2016 Postmortem

Sivart

(325 posts)

18. If the argument included that Party membership should be restricted, then it may make sense...

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:50 AM

Jun 2016

But I don't see how you can say we don't want independents and republicans voting in our primaries.....but we are absolutely fine with independents and republicans changing their registration to vote in our primaries....

Because that is exactly how things are now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The reason you want more people voting in your primaries is so you have a better.... [View all] Sivart Jun 2016 OP

state law determines whether primaries are open or closed, so it's a wash either way geek tragedy Jun 2016 #1

Every modern President who won election would disagree with you. BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #2

Your scenario assumes the people who did not vote in the primary (and some of the people who did) djean111 Jun 2016 #21

I can just about GUARANTEE there will be a huge push NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #3

I sure hope so. CorkySt.Clair Jun 2016 #11

Exactly SirBrockington Jun 2016 #54

You guys sounds like republicans..... Sivart Jun 2016 #62

Exactly: closed primaries favor the status quo. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #20

It's easier to stand outside and throw rocks Eko Jun 2016 #64

I'm just not interested in Republicans fucking with our primaries. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #4

Yes, then a voter can vote in the primary they chose. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #8

It needs to allow for same day registration AT THE VERY LEAST then. stillwaiting Jun 2016 #43

+1 SirBrockington Jun 2016 #48

no one complained in 2008. I wonder why? WhiteTara Jun 2016 #5

yes they did. there was also a huge fight over caucuses. Exilednight Jun 2016 #47

I've always believed in closed WhiteTara Jun 2016 #61

Yes they did. The Hillary folks complained a lot about open primaries democrattotheend Jun 2016 #52

One of the choices we make in life is to register to vote, a choice of being a Democrat is a choice. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #6

What in the world does primary turnout have to do with winning the general? CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #7

That's possible. But you also can end up with candidates that don't reflect the values and policies YouDig Jun 2016 #9

Don't ya just love it when the votes get suppressed? nt Jack Bone Jun 2016 #10

Wouldn't having people actually join your party One of the 99 Jun 2016 #12

these candidates represent the parties - hence they should be chosen by the parties DrDan Jun 2016 #13

huh? nini Jun 2016 #14

If the argument included that Party membership should be restricted, then it may make sense... Sivart Jun 2016 #18

Here's the thing..... Sivart Jun 2016 #15

I'm not missing any point at all.....you guys are kidding yourselves party membership..... Sivart Jun 2016 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author djean111 Jun 2016 #17

Primary elections are paid for by TAX PAYERS! That said alone, they should all be open. B Calm Jun 2016 #19

This is exactly my point..... Sivart Jun 2016 #24

Polls are used for that purpose. Voting in a primary does not show how a general election will turn upaloopa Jun 2016 #30

Tax payers pay for many things that the payers disagree on. upaloopa Jun 2016 #31

But elections are not one of them! B Calm Jun 2016 #35

That is not at all how primaries work, but thanks for the 11th-hour try Tarc Jun 2016 #22

What do you mean specifically? Sivart Jun 2016 #23

You have to go to some effort to change party registration just to vote in a primary then change upaloopa Jun 2016 #27

Some effort...? Sivart Jun 2016 #39

So allowing Republicans to vote in our Primaries would be the best of all outcomes? brooklynite Jun 2016 #25

New York Had the Second-Lowest Voter Turnout So Far This Election Season w4rma Jun 2016 #28

They should have registered with the Democratic Party in the first place... brooklynite Jun 2016 #36

The Clintons and their New Democrats have shrank the Democratic Party since 1992. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #37

Wrong! Open primaries allow the other party to pick your worse candidate. upaloopa Jun 2016 #26

If they are not DEMOCRATS they don't get to choose the Dem nominee. oasis Jun 2016 #29

Open to Democrats... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #32

Hillary is already ahead of Trump by 12 points workinclasszero Jun 2016 #33

Bloomber News Poll jamese777 Jun 2016 #40

I Like A Mixture jamese777 Jun 2016 #34

State Law jamese777 Jun 2016 #38

Chaotic system. You win some; you lose some. immoderate Jun 2016 #41

Is there ANY actual instance where.... Sivart Jun 2016 #42

We'll never really know jamese777 Jun 2016 #44

well, it seems pretty clear that... Sivart Jun 2016 #63

No-brainer is right. Adrahil Jun 2016 #45

What about independents??? Sivart Jun 2016 #50

If they want in say in the Democratic Party nominee, I welcome them joining the party. Adrahil Jun 2016 #53

But you dont have to join the party.....you just have to register as a Democrat. Sivart Jun 2016 #58

Registering is good enough for me. That is enough "joining" Adrahil Jun 2016 #60

I just think about operation chaos SirBrockington Jun 2016 #46

Opertation Chaos was a joke..... Sivart Jun 2016 #49

Caucuses are much worse than closed primaries. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #51

so why don't independent candidates do well ? JI7 Jun 2016 #55

Isnt it obvious? Sivart Jun 2016 #56

so party organization means much more when it comes to winning JI7 Jun 2016 #57

Yes, I believe it clearly does.....which has nothing to do with the OP Sivart Jun 2016 #59