Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

My man, who exactly do you think the Superdelegates influenced? Are you really trying to imply that average voter even knows that Superdelegates even existed before this race started? That they made it a priority to check delegate totals and then since Clinton was ahead just vote for her? If this was a race between two no name Democrats you might have a case. The problem is that anyone and everyone knows and has formed an opinion on Clinton before this whole thing started. The fact that she was Hillary Clinton had 99% more to do with her getting votes(or not) than any type of superdelegate lead.

Hell even most of the Bernie supporters that I've seen bitching and moaning about Superdelegates seems to only have found out about them midway through the primary process. Which coincided with South Carolina and the huge mountain he would have to climb in pledged delegates. There are so many hills to make make a point on and this is the one you choose to waste your breath on? That superdelegates affected votes among the average voter with HILLARY CLINTON in the Primary Race for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? Come on...

I argued with a dude on Twitter for a bit. He just wouldn't let go of the idea that the effect the superdelegates had was "causing the media to portray Hillary as a sure thing which aided in her successes"

He eventually blocked me

 

[Dreams-Visions]

It's taking so long for people to accept that Bernie's lost.

It's going to take much longer for people to accept that was because people didn't vote for him.

Bernie's not losing because of super delegates. Bernie's not losing because of the "establishment". Bernie's not losing because Bill Clinton is body-blocking voters at polls. Bernie's not losing because of coin tosses. Bernie's not losing because of voter disenfranchisement that Hillary is totally behind. Bernie's not losing because of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Bernie's not losing because "southern" people are "low-information" voters. Bernie's not losing because "high-information" voters got blindsided by voter registration/party affiliation deadlines.

Bernie is losing because Facebook likes are not real-life votes. Bernie is losing because it's far easier to scream about political revolutions and drown out discussion on the internet than it is to convince actual voters why they should vote for him. Bernie is losing because college-aged kids are not a reliable voting bloc. Bernie is losing because he never expanded his support beyond that voting bloc. Bernie is losing because his campaign practically ceded delegate-rich states like Texas. Bernie is losing because low-turnout caucus states aren't the majority of state primaries. Bernie is losing because people want Hillary instead.

But maybe that last one is the real issue here? Maybe people just can't understand why Hillary is winning? It can't be because voters are actually voting for her. It's because she's stealing delegates! It's because the corrupt establishment is behind her! It's because... it's because...

It's because people like her, want her to be president, and are voting for her. And their votes count just as much as anyone else's, whether or not they're "from the south". If you take issue with that, or just plain can't believe it, get over yourself.

You are a good man writing good posts and you should feel good about yourself.

Well stated.

 

[_woLf]

It's taking so long for people to accept that Bernie's lost.

It's going to take much longer for people to accept that was because people didn't vote for him.

Bernie's not losing because of super delegates. Bernie's not losing because of the "establishment". Bernie's not losing because Bill Clinton is body-blocking voters at polls. Bernie's not losing because of coin tosses. Bernie's not losing because of voter disenfranchisement that Hillary is totally behind. Bernie's not losing because of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Bernie's not losing because "southern" people are "low-information" voters. Bernie's not losing because "high-information" voters got blindsided by voter registration/party affiliation deadlines.

Bernie is losing because Facebook likes are not real-life votes. Bernie is losing because it's far easier to scream about political revolutions and drown out discussion on the internet than it is to convince actual voters why they should vote for him. Bernie is losing because college-aged kids are not a reliable voting bloc. Bernie is losing because he never expanded his support beyond that voting bloc. Bernie is losing because his campaign practically ceded delegate-rich states like Texas. Bernie is losing because low-turnout caucus states aren't the majority of state primaries. Bernie is losing because people want Hillary instead.

But maybe that last one is the real issue here? Maybe people just can't understand why Hillary is winning? It can't be because voters are actually voting for her. It's because she's stealing delegates! It's because the corrupt establishment is behind her! It's because... it's because...

It's because people like her, want her to be president, and are voting for her. And their votes count just as much as anyone else's, whether or not they're "from the south". If you take issue with that, or just plain can't believe it, get over yourself.

This guy gets it.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's taking so long for people to accept that Bernie's lost.

It's going to take much longer for people to accept that was because people didn't vote for him.

Bernie's not losing because of super delegates. Bernie's not losing because of the "establishment". Bernie's not losing because Bill Clinton is body-blocking voters at polls. Bernie's not losing because of coin tosses. Bernie's not losing because of voter disenfranchisement that Hillary is totally behind. Bernie's not losing because of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Bernie's not losing because "southern" people are "low-information" voters. Bernie's not losing because "high-information" voters got blindsided by voter registration/party affiliation deadlines.

Bernie is losing because Facebook likes are not real-life votes. Bernie is losing because it's far easier to scream about political revolutions and drown out discussion on the internet than it is to convince actual voters why they should vote for him. Bernie is losing because college-aged kids are not a reliable voting bloc. Bernie is losing because he never expanded his support beyond that voting bloc. Bernie is losing because his campaign practically ceded delegate-rich states like Texas. Bernie is losing because low-turnout caucus states aren't the majority of state primaries. Bernie is losing because people want Hillary instead.

But maybe that last one is the real issue here? Maybe people just can't understand why Hillary is winning? It can't be because voters are actually voting for her. It's because she's stealing delegates! It's because the corrupt establishment is behind her! It's because... it's because...

It's because people like her, want her to be president, and are voting for her. And their votes count just as much as anyone else's, whether or not they're "from the south". If you take issue with that, or just plain can't believe it, get over yourself.

Just wanted to reiterate this is a great post.

 

[noshten]

I completely dispute and, quite frankly, question the political know-how of anyone who was influenced by a few sites using that total instead of just the pledged one. Because if you stay home for something that is pretty damn easy to Google (and given his key demographics, that isn't asking a lot of his supporters), then you weren't interested to begin with.

Thankfully, I don't believe most Bernie supporters are idiots. Most are reasonable (that I've met), and they understand how political activity should go, and how math works. Good people.

I agree with you but let me make a distinction. I think when you are talking about people who get the majority of information and fact checking done online you are correct. When people bring it up it's mainly what we have come to expect from mainstream media. For people passively following the election it might be news there is some sort of race in the Democratic side - since they might just see Clinton 700 in-front and figure this is long over. It's very easy to subliminally effect how engaged a person is politically. Online social media drives the narrative allowing individuals to have more control over what is news depending on their interests and they are able to get far more information about their interests. All of the sudden you see rapid changes in attitudes on a variety of subjects - it's a change of how we consume information in the last decades and how exponentially it starts changing the views of people. In a decade hopefully we will see this trend continue but I'm very worried about what is happening right now. I'm honestly horrified we can't reverse some of the processes we have put in motion and how we are unprepared to deal with the consequences. Thankfully there is no reason to stress on such a subject beyond that.

 

[Poodlestrike]

You can't change the rules in the middle of a contest unfortunately -- however after the primary season is over we should not let our outrage over this subside

As for me -- I'll be traveling a few hours and doing everything I can to support Tim Canova and defeat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz -- she's in a deep-blue district and I believe there is enough outrage against her and the DNC to assure that she loses her seat

Don't worry about Debbie though -- If she loses she'll be able to land a cushy job as a lobbyist

You know that she'll probably still be the DNC chair even if she loses, right?

Like she doesn't have to be a sitting official. If they ditch her, they'll ditch her regardless of whether or not she's still holding her seat.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Who is saying that?

Judging by the posts in PoliGAF following the results of EVERY Caucus, most of the people in there. It's a flurry of posts about why Caucuses are stupid and we might as well ignore the results. A lot of them are the same people who talk about Sanders dropping out "for the good of the party" and are so adamant that the Democrats need party unity, but ignore the fact that the Party is the one who decided to run Caucuses in those states anyway.

 

[ivysaur12]

Judging by the posts in PoliGAF following the results of EVERY Caucus, most of the people in there. It's a flurry of posts about why Caucuses are stupid and we might as well ignore the results.

I mean, caucuses are stupid, but that doesn't have anything to do with the people who vote in caucuses? I don't really understand what you even mean -- you're accusing a group of people of saying (or implying) that "Democrats in Caucus States somehow aren't as important." Who is saying that because someone voted in a caucus their vote isn't important?

Criticism of the system of caucuses is completely different than criticism of the voters who participate in them.

 

[entremet]

Could Bernie get the nomination or it is mathematically impossible?

 

[neurosisxeno]

Criticism of the system of caucuses is completely different than criticism of the voters who participate in them.

Hasn't stopped people from posting the RCP "Vote Totals" as gospel truth and proudly claiming as fact Hillary Clinton is almost 3m votes ahead in the popular vote!

...if you don't count any votes in Caucuses.

Could Bernie get the nomination or it is mathematically impossible?

It would take a complete collapse of the Clinton campaign. Bill would have to go full Michael Richards and Hillary would have to have a screaming match with some disabled people for her to lose enough support for Sanders to win.

 

[ivysaur12]

Could Bernie get the nomination or it is mathematically impossible?

It's not technically impossible. But in reality, given the states left, yes. It's as close to impossible as you can get in American politics.

 

[Matt]

It's entirely possible. We just have no way of knowing. I'm just not a fan of the fact that I've seen people say Hillary is "dominating" the Popular Vote, when the only numbers we have completely ignore almost a dozen contests. If Sanders' supporters deserve criticism for not "caring" about Democratic voters in Southern States, Clinton's deserve equal criticism for saying (at the very least implying) Democrats in Caucus States somehow aren't as important.

No, it's not possible. Caucus turnout is incredibly small. Their numbers do not make any substantive difference. And I'm telling you that as a fact.

 

[metalslimer]

Hasn't stopped people from posting the RCP "Vote Totals" as gospel truth and proudly claiming as fact Hillary Clinton is almost 3m votes ahead in the popular vote!

...if you don't count any votes in Caucuses.



It would take a complete collapse of the Clinton campaign. Bill would have to go full Michael Richards and Hillary would have to have a screaming match with some disabled people for her to lose enough support for Sanders to win.

Exactly how many people do you think even show up to caucuses? THere is a reason it is labeled as extremely undemocratic compared to primaries

 

[NeoXChaos]

I read from some guy on twitter that the caucus result on the popular vote in 08 was a negligent 0.1-0.2 if counted.

 

[Mael]

How can anyone defend Caucuses when they stifle turnout and are undemocratic by design?

 

[noshten]

Most Bernie supporters would prefer open primaries, open primaries don't have coin tosses

Spoiler

 

[ivysaur12]

Hasn't stopped people from posting the RCP "Vote Totals" as gospel truth and proudly claiming as fact Hillary Clinton is almost 3m votes ahead in the popular vote!

...if you don't count any votes in Caucuses.

You're right that it's not complete information, but I also would say that:

1) It's an insurmountable lead even if turnout in caucus states were equal to those in primaries

2) We know that primaries are extremely low-turnout affairs

Only 5,000 people voted in the Wyoming Caucus. Only 10,617 turned out for the Alaska Caucus. Only 33,716 voted in the Hawaii Caucus. In the biggest caucus state, only 230,000 voted in all of Washington (that's less than voted in Cook County in the primary!!)

These numbers do not really affect the lead, nor do I think anyone is saying (or implying) that "Democratic voters in caucus states don't matter." There just aren't a lot of people who caucus.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

Could Bernie get the nomination or it is mathematically impossible?

Literally the only hope he has is if Hillary is arrested.

 

[neurosisxeno]

How can anyone defend Caucuses when they stifle turnout and are undemocratic by design?

That's what the party chose to do in those states. Party Unity 2016, support their decisions! But ideally...

Most Bernie supporters would prefer open primaries, open primaries don't have coin tosses

Spoiler

Tongue-in-cheek joke aside, I agree. I think everything should be an open primary. The main argument against that is "why should outsiders vote for the Democrats\Republican nominee?" To which I would say, because more votes for Democrats\Republicans is exactly what they want in the General. If Sanders crushes Clinton among Independents in Open Primaries, do you think for some odd reason they are going to flip and vote for Trump\Cruz\Rubio\Gilmore\Reagan's Ghost if Sanders gets the nomination? That would be insane and completely illogical.

These numbers do not really affect the lead, nor do I think anyone is saying (or implying) that "Democratic voters in caucus states don't matter." There just aren't a lot of people who caucus.

That's true, but you can't say you don't like Caucuses because they suppress voters, but also be against Open Primaries imo. I haven't denied Hillary isn't leading the Popular Vote, I just don't think it's as massive as people are claiming because we don't have any way of knowing what the vote totals for Caucuses are.

 

[ivysaur12]

Maine Dem Caucus: 47,000
Nevada Dem Caucus: 84,000

These are not big numbers. I believe for states, this is 410,333 total, unless I'm missing a state. That isn't Iowa.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Literally the only hope he has is if Hillary is arrested.

Suddenly thousands of facebook "liberals" hope Hilary goes to jail for emails and Benghazi.

 

[davepoobond]

Suddenly thousands of facebook "liberals" hope Hilary goes to jail for emails and Benghazi.

I have Facebook friends salivating at the potential of Clinton being implicated in the panama papers. "This could be it!"

 

[shintoki]

Literally the only hope he has is if Hillary is arrested.

How many pounds of cocaine needs to be planted?

Serious question

 

[noshten]

Tongue-in-cheek joke aside, I agree. I think everything should be an open primary. The main argument against that is "why should outsiders vote for the Democrats\Republican nominee?" To which I would say, because more votes for Democrats\Republicans is exactly what they want in the General. If Sanders crushes Clinton among Independents in Open Primaries, do you think for some odd reason they are going to flip and vote for Trump\Cruz\Rubio\Gilmore\Reagan's Ghost if Sanders gets the nomination? That would be insane and completely illogical.

Even semi-closed is fine those 5% Republicans are probably voting Hillary/Bernie in a general they know 2016 is a lost cause.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Even semi-closed is fine those 5% Republicans are probably voting Hillary/Bernie in a general they know 2016 is a lost cause.

We must stop Voter Suppression by switching to Closed Primaries that require you to register with a party 9 months before the primary!

Spoiler

/s

 

[Hazmat]

Suddenly thousands of facebook "liberals" hope Hilary goes to jail for emails and Benghazi.

Suddenly?

 

[ivysaur12]

That's true, but you can't say you don't like Caucuses because they suppress voters, but also be against Open Primaries imo.

I think those are different arguments with different pros and cons.

I think that there are some Clinton supporters that prefer Closed Primaries because Clinton does better with registered Dems (because young people are generally independent). In the abstract, I think that it's okay for political parties to have their leader chosen by their own members because they are also private organizations. I also think it is better to have more people registered for the Democratic party if this promotes more people joining the party because it makes them easier to target in midterms to vote.

I would say that, in practice, things like the October cutoff for registration change in NY is stupid and draconian. Open Primaries may also give more small-d-democratic legitimacy to the eventual party leader, which probably holds more water in the end. The more people voting for their nominee, the better. Semi-closed or Semi-open is probably a good compromise between legitimate points.

But also, it's much easier to switch your registration than to wait 3-hours in line to caucus. So in terms of levels of disenfranchisement in the primary process, caucuses are some of the worst (behind party conventions).

 

[Matt]

We must stop Voter Suppression by switching to Closed Primaries that require you to register with a party 9 months before the primary!

Spoiler

/s

I actually have no problem with closed primaries. It's the Democratic Party picking their candidate for President, why should they be open to non-party members?

 

[Ri'Orius]

Tongue-in-cheek joke aside, I agree. I think everything should be an open primary. The main argument against that is "why should outsiders vote for the Democrats\Republican nominee?" To which I would say, because more votes for Democrats\Republicans is exactly what they want in the General. If Sanders crushes Clinton among Independents in Open Primaries, do you think for some odd reason they are going to flip and vote for Trump\Cruz\Rubio\Gilmore\Reagan's Ghost if Sanders gets the nomination? That would be insane and completely illogical.

Eh, in today's political climate I wouldn't be surprised to see people voting for the weakest candidate in their opponent's primary in hopes of helping "their team" win.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I think that there are some Clinton supporters that prefer Closed Primaries because Clinton does better with registered Dems (because young people are generally independent). In the abstract, I think that it's okay for political parties to have their leader chosen by their own members because they are also private organizations. I also think it is better to have more people registered for the Democratic party if this promotes more people joining the party because it makes them easier to target in midterms to vote.

Private organizations that make a lot of states and even the federal government foot the bill quite frequently. If they want the party to chose their own nominee why bother having people even vote? The problem with Democrats in the mid-terms is that their base doesn't show up to vote like Republicans. So perpetuating a system that disenfranchises the coming generations of voters that overwhelmingly vote Democrat probably does nothing to help this.

I would say that, in practice, things like the October cutoff for registration change in NY is stupid and draconian. Open Primaries may also give more small-d-democratic legitimacy to the eventual party leader, which probably holds more water in the end. The more people voting for their nominee, the better. Semi-closed or Semi-open is probably a good compromise between legitimate points.

But also, it's much easier to switch your registration than to wait 3-hours in line to caucus. So in terms of levels of disenfranchisement in the primary process, caucuses are some of the worst (behind party conventions).

I'm okay with almost all of this. I don't love the Caucus system because it is clearly undemocratic. But I think the Democratic Party needs to do more to get people to vote in their primaries\elections outside of the General Election every 4 years. Allow people to switch party affiliation day-of, there's no real argument against it considering often candidates don't start focusing on a state until the week leading up to its Primary with the exception of Iowa and NH.

I actually have no problem with closed primaries. It's the Democratic Party picking their candidate for President, why should they be open to non-party members?

Primaries are a means to an end, the ultimate goal is to win the Presidency--so why would you disenfranchise a bunch of Independents who can vote for either side in the General? As Ivy said, a lot of younger people identify as Independent for various reasons, but odds are they will vote Democrat, why shouldn't they have a say in choosing the Democratic Parties nominee? It continues a stupid cycle, and basically serves to protect the Democratic Party from shifting at all.

Eh, in today's political climate I wouldn't be surprised to see people voting for the weakest candidate in their opponent's primary in hopes of helping "their team" win.

That is the only major argument against, but seriously, how often do you think that really happens? It's hard enough to get people to vote in general--look at tanking turnout in 2010 and 2014 as a prime example--so do you really think people would work so hard to sabotage the other party? I highly doubt it.

 

[ivysaur12]

Private organizations that make a lot of states and even the federal government foot the bill quite frequently. If they want the party to chose their own nominee why bother having people even vote? The problem with Democrats in the mid-terms is that their base doesn't show up to vote like Republicans. So perpetuating a system that disenfranchises the coming generations of voters that overwhelmingly vote Democrat probably does nothing to help this.



I'm okay with almost all of this. I don't love the Caucus system because it is clearly undemocratic. But I think the Democratic Party needs to do more to get people to vote in their primaries\elections outside of the General Election every 4 years. Allow people to switch party affiliation day-of, there's no real argument against it considering often candidates don't start focusing on a state until the week leading up to its Primary with the exception of Iowa and NH.

Well, I don't really love the idea of Republicans choosing the Democratic nominee for president, so I would much prefer a semi-open or semi-closed system that allows same-day voter registration and change and a completely abolishment of the caucus system.

It's extremely likely less than half a million people have voted in the Democratic caucuses this year, half of that coming from Washington state.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

Suddenly thousands of facebook "liberals" hope Hilary goes to jail for emails and Benghazi.

It has been kinda weird watching a close pro Bernie friend of mine go from "Benghazi and the e-mail shit are just manufactured controversies by GOP to derail Hillary's campaign!" to "Who knows what the FBI will find..."

 

[Mully]

The superdelegate system was put in place to stop grass roots campaigns from tearing a party apart and nominating candidates that are unelectable during a general election. We're seeing why such a system is needed in a representative democracy right now with the GOP primary race.

It is correct that polls show Sanders would win the general if he wins the Democratic party nomination, but let's remember that Hillary has a large lead in the popular vote among primary voters. The system is not rigged. Voters want her more than Sanders. That notion may vary sometimes like it has in Wyoming, but this system was put in place to ensure that a candidate like Trump does not get the nomination.

 

[breadtruck]

Frankly I cant see why anyone would feel like their vote counts anymore.

"Popular vote" not matching who the "delegates vote for" as state's results are posted has been something that always bewildered me ever since I began to "exercise my right to vote."

 

[Clefargle]

I argued with a dude on Twitter for a bit. He just wouldn't let go of the idea that the effect the superdelegates had was "causing the media to portray Hillary as a sure thing which aided in her successes"

He eventually blocked me

Endorsements are votes too my friend

 

[EchoChamber]

American politics confuse me so much.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

I really don't agree with the idea that the current GOP dumpster fire situation would have been avoidable or toned down if they had a super delegate system.
In fact, I feel like it would just throw oil on the fire. If democrats and independents are turning this damn stupid over super delegates I can't imagine what Trump and his supporters would be doing in the same situation.

 

[TyrantII]

Hasn't stopped people from posting the RCP "Vote Totals" as gospel truth and proudly claiming as fact Hillary Clinton is almost 3m votes ahead in the popular vote!

...if you don't count any votes in Caucuses.

It's counting cacuses. That's part of the problem with them; high intensity, low numbers.

Granted primary turn out is lame in both, but cacusing is a completely different level of annoying low turnout.

 

[Mr. RPG]

American politics confuse me so much.

Don't worry about it. Judging by this thread, everyone seems confused.

 

[BlastProcessing]

How can anyone defend Caucuses when they stifle turnout and are undemocratic by design?

The main defense for Caucuses is twofold. First they are much cheaper to hold. Second is that they level the playing field a bit, allowing less funded challengers to better compete with candidate's with larger war chests.

I can see an argument that having early states like Iowa have Caucuses is a sensible way to start the process. It allows campaigns to get their feet under them without imediately forcing them to scale up.

 

[Balphon]

Frankly I cant see why anyone would feel like their vote counts anymore.

"Popular vote" not matching who the "delegates vote for" as state's results are posted has been something that always bewildered me ever since I began to "exercise my right to vote."

Sanders has a higher proportion of the pledged delegates than he does actual votes.

Which makes this whole conversation slightly surreal.

 

[Mael]

The main defense for Caucuses is twofold. First they are much cheaper to hold. Second is that they level the playing field a bit, allowing less funded challengers to better compete with candidate's with larger war chests.

I can see an argument that having early states like Iowa have Caucuses is a sensible way to start the process. It allows campaigns to get their feet under them without imediately forcing them to scale up.

The cost argument is the only one argument worth a damn.
Caucuses reduce participants so much that a small dedicated number of voters can basically disproportionately effect the election.
It's marginally better than an employee knowing potential employer know who you voted for.
It's a marginally more open type of election than backdoor meeting with local party federation.

Closed primary are absolutely better.
If affiliated voters pay a fee to be part of the party they absolutely should be the ones to decide who they get to support and do the heavy lifting for.
Why the hell should unrelated people who don't even believe that the party represent their position gets to choose the candidate anyway?
Might as well ask foreigners their opinion on how the party gets to evolve in the future!

 

[neurosisxeno]

Closed primary are absolutely better.
If affiliated voters pay a fee to be part of the party they absolutely should be the ones to decide who they get to support and do the heavy lifting for.
Why the hell should unrelated people who don't even believe that the party represent their position gets to choose the candidate anyway?
Might as well ask foreigners their opinion on how the party gets to evolve in the future!

So you're an advocate of what equates to a poll tax? That's super Democratic. As for why we should allow outsiders to make decisions within the party, probably because something like 30% of the country identifies as Independent, but regularly Democrats win when turnout is higher. Putting up barriers between those Independents and the Democratic Party just sours them to the party.

The simple fact is the Democrats have only been able to win most often because they welcome new and differing opinions into the fold. If you want to see what putting party over policy gets you, check out what the GOP is up to. They did everything they could to court various groups and made certain policy ideas core positions for their party, and it's now basically hamstrung them into being unable to govern. Blind faith in the party also almost always leads to systemic corruption. Political parties should welcome these so called outsiders into the fold and encourage them to show up whenever possible to increase their chances of winning--maybe if they did Democrats wouldn't keep getting slaughtered in mid-terms.

 

[MikeDown]

Leave it to the Democratic Party to fuck over the democratic process.

 

[BigJonsson]

So you're an advocate of what equates to a poll tax? That's super Democratic. As for why we should allow outsiders to make decisions within the party, probably because something like 30% of the country identifies as Independent, but regularly Democrats win when turnout is higher. Putting up barriers between those Independents and the Democratic Party just sours them to the party.

The simple fact is the Democrats have only been able to win most often because they welcome new and differing opinions into the fold. If you want to see what putting party over policy gets you, check out what the GOP is up to. They did everything they could to court various groups and made certain policy ideas core positions for their party, and it's now basically hamstrung them into being unable to govern. Blind faith in the party also almost always leads to systemic corruption. Political parties should welcome these so called outsiders into the fold and encourage them to show up whenever possible to increase their chances of winning--maybe if they did Democrats wouldn't keep getting slaughtered in mid-terms.

Man, you'd hate how we pick party leaders in Canada (and a lot of other countries).....

 

[Mael]

So you're an advocate of what equates to a poll tax? That's super Democratic. As for why we should allow outsiders to make decisions within the party, probably because something like 30% of the country identifies as Independent, but regularly Democrats win when turnout is higher. Putting up barriers between those Independents and the Democratic Party just sours them to the party.

Even if only elected official voted it still would be better than Caucuses.
Although my point wasn't clear.
If the affiliation to a party is basically a membership where you have to pay to be part of it in 1 way or another, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't get to decide who gets to represent them in the election.
To make an analogy, a CEO is chosen by the shareholders and not by competitors.
Open primary is pretty much asking for people who do not share your values to have a say in how your values are going to be represented.
Independents and Republicans don't get a say in the day to day running of the Dem party anyway, why should they have a say in the who gets to represent the Dems in a presidential election?
They have their say in the actual election anyway.

The simple fact is the Democrats have only been able to win most often because they welcome new and differing opinions into the fold. If you want to see what putting party over policy gets you, check out what the GOP is up to. They did everything they could to court various groups and made certain policy ideas core positions for their party, and it's now basically hamstrung them into being unable to govern. Blind faith in the party also almost always leads to systemic corruption. Political parties should welcome these so called outsiders into the fold and encourage them to show up whenever possible to increase their chances of winning--maybe if they did Democrats wouldn't keep getting slaughtered in mid-terms.

Bringing outsiders into the fold is absolutely how the party should be run.
After all the whole point of the party is to push common values.
The GOP's downfall is pretty much that it has no value worth defending anyway, that's pretty much why it's getting coopted by a populist billionaire after all.
The base doesn't care about the values of the GOP, they've been screwed over thanks to these values anyway and it's clearly not working for them.
Dems getting slaughtered in mid-terms has actually more to do with failure to defend the values they're pushing than getting too snobbish with outsiders (as well as presidency being theirs too).

And all that is still better than Caucuses.

Man, you'd hate how we pick party leaders in Canada (and a lot of other countries).....

Open primaries are pretty much a US curiosity compared to the rest of the democracies.

 

[Cipherr]

Hasn't stopped people from posting the RCP "Vote Totals" as gospel truth and proudly claiming as fact Hillary Clinton is almost 3m votes ahead in the popular vote!

...if you don't count any votes in Caucuses.

Thats because they are low turnout... I mean:

Maine Dem Caucus: 47,000
Nevada Dem Caucus: 84,000

These are not big numbers. I believe for states, this is 410,333 total, unless I'm missing a state. That isn't Iowa.

Would it make you feel better to lower the ~3m lead in Hillarys pop vote lead to ~2m or ~1.5m? I have no problem doing that, but I think you would be missing the point of why people post that number in the first place. It's not about the 'down the the voter' accuracy of it; it's to illustrate that she is winning the pop vote total period invalidating the 'will of the people' position that's been pushed.

and basically serves to protect the Democratic Party from shifting at all.

I mentally shut down when I see someone insinuate this. I have watched the Democratic party shift very far left on countless progressive issues since my teenage years. I am in no way buying nor anywhere near convinced that the party is stagnated and has 'stopped shifting'. Im calling for proof of that claim, straight up.

 

[B-Dubs]

I mentally shut down when I see someone insinuate this. I have watched the Democratic party shift very far left on countless progressive issues since my teenage years. I am in no way buying nor anywhere near convinced that the party is stagnated and has 'stopped shifting'. Im calling for proof of that claim, straight up.

Seriously, the party and the country as a whole have done a hard shift to the left since the mid-2000's. Maybe not enough for some people, but it's there. No way you can argue the party or the nation has stagnated.

 

[ivysaur12]

Thats because they are low turnout... I mean:




Would it make you feel better to lower the ~3m lead in Hillarys pop vote lead to ~2m or ~1.5m? I have no problem doing that, but I think you would be missing the point of why people post that number in the first place. It's not about the 'down the the voter' accuracy of it; it's to illustrate that she is winning the pop vote total period invalidating the 'will of the people' position that's been pushed.




I mentally shut down when I see someone insinuate this. I have watched the Democratic party shift very far left on countless progressive issues since my teenage years. I am in no way buying nor anywhere near convinced that the party is stagnated and has 'stopped shifting'. Im calling for proof of that claim, straight up.

It's very likely that the caucus vote total is less than 500k. Even if Bernie won every vote (he didn't), Hillary would be up 2.5 million versus 3. Yay?

 

[darkstar0155]

Seriously, the party and the country as a whole have done a hard shift to the left since the mid-2000's. Maybe not enough for some people, but it's there. No way you can argue the party or the nation has stagnated.

For sure. It's actually sorta surprising (although explainable) that it happened so fast. From the start of bush Jr to now a huge shift in public opinion has happened. Gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, support for Marijuana legalization, etc etc