks.

[jmg257]

49. Here ya go ..,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/new-hampshire-results?icid=election_marquee

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (43%)
8% - Biden
23% - Pete
4% - Gabbard
23% - Amy
26% - Sanders
4% - Steyer
7% - Warren

[wisteria]

32. +100000

[Dem2]

3. According to Kornacki, they followed the trend of those registered as Democrats pretty closely

I am registered as "undeclared" in fact.

The undeclared split is considered to be 1/3 D, 1/3 R, 1/3 I from what I was reading yesterday.

[bluewater]

9. Since 41% of the NH electorate is undeclared, that's a LOT of Republicans.

Even if it's just 1/3 of the undeclared are Republicans.

Many of those undeclared independents must lean Republicans too, one would think.

[Dem2]

11. No way to know

The fact that they tracked those registered as Democrats suggests it had little affect on the total results and that most of those who voted were in fact Democrats like myself.

[bluewater]

13. Do you a have a link where they showed most of the undeclared tracked like Democrats?

Serious question.

[Dem2]

16. The undeclared results as read by Kornacki aligned with the overall totals

Meaning that undeclared voted IN-LINE with those registered as DEMOCRATS.

[bluewater]

22. Do you have any links we could look at? Anything from official sources?

I keep asking for those.

I would love to be reassured that Republicans did not influence last night's results.

There must have been some actual data to base any reporting on, right?

[Ace Rothstein]

39. Do you have any links that can support your assertions?

[jmg257]

48. Here- knock ur self out!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/new-hampshire-results?icid=election_marquee

[bluewater]

50. nothing in there that tracked how REGISTERED undeclared voters voted.

A poster claimed those people voted the same as REGISTERED Democrats.

Still waiting for a link to proof of that.

[jmg257]

53. Sure it does...

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (43%)
8% - Biden
23% - Pete
4% - Gabbard
23% - Amy
26% - Sanders
4% - Steyer
7% - Warren

Before voting today, were you:
Registered as Undeclared/Independent (24%)
92% - trump

[squirecam]

60. Love it!

Nt

[bluewater]

73. It was down in the subcatagories in the drop down menu.

Thanks, I went back and found those.

[jmg257]

74. NP! That's why I said "knock yourself out..." :) A ton of data there that needed some

thinking to figure out what was what. (and very hard on a phone! )

And was hard to find to start with!

[jmg257]

15. Good. The dis-illusionment due to trump continues...Get them votes!!

Horn identified right-leaning independents and suburban women as weak points for Trump. She pointed to data from the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office that shows 20,284 people have left the Republican Party since Trump won the presidency, which is roughly 7,000 more than the 13,556 voters Democrats lost.

“The president has not just disenfranchised good Republicans who feel passionately about principle and integrity and character, he has conducted himself in office in such a corrupt manner, people who left the party in 2016 have been given no reason to return to the Republican Party,” she said.

There are now 3,807‬ more undeclared voters than there were on Nov. 8, 2016. The rise in undeclared, or independent voters, “should be concerning” to Republicans, said DeMers, because they are losing registrations at a much quicker pace than Democrats.

On Election Day in 2016, the GOP had 20,000 more registered voters than Democrats. At last count, on Dec. 31, 2019, the gap was 13,272‬.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article239923138.html



Get 'em, Amy!

[Laelth]

19. That IS a good sign. n/t

-Laelth

[wisteria]

29. Yes, I wondered how many Trump spoilers voted last night.

My opinion is, the party needs to do away with allowing anyone but registered Demoto vote in our Primaries.

[squirecam]

63. Little to none

Nt

[bluewater]

76. Me too. I was wondering the same thing.

But had to post a zillion times against a strawman argument trying to distort that.

lol

So, another poster did provide an actual exit poll, it showed some differences in how the registered "undeclared" voters voted compared to registered Democrats, but only in the 2-4% range.

That was not enough to impact either final delegate totals or Biden's and Warren's viability to meet the 15% threshold.

[Celerity]

52. Semi-closed nt

[kysrsoze]

54. Hence the 3% Gabbard turnout.

[seaglass]

82. As will be Massachusetts - are you unfamiliar with this? I am an unenrolled MA voter, there are

more unenrolled voters in MA than D or R. Studies have been done over and over again - unaffiliated/unenrolled/Independents who actually switch between parties are only 10% of voters. The remaining lean/vote consistently along party lines.

NH is definitely more conservative than MA so the fact that more voters selected moderate candidates is unsurprising.