The number of "democrats" on this board who hate democracy is appalling.

[Jokerman]

I don't give a flying fuck who you support but arguing in favor of caucuses, closed primaries and super-delegates when these things are clearly designed to disenfranchise voters makes you sound like a god-damned elitist snob.

What's next, DU groups dedicated to reinstating the poll tax or allowing only white, male, property owners the right to vote?

[Demsrule86]

1. I know trying to overturn the will of the voters is wrong

But the Bern people are mostly young...and the supers won't do it anyway.

[lagomorph777]

6. Nobody, especially Sanders, has any intention or desire of doing that.

Please see what he actually says, not the Brock-speak twist:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/?_r=0

He's only asking them to respect the voters! You find that offensive?

[WhiteTara]

31. Except for the millions more who

voted for his opponent and then they are either dismissed as being from the south or have stockholm syndrome or they cheated or are nitwits or shills or worst of all, a bunch of women who are voting with their vaginas. Love that respect.

[lagomorph777]

37. I disagree with her positions,

and I have found some posts from her supporters to be devoid of content. Yes, some of the "LOL" or other dismissive empty posts do strike me as shill-like.

But I would never (have never) used any of the other terms.

Your post here contains actual content and I would be pissed off if I'd been called most of those things.

[WhiteTara]

44. These are only a few of the epitaphs that are used

by Bernie supporters. The words they use to describe the candidate are even more disgusting.

[lagomorph777]

47. For the record, I'd be delighted to have a woman president

But I have to vote based on positions and record.

I would have voted for Boxer or Warren, had they been options.

[WhiteTara]

51. Oh, I'm sure that you would have found reasons

not to accept them also. They too have faults.

[lagomorph777]

66. Faults? No doubt. But I have followed them over the years and both have fought for the 99%

I would have contributed $$ to either one if they were running.

It's probably hard not to assume that opposing a particular woman means I oppose women in general. Not even close to true, but thee is probably no convincing you so I will have to let it go.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

108. Epithet.

This is an epitaph:

[WhiteTara]

112. damn auto fill and spell check

thanks for the correction.

[LaydeeBug]

49. Her positions and Bernie's positions are closer than any Republican...

and expecting superdelegates to flip, especially in caucuses that can be EASILY manipulated (remember Oprah and the buses in '08?)

Hillary Clinton has more votes than Bernie Sanders. The will of the people has been told. I like him. But he didn't beat her. When Hillary Clinton dropped out in '08, she was ahead in the popular vote too. SHE saw the delegate math, and did what had to be done. " While losing the delegate count, and thus the nomination, she earned more popular votes than Barack Obama " <<<------ wiki

Bernie does NOT have more of a popular vote than Clinton. He does not have more pledged delegates. He does not have more superdelegates, and it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to get there.

It's time to cut the shit.

[lagomorph777]

50. Oh, I must have overslept - is it July already? The will of WV, CA, OR has been told?

Guess I lost track.

Relax, it'll all be fine. Pay no attention to the primaries any more...you're getting sleeepy...

[OnionPatch]

104. Thank you!

I would like to be able to vote in this primary and have it mean something. I'm sure millions of my fellow Democrats here in California feel the same.

[MoonchildCA]

114. Yes, which is another primary point why our elections are not democratic.

The early states get to pick the nominee, while we in California, the largest state by population, the seventh largest economy in the world, rarely have a say in the process. It's infuriating!

We need a national primary day held in May or June, so everyone's vote carries the same weight.

[DLCWIdem]

64. your not gas lighting me

I have actually heard him say so on many occasions. On Msnbc and other shows. What do you think his whole electability arguement is about. I have been watching MSNBC morning and night (my older roommate likes tRump and I she was watching Fox continuosly i was a captive audience to that bullshit so I as a reaction I started watching MSNBC continuosly. In fact, up until Wisconsin I was sitting on the fence, until he started spouting it. I watched him go from beating his breast about superdelegates, to wanting to use them himself. Both he and his campaign. He says it then he walks it back and says we' ll see, then he says again. You can tell me all you want but I witnessed it.

[lagomorph777]

67. Perhaps you turned on the gas yourself

I have been watching him too.

Yes, absolutely he has said he would like to persuade SDs to reconsider their (un-pledged) positions.

Unless you can present a counter-quote, he has most certainly never said an SD should vote opposite to their state's voters. His whole point is exactly the opposite. I know emotion can cause us to hear something different than the actual words, but reviewing the actual words may help you relax. No theft is planned from Bernie's side, unless you consider respecting voters to be theft.

The following real quotes are 5 weeks apart and quite consistent:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/bernie_sanders_to_superdelegates_if_a_candidate_wins_your_state_by_40_or_50_points_who_are_you_going_to_give_your_vote_to.html

[Buzz Clik]

2. Wow. Most misguided OP in a long time.

If you don't like the way the Democratic Party runs its primary, find another party. If you object to the way your state specifically conducts its primary, change it.

That simple.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Ok, gloves off.

Your party, love it or leave it?

I said nothing even similar. This is your juvenile attempt to put words in my mouth. In fact, I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: If you don't like the structure of the primaries, change it. Are you incapable of reading, or just incapable of comprehension?

How fucking enlightened of you.

Lovely. Just lovely. So, you reverse my message and come back with an obscenity laden outburst. Scream at yourself. I did not say the words you attributed to me.

My state already has an open primary.

So, what is your fucking point? Just looking for a fight? Okay, you have one, but you came ill equipped, and I just stomped your ass into the ground.

Just make sure to remember your "find another party" snark when millions of current democrats take your advice.

Democrats, my aching ass. You people are pretend Democrats whose sole purpose is to bellyache about everything. You have no goal but to support impossible initiatives to allow you to complain until hell freezes over. We know you. Your kind has been around for decades, and you never change. You also never contribute one fucking thing to the party or the country -- just a lot of angry, white noise.

Only a simpleton believes that it truly is that simple.

And, as if your beat down wasn't enough, you finish off with an unprovoked insult.

Back atcha, cupcake.

[rock]

27. +100

Your best yet, Buzz.

[Purveyor]

42. Ooooooooooo....

[brush]

61. Woohoo! Now that's what I call telling somebody off. And he/she sure asked for it.

Another Sanders supporter wishing for a repug win since he's lost.

[Andy823]

82. Excellent response.

[COLGATE4]

113. That has got to leave a mark!

[NurseJackie]

118. Nicely done!

[JoePhilly]

119. Nicely done.

And another fool is dropped from his own thread for being unhinged!!!

[yodermon]

14. So the Democratic Party is a *club* more than a philosophy or set of principles.

sensible woodchucks only.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. It's only a club, and not at all a philosophy or a set of principles.

Democrat is an affiliation, not an ideology.

The distributions of views of modern Democrats, Democrats in 1950, Democrats in 1900, Democrats in 1850, etc are widely different, but it's still precisely the same party.

If (and I absolutely don't think this will happen, I'm just using it as an illustration), a party advocating precisely the olicies of FDR, or some other era in the party's history, were to replace the Republicans as the main opposition to the Democrats - as many DUers often express a hope for - then the Democrats would still be the Democrats, and the other group would not be.

Discussions about "who is right" and "who is a Democrat" are much clearer when this fact is born in mind.

That said, at present, it's a club that offers the best opportunity of promoting liberal philosophies and principles in the USA.

[Electric Monk]

17. I thought third party advocacy was a TOS violation, and that looks like what you're doing. nt

[Skwmom]

3. Until we get a system in place that we can trust, I support caucuses b/c they're harder to steal.

And primaries with closed locations and restricted hours are also disenfranchising.

[FSogol]

4. Caucuses in the past have supported the front runner. If HRC had won the caucuses, you'd hate them.

Situational ethics.

[Skwmom]

21. Again. Caucuses are harder to steal. The only two she won were Iowa where even the

paper that endorsed her said there should be an audit and NV, where chaos reigned (people voted w/out registering, etc).

[FSogol]

22. Total nonsense. n/t

[Hortensis]

40. It is. She likes them because they worked for Bernie

this time. It sounds like she may believe all the spin about how that resulted from their greater "democracy."

Sk, something like 3% of voters attend caucuses because one has to get to them and they can run on for hours. It's common in caucus states for businesses to take a hard line on employee attendance -- very particularly low-level employee attendance.

They can be very easy to stack with establishment interests, who have the typical well established local organizations to draw from. Key precincts can also very easy to twist by staffing them with skilled carnival barkers. And, of course, we know they can be chaotic, which itself can be manipulated for advantage by one side or the other, but too often people just leave before the end because they have to go pick up the children or whatever -- disenfranchising in the process. There's no voting booth backup.

[floriduck]

30. No machines. Paper ballots only monitored by reps from all candidates.

[WhiteTara]

35. We have a lot of red states right now

so you need to make sure that your state turns or stays blue if you want anything close to fair elections.

I still don't know why this wasn't an issue in 2008, 2004 or 2000 or 1996 or 1992. This sudden interest tells me that you have been living in a bubble world for decades.

[brush]

65. Caucuses are even easier to steal. Hand counts hoping the counters turn in honest results

Plus they are very exclusionary. How many people have hours to spend in a caucus.

[Ferd Berfel]

5. I've sadi this here before

I'm regularly having the same arguments with Clinton supporters here, that I have in my private life with my republican friends and acquaintances. They are using the same RW arguments that the republican use, eg:

NAFTA
GMO
Fracking
TPP
Single Payer
$15/hr

The same damned arguments!

This appears to be a case of a ten that's too large and the disenfranchised republicans have come over. After this election there will be no part on the Left unless Bernie Wins. We will have the new insane RW party still calling itsele republican, and the old republican party now calling itself Democrat.

IF a disaster occurs and Clinton is the Nom, Trump...the 'republican' will be running to her Left on many important issues. Where the hell does that leave Liberals and Progressives? Sure as hell not with the Turd Way

[lagomorph777]

9. "Thurd Way" is a typo

I think you meant to say "Turd Way."

[Adrahil]

7. Closed primaries do not disenfranchise voters.

Any voter can register as a Democrat. And Democrats should be picking the Democratic nominee.

I agree that caucuses are undemocratic, and I'm not a fan of the Super-delegate system, though I recognize the need for them when non-Democrats can skew the primary results.

[Joob]

8. Can someone explain to me why Caucuses are bad? I've only voted in one and was pretty democratic.

District/County gets together, if someone's undecided people make cases for candidates, vote, split delegates if there's enough votes, choose the delegates you want to represent your district by voting again. (people you just got to know, and most likely spoke out for their candidate the most. Delegates literally sitting around you)

No one has to say who they voted for too.

[Vincardog]

10. Caucuses are bad because She couldn't steal them. The machine did the best it could but not enough.

[WhiteTara]

36. The only fair election has a Bernie win. I know.

[Vincardog]

39. Show me the ballots. The exit polls don't match on the Democratic side.

[WhiteTara]

46. There aren't any ballots in a caucus.

[Vincardog]

54. Bernie won the caucuses. They also don't count the individuals hence the HRC crowd's constant "We

Won XXX voters" refrain. Apples and oranges.

[WhiteTara]

63. Bernie won SOME of the caucuses.

[Ohioblue22]

55. She's ahead any way you count it she has no need to steal anything

[Vincardog]

56. Then why does she keep doing it?

[Ohioblue22]

59. She isn't you are just mad cause your prefered is losing

[mythology]

33. Because not everybody can devote hours to stay at one

Because it violates the secret ballot, because by having the vote being just say 7 pm to 10 pm means people who work at that time can't vote.

Caucuses result in fewer people voting than caucuses.

[Joob]

45. I voted at noon. And no one has to say who they vote for.

The time thing could be said for any place you vote, okay. Not just caucuses

The secret ballot thing I guess I can understand. I'd say secret ballot is less democratic but whatever. And even then, there's ways to vote early if you really want it such a secret. And again, you dont have to say who you vote for. Hell, you dont even have to stay around after you cast your vote.

I guess less people show up but I'd say thats a problem with the country as a whole in general.

[DLCWIdem]

68. take too long no secret ballot

I live in WI its a open primary, but I have heard complaints about the caucauses. First of all, they are at inconvenient times and take too long. Imagine having a job or a child where if you couldn't wait in line for hours at least you could come back to vote. A caucaus, on the other hand, you actually have to stay that amount of tme and if you leave early your vote wont count. Also it violates the principal of the secret ballot. In Southern states don't want your neighbor to know how your voting, well thats out. Your an older person who can't get out, well voting is out. In addition, I heard complaints about bullying the secret ballot would stop that. Those are only a few of the reasons that caucausesbare more undemocratic.

[Joob]

72. Well I voted in one and experienced none of that, took 2 hours

And I've seen people wait til close to midnight for a closed primary (AZ) The whole time thing is nonsense for any state where you have to vote and I'd argue it needs better organizing for the country as a whole. I even saw plenty of old people who were excited to see young people there. There should definitely be a easier way to vote early for the country as a whole and for people who can't come. For whatever reason, they should be able to just send it in. And people who worry about "secret ballot" should vote that way too.

I voted 3 times the day I voted, one vote for Bernie, one vote each for two different delegates, who made cases for their candidate and best represented them. I didn't just choose a delegate, we met them. They were us. To claim this process isn't democratic is absurd. It's the most democratic.

The problems you claim happen with caucauses actually happen with closed primaries too, and probably open ones. Those problems are America's problems in a nutshell. No one is as informed as they should be and there should be a much better way to inform people. Most of the country doesn't even vote.

And when there's a bigger turn out.
That's when people see the problems you're talking about. Longer lines, wait times, long hours. That's because America doesn't expect it's people to vote. And that's where it reveals our Incompetency. We need better organizers, better ways to keep the public informed. And quite possibly, educate people more on our political system.

[liberal_at_heart]

81. sorry but I will always prefer my mail in ballot primary over our caucus.

Here in WA we have both, but the Democratic party decided they only wanted to pick delegates from the caucus. At the caucus we were told of a change of interpretation to the caucus rules by the party and when we decided to vote on whether we wanted to uphold the change or keep things the way they were we were told that the party leaders would take away all of our delegates if we voted to keep things they way there were. In my mail in ballot primary, I get my ballot in the mail. I do my research. I vote. I mail it in. My vote gets counted. Best system in the country.

[Mnpaul]

93. Not all caucus elections work like that

I was in and out in about ten minutes. Many people who voted in primaries spent more time than that waiting in line.My vote was counted and no one knew my vote.

[DLCWIdem]

115. very good

That sounds very good and I would like to vote in a caucaus like that. My comments were in general, of course, and anecdotal. I heard from some horror stories though particularily from Washington caucaus. Try 5 hours long. I would give you a suggestion to go to DNC primaries on wikipedia which has the raw votes and would be the total of voters. In Alaska 440 to 99, which means only 540 people in the whole state voted. Around 300 voted in Wyoming. Less than 35,000 voted in Washington a state with 7 million people. I say the numbers itself shows that it is undemocratic. By the way are you from Minnesota, because I am from Wisconson your neighbor.

[Mnpaul]

116. I am from Minnesota

I agree that more states need to make voting easier. I like our hybrid system. You can vote and leave or stay and work to become a delegate and push issues. This is something everyone can get involved in locally.

[DLCWIdem]

120. my co-worker was very excited about participating in her very first caucaus

[procon]

13. Bernie knew the rules up front, so he has no cause for complaint when he's losing.

If he thought they weren't important, then his judgement is questionable.

If he thought they didn't apply to him, he made a serious mistake.

If he's trying to rewrite the rules to improve his chances of becoming the nominee, he's a sore loser.

[WhiteTara]

48. He was so busy trashing his opponent he couldn't be

bothered to educate his newly empowered supporters. I don't think that even today, he has urged anyone to make sure they are registered or even how to do it.

[asuhornets]

15. If your candidate was winning based on everything you stated in your OP,

you would not be complaining about anything..

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. From what I understand

A lot of these rules, superdelegates, etc. have existed for awhile and nobody complained until a previously Independent Senator decides to register to run as POTUS in the Democratic Primary and some of his supporters didn't learn the rules of the party and how it operates so that they could vote for their preferred candidate. Maybe some of the rules *should* be changed but AFAIK the party rules in some states were not just suddenly changed to make it so Independent voters couldn't vote for Bernie. You do realize that it's the prerogative of each party to make its own rules, decide whom can vote for its candidates, right? Otherwise, what's the point of having parties?

[MSMITH33156]

23. Also,

a lot of these are state laws, and have nothing to do with the party. And most of the closed primaries are designed to protect smaller parties. The Democratic Party can't unilaterally hold an open primary in a state that forbids it.

But the real purpose of closed primaries is to prevent something like Registered Dems in a non-competitive year overwhelming a Green Party election to get a weaker candidate if they feel threatened in the general election.

So, as was pointed out earlier, you'd have to enact change on a state-by-state level.

Also, Hillary has done really well in open primaries and caucuses (she's won 15 of them), and Bernie has done really well in closed caucuses. This narrative only came up when Bernie realized he was about to get slaughtered in the northeast. When he won Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Dems Abroad, Alaska and Wyoming, I didn't hear anyone trying to invalidate those results. There are certain states that are friendlier to each candidate, and the system in those states doesn't seem to impact the results. Clinton just has more voters.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Right

Unfortunately, some Bernie supporters can't accept that fact and see a conspiracy against him where there is none.

[jwirr]

25. Those party rules worked better when we were the majority

party because then we were voting for a majority candidate.

NOW there are more Independents than Ds. Exactly what does a closed vote venue tell us now? That a third of the nation supports a candidate while ignoring the Independent party all together. That says nothing to me?

When a primary is over I want to be able to see which of the many left leaning parties are going to support a candidate. With a closed system all we know is that our now minority party supports said candidate.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Yep. Only an undemocratic asshole would argue that the superdelegates should overturn

the democratically expressed wishes of the voters.

[NCTraveler]

20. Numerous Sanders supporters have made the property owner argument.

So when you say "what's next", and reference to Clinton supporters followed by only white, male, property owners; the only time that argument has been made here is by multiple Sanders supporters. Otherwise known as the acreage argument.

I'm glad you highlight that disgusts you. It does me as well.

[Turin_C3PO]

24. Sanders voters

have advocated for only white, male, property owners to vote? If that's true they were surely trolls and should have been reported to the Admins.

[NCTraveler]

29. They have made the property owner argument. Very clearly. I am taking nothing out of context.

There is no secret as to what that argument is about.

Long time posters. I have no need to send a highly recommended thread to the admins. Fox News and JW are common sources here. It's the new DU. There is no reason to send it to the admins as they have made it clear there are drastic changes coming soon. I'm good waiting.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. That's terrible.

They should be banned, imo.

[bjo59]

28. Have to agree with you. It's a real eye opener.

People can't defend democracy if they don't even know what it is.

[villager]

34. "Undergrounders" who are in love with our overlords. nt.

[Blue_Tires]

38. I'm not arguing in favor of any of those things...

My only argument has been that people should know the election rules of their state, god forbid...

I'm old enough to remember when DU hated open primaries when years back the GOP used to occasionally get cute and sabotage a strong democratic gubernatorial or senate candidate in southern states with low turnouts... How times change...

[HooptieWagon]

41. They are authoritarian elitists.

Democrats are 29% of registered voters. Yes, that's a few % more than registered republicans. But both are far out-numbered by independant voters. Indies aren't going to vote Dem by party loyalty...that's why they're indies. Forcing a candidate on them will be rejected. Likewise, the party has ignored the left wing for decades, demanding their votes and offering nothing in return. Well, the chickens have come home to roost. Both Parties are controlled by special interests, voters are pissed, and party registrations continue to fall. There's going to be a shakeup within a couple years.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. I agree with you on Superdelegates and caucuses

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]But I disagree on the closed primary part.

This isn't the general election, this is the democratic party's primary for who is to be the Democratic party's candidate. It only makes sense to limit the voting to democrats. Not only that, but despite what happened this year, closed primaries USUALLY move a party more toward their base voters ideologically.

It should require you to register to vote six months before the vote? Absolutely Not, but it should require that you join the democratic party.[/font]

[trudyco]

79. I think there are several problems with the current landscape

First, primaries are paid by the state. Caucuses are not. Maybe if a party wants to be closed it should pay for all the closed primaries. Independents shouldn't have to pay for the big two primaries, especially since the independents are the majority now.

Secondly, people have noticed since the Bush elections that electronic voting is prone to hacking. We don't know if it has been hacked, however there have been indications that is was. As I understand it, the UN (?) uses exit polls versus final tally and if it looks suspicious there is an indication the vote counting was tampered with. This anomaly showed up in 2000 US presidential race somewhat (we weren't totally digitized yet), 2004 more so, and now it is showing up in the democratic primaries in 2016. People have long advocated for paper ballots and public manual counting of some percentage of the ballots to make sure the counting machines aren't hacked. I know Chicago has a law but there have been accusations that the manual vote counts of the 2016 primary did not match the electronic vote counts at all and the counters tried to hide the discrepancies. I don't care who your candidate is. this is not good. Unfortunately there is no independent recourse to make sure the laws are followed and the counts are accurate. It's very frustrating and everybody should be worried.

Thirdly, we are still dealing with caging and purging. In Primaries its strip(purge) and flip (switch the party affiliation of the voter unbeknownst to them in closed primaries) as well as limiting voting locations and changing the times/locations on people. All disenfranchisement tactics. The MSM likes to call them "Shenanigans" like it's a frat party joke. Or "irregularities" which sounds innocuous. It's not. Everybody should be upset by this. It's more election fraud. Again there is not a fast independent recourse when this is found. There are no serious repercussions. A republican was suspended in New York. That's tough. Not. This same person who recently had a financial winfall from the daughter of the congresswoman who headed up the local Clinton campaign. Unfortunately the people investigating are all Clinton supporters.

Caucuses are a problem because of the limited window of time to vote and how long the process is. However, at least in my state, the votes are openly counted so everybody gets to see that they are counted accurately. No chance for election fraud. Not as private, though. At least the independents do not have to pay for them.

Lastly the Democratic party has Superdelegates which I understand are in place to make sure the most electable candidate, of those running, is chosen. This is undemocratic because they can subvert the popular vote. We are finding in this election that in addition, with well organized long standing politicians like the Clintons, the Superdelegates can be used to make sure the Establishment Candidate wins. She had a whole line of Sd's signed up before the primaries even started. This seems to thwart the intention of the Sd's since the party couldn't have gauged who the most electable candidate was before the primary even started. Many Bernie supporters have claimed that he does better with independents (in fact many Hillary supporters at DU feel the same way or they wouldn't be so adamant against open primaries/caucuses). He certainly has gained in popularity as people learned who he was and what he stood for despite limited MSM coverage. Is it enough to say he is more electable than Hillary? I don't know. But it is disconcerting that the role of Superdelegates has been abused, IMHO. They have been used in a way that was not their original intent. Perhaps it is time to get rid of them. Some states are already trying to.

Some Hillary supporters believe that Bernie shouldn't even be in the Democratic primaries because he's a Democrat-come-lately. That's perfectly reasonable...for the future. Maybe they should push in the Democratic convention that future candidates must be registered Democrats for x amount of years? The fact is, though, that the party accepted Bernie as a candidate for 2016 and he should be treated as an equal. So the DU'ers who keep saying he and his supporters have no right to be at the Democratic table because he's not a "real" Democrat are full of hot air. He was accepted as a Democratic Candidate. He's running as a Democratic Candidate. Besides, I think having Bernie running as a Dem candidate is infinitely preferable to the Nader version but if Hillary supporters keep alienating people maybe you'll get your wish.

[Ohioblue22]

52. My candidate doesn't do well when only dems are allow to pick it's party's nom so therefore we need

Let everyone have a say in who the nomination will be

[liberal_at_heart]

58. If you don't allow Independents a say in the primary then don't be surprised

if you don't get the Independent vote in the GE. But if you don't care about who Independents vote for in the GE go right ahead and exclude them.

[Ohioblue22]

60. If you refuse to commit to a party don't be surprised if can't vote in their primary

And BTW in every election 9 to 11% of dems vote other party along with 9 to 11% of Republican voting dem

[liberal_at_heart]

62. So I guess you don't care how Independents vote in the GE. Good to know.

[Ohioblue22]

70. Then I guess they don't care what type of government they get. Bush's administration worked out very

Well for them, apparently .
Of course I care how they vote but unless they join the party they shouldn't be deciding anything for the dems in the dems primary.

[liberal_at_heart]

71. Well then the Democrats shouldn't complain when they don't get the Independent vote in the GE.

Independents don't vote based on identity politics. They don't vote based on party loyalties or the lesser of two evils. Those arguments only work on "some" Democrats.

[Ohioblue22]

73. Then indies shouldn't complain when they lose the right to abortions, or voting , net neutrality,

Or when we go back to a 5-4 conservative scotus. Clean air the I hour work day , weekends , ability to enjoy a union job.
Btw why should they be allowed into a primary of and for democrats

[liberal_at_heart]

74. If they had a say in who wins the primary they may be more inclined to vote Democratic.

If Bernie wins the primary the Democratic party will get more Independent votes in the GE than if Hillary is the nominee.

[Ohioblue22]

75. They can have a say just join the party

[liberal_at_heart]

77. Many have, but some states are either making it very difficult or outright switching

party affiliations either to due to incompetence or corruption. If you just make it a simple and democratic process then more people feel included and more are apt to actually vote rather than stay home due to a system that many feel is rigged.

[jamese777]

84. In 2012 Romney won with Independents

Independents were 29% of the electorate and Romney got 50% of their votes to 45% for Obama and 5% for other candidates.
Obama won the election by nearly 5 million votes because more registered Democrats voted than registered Republicans (38% of the electorate versus 32%).

[liberal_at_heart]

86. Independents are now 42% of the electorate and growing.

And Hillary is no Obama. Trump and Hillary have some of the lowest likability numbers in political history and voter turnout will be very low on both sides.

[jamese777]

89. More People Are Engaged in this election

Voters are politically involved this year to turn out to vote against the candidate they hate more.
For example:
"Hispanic voter registration spikes"
http://thehill.com/latino/277824-hispanics-in-swing-states-create-daunting-electoral-map-for-gop

"So far, turnout in this year’s primaries rivals 2008 record"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/so-far-turnout-in-this-years-primaries-rivals-2008-record/

[liberal_at_heart]

90. And most of that is due to excitement for Bernie. If he doesn't win the primary,

that excitement goes away. Like I said the likability numbers for Hillary and Trump are at historic lows. Many will simply stay home.

[jamese777]

96. No one knows what will happen 6 months from now

I am not "excited" by Bernie or Hillary, but I damn sure will vote in November, against Donald Trump.

Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand.

Democrats Increasing Their Edge in U.S. Party Affiliation
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Forty-six percent of Americans now identify politically as Democrats or say they lean Democratic, while 40% identify as Republican or lean Republican. As recently as October, the parties had equal levels of support.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190421/democrats-increasing-edge-party-affiliation.aspx

This is not Bernie or Hillary support, but political party affiliation.

[liberal_at_heart]

97. We do know they both have low favorability ratings and we know both will fling huge

amounts of mud at each other. It will get very, very ugly and nasty. That is going to turn a lot of people off to the whole damn thing. People will simply tune out and disengage.

[Ohioblue22]

87. Don't wait till the last minute to try to switch

[liberal_at_heart]

88. Ah, blame the voter. That's great. Why not make them bring voter ID with them while

you're at it. And when that suppresses the vote, we can just blame the voter. That really breeds democracy.

[jamese777]

92. 110,000 changed their affiliation in Oregon

"Record 110,000 change voter registrations in time for Oregon primary"
PORTLAND — A whopping 111,000 Oregonians gave themselves a say in the upcoming presidential primary by changing their voter registrations to Democrat or Republican.

Of the 111,000 voters who joined the two major parties this year — more than three-quarters of whom were previously nonaffiliated — the biggest chunk, about 84,800, went to Democrats.

Additionally, 100,900 new Oregon voters were added to the rolls this year through April — up 42 percent from the same time in 2008, when primary turnout was the highest since then 1970s — and nearly half registered with the two major parties, but mostly Democrats.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/05/record_110000_change_voter_reg.html

[liberal_at_heart]

95. Yes, and Bernie is expected to do very well in Oregon. Like I said the excitement is for Bernie.

If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, that excitement goes away.

[Ohioblue22]

99. It's the voter's responsibility to take care of their own registration, isn't it?

[liberal_at_heart]

100. Yes, and it is also the government's and the parties' responsibility to make

voting as accessible as possible. There are states that have same day registration and have open primaries and caucuses. That is the most accessible and the most democratic way to hold a primary or caucus. My state has a mail in ballot primary. In my opinion that is the best way to do it. But if you are going to hold primaries and caucuses at brick and mortar buildings at least make it the most accessible possible.

[Ohioblue22]

102. States having closed Primaries is not them trying to make it harder for you to vote in them . Primar

Should be closed. there is a. Election in 2020 Any indy who wants to vote in the dems primary has 4 years to switch affiliations .They have plenty of time

[liberal_at_heart]

105. Sorry but I believe closed primaries are undemocratic. You will not convince me otherwise.

[Ohioblue22]

122. Of course because you wanted Bernie to win so anything you view as an obstacle to that is bad and

Needs a label so you chose the undemocratic catch-all tag. What you want is a free-for-all where anyone from any party can mess with a party's primary because you perceive this as an advantage to your chosen . Playing with the framework that the rules have set up is democratic.

[MFM008]

53. caucus suck

They are NOT democratic.
Voters are TURNED away after 11PM
It took 2 hours maybe 3
They ran out of ballots and TOTALLY disorganized.
many couldnt vote.
stinks and sucks

we used to primary in WA state, have all day to vote ( till 8).
Paper ballot vote for either D or R.

[Ohioblue22]

57. The sour is strong in these grapes

[wildeyed]

111. They are making whine.

[amborin]

69. KNR

[justiceischeap]

76. How long have we known about the primary season?

It's not like it's a surprise so if Independents wanted to participate in closed primaries, they could easily change their affiliation to do so. No one is stopping them. The only thing stopping them is laziness. As soon as they vote in the primary, they can go back to being an Independent.

And how is it undemocratic to expect people to play using the rules that have been in place since before this primary season.

Of course, there's the other option, instead of complaining about things get involved in your state political system and work towards change but sitting in front of a keyboard and complaining is much more satisfying and much less work.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Take these complaints to the General Election, this is primary time, in fact the

DNC primary, it is not the general election.

[The Second Stone]

80. Super delegates are elected public and party officials

do you want to disenfranchise those voters who voted in public elections for them and in party elections? The idea that they are hereditary aristocrats of some sort who were born into the role is bs. They were elected and have worked for the party. Who are you to say that the elected superdelegates shouldn't have a vote?

I'm really surprised at the number of people on the DU who oppose representative elections of all sort and majority votes of all sorts. I call bs.

[jamese777]

83. A Political Party is a private entity

As a registered Democrat, I like the idea of having a variety of methods to select the party's nominee.
Caucuses tell us who appeals to the most ardent and dedicated members of the base. Closed primaries tell us who appeals to the party's rank and file. Open primaries tell us about canddates' ability to appeal to other voting blocs, particularly independents. Super-delegates tell us who elected officials and party officers favor. All those voting blocs are important in winning a national election. No national party should put all its eggs in one basket and none of them do.

[DesertRat]

85. I agree

And well said.

[Henhouse]

94. Plus... Do the people pushing for change want the DNC to force the states into one-size-fits all..

Each state gets to choose their own system. I know the people pushing for changing the current Democratic Party's nomination process aren't suggesting the party forces each state to use the same system.

I'm in open primary South Carolina and I don't want the DNC messing with our process.

[randome]

91. If Conservatives or Independents want to join the Democratic party, do so.

Otherwise, they need to shut up or start their own party. I'm really, really tired of people thinking that Independents have the right to interfere in a specific party platform. You do not. Join the party or sit it out like the wallflowers they want to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[moriah]

98. I don't want self-identified Republicans ratfucking us -- my only reason for..

... really preferring at least primaries where people who are declared Republicans do not have access to the Democratic Party Primaries.

The Superdelegates are there to prevent what Cruz and K-whatever's not dropping out would have caused the GOP -- multiple ballots. If one person clinches it on pledged delegates alone, they're the clear winner and our Superdelegates always vote with them as a show of uniformity. Pretty convention speeches, etc.

In 2008, while I don't think any official rules changed, even Nancy Pelosi said that Superdelegates overturning the will of the voters when one has more pledged delegates than the other was a bad thing -- theoretically creating a tradition of, in close primaries, seeing what the overall results would be if they split in half, the loser conceding in an effort at uniting the Party, and just in case there might be rebel delegates who tried to advocate for Hillary, having her call for the nomination by acclamation after Hawaii and Illinois both got to have their turn (Obama's home states), instead of one or the other passing to be the state later on that delivers the final votes needed.

Basically, Hillary and Obama were classy after the fight for the votes were over, and worked to together defeat McCain. Because Hillary had done it once before, I wasn't worried when DU looked to be mostly Sanders supporters early on that if she was in the same position again, she would do the same thing. I can't see how Bernie can do anything else, after arguing against Superdelegates early on, if the rest of the voting doesn't go his way. But there's a lot more voters left now compared to 2008 at this same time, and Bernie hsd to make sure his supporters knew he wasn't giving up on THEM.

So let the candidates campaign, let the people vote, we still have states to go and months to go before the Primary officially sleeps.

As for caucuses, since they largely went in Bernie's favor and I am a Hillary supporter, I don't want to comment much on because it might seem biased. I would like to see the county parties perhaps setting up voter discussion groups in the days before an actual primary, to preserve the "get to know and talk with your neighbors" aspect, if turnout in caucus states overwhelms the system in place, as it has in many states this year.

But I firmly believe that there must be a way not to totally disenfranchise a religious group by having an election (primary or caucus) on a Friday after sunset, Saturday or Sunday without provisions for absentee voting for those who are inconvenienced due to those dates being traditional dates of worship -- and that every employer must accept a request to go vote on an election day. Since my religion doesn't restrict activities and we Pagans schedule our events on weekends, too, because of work.... it's more advocacy for others.

[insta8er]

101. Following this board, the next fad is only women of 50 and up will be allowed to vote.

[wildeyed]

106. Nah, they just vote in far greater numbers

than the general population. Also, in my personal experience, they do most of the volunteer work required to make the Democratic Party run.

I know! Don't vote in the GE! That'll teach 'em whoes boss

[Jack Bone]

103. When the GOP disenfranchises them this Fall..

They're gonna scream bloody murder...throw lawsuits around.


My Mama always said.."Karma's a Bitch"

Or in the immortal words of Rev. Wright...
"the chickens have come home to roost!"

[OnionPatch]

107. Seems to me like

the party should change its name. The "super delegate" thing especially is appalling. That a group of elitists have most of the control of the party feels decidedly un-democratic to me, no matter how they try to justify it.

[grasswire]

109. There is a de facto poll tax in some states.

It's called ID. In my state, an ID costs about $45, and the birth cert necessary to get the ID costs even more.

That's a poll tax.

[wildeyed]

110. You and I disagree on what the term

"disenfranchise" actually represents. Conflating rules you don't like in a political party's primary with Jim Crow is an example of that.


FYI, the poll tax has already been reinstated. It's called voter ID now.

[Broward]

117. What's next? Hillary is soliciting Bush donors.

[silvershadow]

121. Yes. Already ongoing. nt