Open primary lovers--Look here:

[Kingofalldems]

Link to tweet

[Gravitycollapse]

1. They could just as easily register Democrat temporarily.

Not sure it would make much difference—but I could be wrong. I like open primaries because they drive support from independents.

[JoeOtterbein]

2. I agree. Open Primaries show we are willing to...

...listen to the indies.

[hangaleft]

7. I despise open primaries

They allow the opposition to alter the will of the party faithful.

Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Republican primaries and Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries.

As for “independents” (i.e., voters without core values that drive their loyalty to one party or another), let them vote in the Independent primary. I have more respect for registered Socialists, Conservatives, Greens, etc. , than I do for independents. I respect their right to *be* independents, but I don’t respect that they *are* independents.

Pick a side, goddammit!

[gopiscrap]

38. I always vote in repuke primary if I know the Democratic primary is locked up

I also go to a Republican caucus to stir up as much shit as possible and create as much chaos. I one time shut down a Republican caucus, got arrested for it, but it was worth it

[sheshe2]

20. You are saying their only voice is in a primary?

Where were they the last four years?

[Kingofalldems]

3. No they couldn't.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Can you expand on that?

[Zolorp]

6. Because it's too late to do that?

[Gravitycollapse]

8. So an arbitrary deadline would change something?

Imagine a state that has a deadline. All they have to do is register before that deadline. They can then re-register right after back to Republican.

[Zolorp]

15. Wel, yes, it would

If a state has a deadline, like South Carolina and IIRC every state in the union does, then you must organize this prior to the deadline and it takes far more work, and money, to do so in a way which affects the outcome.

Open primaries simply require getting word out and let boredom take hold in the party that has no primary that year. Far more effective.

Fuck open primaries. If you want to help choose the Democratic nominee, BE A FUCKING DEMOCRAT! Non-Democrats need not apply for voting in, or running in, Democratic Primaries. If you want to take advantage of party infrastructure, YOU MUST AT LEAST TAKE THE TIME TO INVEST IN BEING A MEMBER OF THE PARTY!

I don't get how anybody cannot understand that basic principal of party politics.

And I will be lobbying to insure better precautions are taken in the future to insure non-Democrats no longer get to run or vote as Democrats.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. I know people who always vote Democrat but are registered independent.

They do so on principles that they hold dear. They support the party by voting for the Dems. If you want to piss all over people like that, it sounds like you’re the one who doesn’t care about the party because your position is costing us support.

[Zolorp]

26. Those people have no right to vote in our primaries in my opinion.

If they want to, they need to join up. If their principles are more important than that, they can live without participating in our primaries.

You will NEVER convince me it's a good idea to let non-Democrats participate in our primaries.

NEVER.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. Hey, as long as you're aware that you're hurting Dem support.

[Zolorp]

31. I think you hurt it worse letting non-Democrats choose our nominees.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. And you suppress support from independents during the general.

[Zolorp]

35. No, i Don't

You do because Republicans choose weak nominees for us that lose because independents hate them like they will hate Sanders and vote Trump instead.

[stopdiggin]

39. don't care. if you want a say in the party's nominee

join the damned party!
Don't give me sob story about driving away "independents" .. you're still welcome to vote for our candidate in the general. And I don't believe it's "costing" us a nickels worth of "support."

[Kingofalldems]

11. It takes some effort to change parties, much less to just vote.

Democratic primaries are and should be just what they say they are.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Takes very little effort if they are sufficiently motivated.

Which would be true for anyone dedicated enough to actually attempt such interference.

[Kingofalldems]

16. I think you know better than that.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Ahh...condescension.

Always refreshing.

[Kingofalldems]

21. Yeah right--claiming that filling out a form to change registration

vs. just voting requires pretty much the same effort. Condescension you say?

[Gravitycollapse]

24. It takes 5 minutes to register in my state.

Anyone part of some organized movement is going to do that no problem.

[Zolorp]

36. That takes far more organization and funding than simply telling GOPers to show up and vote Sanders

[RandySF]

32. Oh please.

[RandySF]

33. Does SC even have party registration?

[George II]

5. Simple fact (and this is NOT "refighting" the previous primary), in 2016 Sanders won in 24....

....states/territories.

Of those only two were closed primaries. The other 22 were either caucuses or open/semi-closed primaries.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. So what are you suggesting?

[thesquanderer]

25. ...that Sanders appeals to the independents we need in order to win in November?

That said, I think that's a better interpretation for 2016 than now... because the Republican nomination was competitive in 2016, and it would be very unlikely that Republicans would rather vote in our primary than theirs when theirs was a real contest. This year there's no contest on the other side, so the potential for meddling is higher. Though it's also possible that disenchanted-with-Trump Republican (and there are still a good number of them) would take this opportunity to vote for the person they would really like to see run against Trump, because they would actually want to vote for that person in November, against Trump, even though they may usually vote Republican.

[Gravitycollapse]

29. I wish that's what they were suggesting. But it's definitely not.

[Kingofalldems]

19. I did not know that.

I wouldn't run around DU crowing about winning a tainted primary.

[George II]

28. Yes, he's claiming that he won two states, but....

....he hasn't gotten any more delegates than any other candidate in either.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. You never did answer my question above. What are you suggesting?

[George II]

40. You're correct.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Just want everyone around to understand your dog whistle.

[George II]

42. You do understand what a dog whistle is, don't you?

[Gravitycollapse]

43. It would not be a dog whistle if you explained what you were implying.

[denem]

10. Biden ppl are already laying groundwork to explain away an SC loss?

Not good.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. You clearly did not read the article.

[Kingofalldems]

14. So you're okay with the Trumpist plan?

I don't get it. Don't you want to beat Biden fair and square?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Yep.

[George II]

30. Nope.

[SCantiGOP]

18. I've voted several times in the SC GOP primary

In one case there were no contested Democratic races, so I voted for the least obnoxious Repub, knowing that he/she would be elected.