AL, AR, GA, IL, MS, MO, SC, TN, VA, TX all had open primaries

[oberliner]

Hillary Clinton won in each of those states, in many cases by a huge landslide.

CO, HI, KS, ME, NE, and WY all had closed caucuses. These were won by Sanders.

[lunamagica]

1. K&R. Great point. Thanks for posting!

[Dem2]

2. Yep, Rude Pundit had something to say about this - see my thread within

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511805293

[Tarc]

3. The difference is that the ones Clinton won were in states with sizable PoC populations

While Sanders took the ones with mostly white voting populations. Sanders' dismal showing in A-A and Latino voting blocs is well-known by now, I presume?

[uponit7771]

31. They're still rationalizing his dismissing PoC and cut and run when you ask them what's the differen

...difference between southern GE red states and Northern GE red states

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Alaska didn't have an open caucus,

although Indies could change their registration on the spot, and Hillary was destroyed here. I don't know where you're getting this info.

Do you think AK stands for Arkansas or something?

[Demsrule86]

9. If they could change their registaration on the spot

It is an open primary...and the GOP can and does cause trouble

[Blue_In_AK]

35. I agree with that,

although in our case, I feel fairly certain that most of the people who changed registration were Indies (they comprise over 60% of our electorate). Republicans had their own presidential preference poll before the Dem caucus which had good participation. They obviously couldn't vote in both.

[oberliner]

10. Oops - meant AR

Thanks for the correction!

[Blue_In_AK]

36. You're welcome.

It's a common mistake. If we're not mistaken for Arkansas, we're mistaken for Alabama.

[dsc]

5. NC has a semi open primary

if you vote early you can change your registration that day to the party and vote. Otherwise you have to change 30 days before.

[oasis]

6. Weaver and Devine continue to muddy the waters on this.

And they are being handsomely paid to do so.

[Sky Masterson]

7. In Kansas you could change parties at the caucus and vote within minutes

I saw several people do that exclusively for Bernie.

[oberliner]

19. Right - Kansas has same day registration

Or update to your party affiliation.

[Sky Masterson]

21. Yes

In Kansas we have a shortage of Democrats so the party found it beneficial to allow those who want to be a part of it to do so.

[Demsrule86]

8. Ohio also has an open primary

She won Ohio.

[oberliner]

18. Not an exhaustive list

Just meant to provide some examples.

[Amimnoch]

69. Good point. Especially since Ohio is one of the most key of swing states in the GE.

Since Kennedy, no POTUS has won office without Ohio's electoral votes.

[Lucinda]

11. More people can vote, Hillary wins. :) n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Every Democrat I knew here in Texas voted for Bernie. Every Republican crossed lines

and voted for Hillary. One, because they can't stand their candidates and two, because they can't wait to vote against her.

[oberliner]

17. That's a strong argument for closed primaries

Wouldn't you say?

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. At this point? I dont give a crap.

I personally think it should be a one-day all states open primary, so you probably won't like me much.

[oberliner]

22. I actually think that is a good idea

Certainly something needs to change.

[Recursion]

41. One-day-all-states makes a Sanders-like candidacy impossible

You have to start out with a huge ton of money to be competitive in a national primary.

[oberliner]

42. Even in the internet-social media age?

I thought that the failure of Jeb and his massive money machine was evidence of a changing paradigm.

TV ads just don't have the power they used do.

Twitter and Youtube are cheap.

[Recursion]

43. It's not about ads but about shoes on the ground in 50 states

Even volunteers cost money.

Also, about 50% of American adults use Facebook, and about 9% of American adults use Twitter. Social media doesn't reach nearly as far as people think it does.

[oberliner]

60. Good point

I like the rotation idea suggested below.

[Garrett78]

45. If there were to be a national primary, I'd suggest a series of them.

A national primary in early January. Another in late March. Another in early June. Those below a certain threshold following the March primary would be forced to drop out, so that the alternatives to the frontrunner aren't splitting the vote.

But a better idea might be to have a group of 12-13 states vote every 1-2 months. Each group must represent different regions. So, 4 groups, which could rotate each election cycle (or the groups could be changed each election cycle, as long as they always represent a diversity of regions). That way no single state has as much influence as IA and NH currently have.

And I would have the polls open from Thursday morning through Saturday night to increase turnout. 3 days, including a weekend day, to accommodate for different schedules.

[Recursion]

52. I like the rotating tranches of states idea

That seems to be the fairest solution

[jillan]

13. Bernie won AK, tied in MO (49.6 vs 49.4)

[oberliner]

16. I changed AK to AR

I meant Arkansas not Alaska.

[sadoldgirl]

14. How come MN and WI are not included in your list?

Ah, I see they don't count. Such small states.

[oberliner]

15. Because Bernie won those

I was identifying the many open primaries that Hillary won.

[cui bono]

23. Exactly. So the states where you could openly see who voted for whom were won by Sanders.

The states with electronic voting that is easily compromised and with major voter purges and registration shenanigans were won by Hillary.

.

[oberliner]

24. That's certainly one way of looking at it

Do you think voting should not be anonymous?

[sadoldgirl]

25. O yes, it should be anonymous, but

by paper, which can be recounted lots of
times if necessary.

Amazing, it is working in other countries, but
not here; just like with our healthcare system.

[oberliner]

26. So you would replace caucuses with primaries?

If they all were paper based, I mean.

[Kalidurga]

29. I would suggest a hybrid

Paper ballots so if you wish to keep your vote secret you can. All day voting like that same day open. Then a caucus where you do party business. I would say two different times in the day to allow more people to participate.

[oberliner]

30. Interesting

So what time would the caucus take place? How would you ensure that everyone who wants to vote can do so? What about mail-in ballots?

[Kalidurga]

33. Mail in ballots are a good idea. Perhaps make all of them mail in.

I dunno about times maybe have a first shift at around 7 am and a second shift at around 10 pm. Someone who is better a scheduling can handle that and I would be fine with it. I don't know what day of the week because any day is likely to conflict with one religion or another.

[okasha]

44. We had that in Texas.

We did away with the caucus component because it was massively unpopular.

[cui bono]

38. I think voting should not be electronic in its entirety. Especially when controlled by corporations

and proprietary software. It's not about anonymity, it's about integrity and accuracy.

And I don't think people's registrations should be subject to arbitrary changes before elections.

.

[oberliner]

39. Agreed

But I don't think you should have to declare your vote publicly as some state caucuses force participants to do.

[cui bono]

40. I'm fine with getting rid of caucuses. They seem like a mess and too many people don't/can't

participate.

I would like to see a 2-3 day voting period over a weekend so more people can get out and vote. The more people that vote, the better. And I would like to see paper verification of all votes. Well I don't need to see it, but it should exist. Vote flipping is too easy and commonplace and should not happen in the country that believes it is the standard bearer of democracy.

.

[oberliner]

61. Sounds good

Hopefully this will be something that will actually be addressed.

[uponit7771]

32. You're right, it's not that Sanders has a horrible message to base its voting machines :rolleyes:

[Gothmog]

27. Sanders does not do well in states that are not really white

[KingFlorez]

28. but, but, but HAWAII!!!!!!!!!

[Garrett78]

46. That truly is the biggest takeaway from this primary season.

It's a big reason why Sanders never stood a chance.

[cwydro]

34. k and r. nt

[oberliner]

62. Thanks

This seems to have gotten lost in the open/closed primary discussions of late.

[Persondem]

37. Ssshhhhhhhhhhhh ... this belies their narrative. K & R nt

[silvershadow]

47. And if registered Democrats vote in lockstep in November we can only confidently claim

29% of the vote. It will take Independents and even some Republicans fleeing from their carnival to pick your winner. Between Sanders and Clinton, Sanders crushes it with those Demographics. Clinton does the exact opposite.

[Garrett78]

48. Obama lost the Independent vote in nearly every swing state in 2012.

Including the 2 most important states, Florida and Ohio.

Yet he still won in an electoral college landslide. Clinton will likely do the same.

[silvershadow]

49. Listen, I promise I'm not being snarky. I am just sure though that the Clinton side

is really, really overestimating her appeal. I am completely turned off by her. I have no qualms saying so during a primary. That's what we are supposed to do during a primary. You own enthusiasm alone is not enough. If she is the nominee I wish you the best, but I just can't get there from here. Not at this time. She has said and done nothing that has even moved the needle. I remain unconvinced. She is not sincere. She hasn't earned my vote. And as a Union member, household, and family, I can say I am not the only one. I also can say that right now another candidate who I can't mention without ridicule is killing it with promises to bring the jobs back. Why is she so far behind the curve? Where is her pitch to me? I haven't heard it or seen it. I have asked for it. I have asked Hillary people to point me to it. Nothing. If it is gong to be a big reveal at the convention, well that tells me that's all the longer she could support me- the three months she needed me. And that's not cool. THat's just revealing.

[Garrett78]

50. Your rant didn't address my point. And I'm certainly not enthusiastic about Clinton.

I was simply responding to the insinuation that a candidate can't win the general election without doing really well among Independents. It's a claim that many have made, but it's not supported by history. Simple as that.

[silvershadow]

51. That "rant" you referred to is my political position, which hasn't changed in 50 years.

I reamin a proud, traditional, FDR Democrat who considers The Third Way at face value- Republicans. They infiltrated my party many years ago, and they are on their way out. Either right now, or you've bought an ongoing fracture. Thank of it as a Democratic Tea Party. Which, if it comes to that is, ironically, the kind of Tea Party we should have had instead of that Koch-funded outfit on the Republican side. It's not a threat. It is a prediction based on all the evidence I see before me. In the news, on the net, in talking to ordinary folks. You don't have to believe me, though. But I am asking you to.

I cannot believe we are presenting to the American people a nominee who is currently being investigated by the Justice department, and who has questionable global operations with potential tax evasion, money laundering, and such as our party standard-bearer. It literally blows my mind. It is incomprehensible.

[Garrett78]

53. You made a point. I countered that point. Nothing since has been relevant to that point.

I'm not commenting on the content of your rant. I'm commenting more on your argumentation.

You made a false insinuation, one that many others have made. I pointed out that it's false. Your posts since then have been totally off topic.

[silvershadow]

54. That's ok. It gave me yet another chance to present a clear and cogent argument. nt

[oberliner]

59. Those were open primaries

Meaning that independents and even Republicans were allowed to vote in those primaries that Hillary won.

[snowy owl]

55. Missouri - two tenths of one percent? Statistically a tie.

Don't have time to look them all up but that's not what I call a win.

[oberliner]

58. The others were bigger wins

You can mentally remove Missouri from the list if you'd like.

[jg10003]

56. 6 of those are solid red.

Neither Clinton or Sanders will win AL, AK, GA, MS, SC, TX in November. TN is possible but not likely.

BTW; in 2008 only 5 southern states were among the first 25 primaries and caucuses. This year 11 southern states were among the first 25 primaries and caucuses. And in 2008 CA, NY, and NJ had voted by the end of February.

It's almost seems like the DNC was trying to make it difficult for a true liberal to win in February and March.

[oberliner]

57. 3 of those Sanders caucus wins are in solid red states as well

Kansas, Wyoming, and Nebraska.

[B Calm]

63. So why does Open Primaries get Hillary supporters panties in a wad?

[oberliner]

65. Maybe because Bernie supporters railed against closed primaries

So Clinton supporters felt they had to defend them.

Personally, I understand both arguments.

[B Calm]

67. They did, when did that happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-york-primary-2016/group/

[oberliner]

68. Seemed like there were posts here saying closed primaries were unfair

And undemocratic and whatnot.

[Liberalator]

64. Results by Type of Primary/Caucus

The Wikipedia Democratic Party Presidential Primaries 2016 site (21 Apr 2016):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

The page breaks the Democratic primaries into 8 categories:
(1) Closed Primary (CP) (5) (Sanders 1 win; Clinton 4 wins)
(2) Semi-Closed Primary (SCP) (4) (Sanders 2 wins; Clinton 2 wins)
(3) Semi-Open Primary (SOP) (1) (Sanders 0 wins; Clinton 1 win)
(4) Open Primary (OP) (13) (Sanders 3 wins; Clinton 10 wins)
(5) Closed Caucus (CC) (9) (Sanders 6 wins; Clinton 3 wins)
(6) Semi-Closed Caucus (SCC)(1) (Sanders 1 win; Clinton 0 wins)
(7) Semi-Open Caucus (SOC) (2) (Sanders 1 win; Clinton 1 win)
(8) Open Caucus (OC) (3) (Sanders 3 wins; Clinton 0 wins)
Total: 38 (Sanders 17 wins; Clinton 21 wins)

Total Delegates:
Sanders: 1205
Clinton: 1446

Closed Primary:
Sanders: 237
Clinton: 363

Semi-Closed Primary:
Sanders: 128
Clinton: 132

Semi-Open Primary:
Sanders: 62
Clinton: 81

Open Primary:
Sanders: 441
Clinton: 678

Total Primaries:
Sanders: 868
Clinton: 1254

Total Closed/Semi-Closed Primaries:
Sanders: 365
Clinton: 495

Total Open/Semi-Open Primaries:
Sanders: 503
Clinton: 759

Closed Caucus:
Sanders: 134
Clinton: 92

Semi-Closed Caucus:
Sanders: 17
Clinton: 8

Semi-Open Caucus:
Sanders: 48
Clinton: 29

Open Caucus:
Sanders: 138
Clinton: 63

Total Caucuses:
Sanders: 337
Clinton: 192

Total Closed/Semi-Closed Caucuses:
Sanders: 151
Clinton: 100

Total Open/Semi-Open Caucuses:
Sanders: 186
Clinton: 92


Total Closed/Semi-Closed Primaries and Caucuses:
Sanders: 516
Clinton: 595

Total Open/Semi-Open Primaries and Caucuses:
Sanders: 689
Clinton: 851

Total Closed Primaries and Caucuses:
Sanders: 371
Clinton: 455

Total Open Primaries and Caucuses:
Sanders: 579
Clinton: 741

[oberliner]

66. What is striking is the caucus/primary split

Hillary dominates the primaries (open or closed); Bernie dominates the caucuses (open or closed)

Is there a conclusion to be drawn from that?