Arnold's idea?

One primary for everyone and the top two votes getters - even if the same party - then compete in the general.

This, really, removes fringe candidates from both the left and the right. This is why Diane Feinstein will stay in the senate.

We need that knowledge & position of power to maneuver through the Trump Impeachment trial & vote.

I really want to know we have as many Senators as possible & her years of witnessing the GOP callous way of manipulating others, will be of immesurable value.

Feinstein's position in the Senate is a huge plus for bringing about the impeachment of Trump.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-feinstein-trump-good-president-20171104-htmlstory.html

The words

Fifty-five minutes into the conversation, Feinstein was asked when GOP leaders would turn against Trump and either urge him to resign or pursue impeachment. She replied with these 121 words. Her critics have boiled that statement down to six.

“Well, um, I’d really rather not comment. However, I think you all know impeachment and the House brings the impeachment and then the Senate sits as a court and votes. At the end there is a trial in front of the Senate. I’ve kind of been there done that. It’s not the greatest thing in the world. That’s for sure.” “Look, this man is going to be president, most likely for the rest of this term. I just hope he has the ability to learn, and to change. And if he does, he can be a good president. And that’s my hope. I have my own personal feelings about it.”

The audience groaned.

“Yeah, I understand how you feel,” Feinstein responded. “I understand how you feel.”

Later, she was asked why the Democratic message seemed muted compared with all the airtime Trump gets. This was just after the flooding in Houston. Feinstein urged the crowd to give Trump latitude in his early tenure. But that call for “patience” was followed by words marked by skepticism.

“This man is president of the United States. That’s unlike any other job out there, by far, has enormous powers. And I think what’s happened is that he has shown several holes in himself. And I think the press has picked this up and really sees what’s been happening, and following it very closely. I was listening to his comments in Texas and generally the press wouldn’t run comments at an emergency — they didn’t in the big earthquake or the fire, the president came out and that wasn’t really run. But this is his first big American emergency and I think, I think we have to have some patience. I do,” Feinstein said.

“I mean, it’s eight months into the tenure of the presidency and it’s buffeted by being rent asunder. It really is,” she went on. “And we’ll have to see if he can forget himself and his feeling about himself enough to be able to really have the kind of empathy and the kind of direction that this country needs. And if it doesn’t happen, there are things that could happen that I don’t think it’d be responsible for me to begin to speak about here.”

snip


I will probably end up voting for her, but I am looking carefully at Kevin de León and Alison Hartson.

TWO gop and NO dem candidates if they arent careful.

where Republicans lost all state offices in the 90s and, I think, for all practical purposes, it is a one party government.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/california-democrats-fear-nightmare-midterms-2018-346948


nope nope

and beat some sense into them.

With so many candidates, even in closed primaries Democrats will lose. Remember, Orange County has been the most, or one of the most, conservative, wealthy districts. But Hillary did carry it.

Many hope to pounce on these members, like Mimi Walters, for voting for the tax "reform" even though homeowners in her district are the major losers.

Let's hope that most will get some sense. I am not sure that the head of the DNC or the other organizations can convince them to drop for the sake of the country.

they always hurt the only party standing that is defending the country.

It might become true.

Nevermind that the Republicans have been swept out of the state since it's inception, the threat must be repeated again and again! For what reason?

Your nightmare is not reality. You seem to only want to stifle any and all discussion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/california-democrats-fear-nightmare-midterms-2018-346948

You're pretending that this has only one factor, but it doesn't. These are heavy red districts in CA, which has very few of them. We should focus on other states that we have chances to pick up real gains, rather than shutting down any and all discussion of the bluest state in the union.

I really wonder about your motives, you have been acting not very democratic in these posts. Shutting down discussion of where we should go as a party, questioning the loyalty of anyone who even thinks "can we do better?" Hammering life-long, deep blue areas. I thought we were trying to stop fascism, not emulate it.

It is interesting that all I have done is put forward ideas, pleas that people listen to them, but you have openly called me a fascist, twice.

Nah, you are parroting a story you read and think is gospel, while shutting down any and all discussion.

You have actually said that until some untold point in the future that discussions about the party CANNOT happen.

That's not progressive democratic thinking its...

Can you answer me that?

....most are doing it civilly without being derogatory or insulting.

California.

Just sayin.

The Billionaires will shovel money to make sure that even a Blue Dog will have no chance in hell. This is will happen until Citizens United is overturned.

The more PROGRESSIVES insist on PRIMARYing sitting dems or ganging up with multiple candidates, the bigger the chance the GOP wins

and the BLUER the state the BIGGER the risk

left people who are not part of this... continue to dance to Putin and the the Republican tune...lets hope only a few continue to be tricked.

I keep reading here that the Democratic party platform is progressive

So what's mainstream?

What's far left?

can't hold a majority in Congress...especially the Senate. Thus there needs to be a 50 state strategy where we run candidates that fit their states or districts. A platform is a guide not a manifesto. Not everyone agrees with every word in it...it was a compromise.

Clinton did better than Sanders in open primaries.

States that insist on having them should be among the last states to participate in a the Democratic primary and should carry the least amount of weight in terms of the nomination. The voters often number fewer than 2000 or 3000. Consider how many votes were cast in the Nevada Caucus and how many were cast in statewide voting primary even even though it counted for nothing...all those folks who couldn't participate because of work or personal or responsibilities...showed up even though it didn't matter....and the numbers were way higher than the caucus and a different candidate was chosen.

I saw people on Facebook openly gloating about how they were able to keep caucuses going until 11:00 pm at night on a Saturday. Who does that favor? College students. Who doesn't it favor? Caregivers, pet owners, parents, people who need to work on Sunday, people who are disabled, people who are ill, people who lose transportation after a certain time of day.....I could go on, but you probably get the drift.

Caucuses need to go and go fast.

it is deliberate.

It must have had broad Democratic legislative support.

The margin was a lot closer among the voters. 53.7% to 46.3%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

In this state, only one candidate gets the Democratic Party line on the primary ballot.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/california-democrats-jungle-primary




It is a BIG problem in CA. So it will be anywhere it is blue.



https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/california-democrats-fear-nightmare-midterms-2018-346948

Seems like a problem with Democratic Party organization, rather than with the system.

fault but the leaders of the party who cant talk them out of their selfish act?

One candidate has now won the endorsement of the Country party organizations and will have the "party line" on the primary ballot. He has also lined up support from municipal leaders and other key party leaders.

its not a matter of talking anyone out of running. Its about formal endorsements, monetary and other support, and position on the Party's line on the ballot.

the top two vote getters CAN be both GOP

otherwise why are these articles here?

Are you reading them?

The party has to make it clear to the big donors that if they support candidates that are not endorsed, they will be in a world of hurt when it comes time to act on their priorities.

California needs to go back to the old system. This open system is just a way for Republicans to sneak their candidates in.

given it is harming the democratic party


I thought...never mind

The last few years show the exact opposite.

And look at us! Blood red and creeping fascism.

seek to remove democrats.

So in red states where you have it you will see continued red control because they control their candidates. But then they dont have candidates who are actively seeking to HARM their party.

This is an interesting spin you're putting on it.

Many states have open primaries because it is impossible to have a closed primary because state voter registration does not record party preference.

The argument against open primaries often includes the fear that some GOP folks will try to skew the Democratic candidate that gains the nomination. Well, I've got news for the people who say that. The GOP, and the Democrats, already do that for closed primaries, too. A GOPer registers as a Democrat for the primary, then registers as a Republican when the primary is over. (Or vice versa. Both parties do it.)

Also, this year especially, I want independents voting in my Democratic primaries.

My opinion?

Open primaries everywhere. Let everybody vote.

It says:

"If you see an OPEN PRIMARY prop on your state ballot, vote NO"

Obviously if there's an open primary proposition on a state ballot then they have voter registration where party designation exists.

Your premise about people changing registration back and forth does happen, but it's not pervasive, and some states have time restrictions on changing party affiliation. But allowing republicans (and independents, for that matter) to vote in Democratic primaries is ludicrous.

Why don't we have "open state primaries" too, where voters in New York can vote in New Jersey primaries, or voters in Westchester can vote in NYC primaries? Sounds ridiculous, but it's not too far off from allowing republicans to vote in Democratic primaries. I don't want anyone but Democrats voting in Democratic primaries.

Finally, everyone CAN vote, no one is saying that they can't or shouldn't.

Open primaries let everybody vote.

Why would anybody want to limit the vote in a public election?

It's not "limiting the vote".

How about we combine the Conventions to have all the delegates (republicans and Democrats) choose the General Election candidates?

The conventions have nothing to do with it. The smoke filled rooms are long gone.

And how in the fuck are you going to manage a closed primary in states that do not have party voter registration???

That's right. You're not.

So please stop wearing us all down with voter suppression advocacy.

My best to you.


FYI: States without party registration: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

....meaning he's referring to states that don't already have open primaries yet.

But I still don't understand how a closed PRIMARY (not general election) is limiting the vote or is "voter suppression", other than confining it to members of the parties conducting the primary. No one is stopping anyone from joining either of the two parties or, for that matter, switching parties.

Perhaps we should open voting to all residents, even if they're not citizens? By not doing so, isn't that limiting the vote or voter suppression?

What a ridiculous argument!

And, as said above, limiting those who can vote is, by definition, voter suppression.

Open primaries everywhere is the solution.

Thanks for respectful response.

Democrats cannot win without them. Open primaries are critical to ferret out the strongest candidate acceptable to both groups. Fielding a candidate unpalatable to Independents guarantees an electoral loss; see Election 2016.

You have it right!

If you have good ideas and good candidates the people will vote for your party, for your candidates. Closed primaries are almost as bad as caucuses, letting a few diehards pick the general election candidates.

The talk reminds me of church. "If you don't believe the water actually turns to wine, find another church."

42% of Americans identify as Independent. They are the ones who decide elections just like Justice Kennedy is the one who decides the close votes on the Supreme Court. Why set up rules that eliminates their input into the process of picking candidates and eventually the winners? It seems so easy to forget the fights from the 60's. If you're worried that those independents are going for the GOP, give them an alternative they can get behind. Most are staying home because all the choices seem to be feeding at the corporate/billionaire donor trough and not lifting the underclasses.

Partie have the right to select their own candidates wihtout outside interference. Anyone who
Wants a day in the Democratic candidate is cordially invited to join the party. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

They just like referring to themselves as "independent." In fact, studies have made clear that most "independents" of today are more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was a few short decades ago.

Contrary to what some believe, they are not moderates or middle-of-the-road types, or people who dislike both Republicans and Democrats. Most are either very pro-Democrat or very pro-Republican.

So we don't want them involved in the election process because.....?

Even Unions want everyone at the work site to weigh in on working conditions, even those who are simply forced to be members if they want to work in the union shop, but they have no interest except that they work there. I think the Democrats should spend their time getting these "Independents" to the polls rather than devising ways to keep them silenced.

There's no need to appeal to those who are already very partisan and simply like referring to themselves as "independent."

The vast majority of so-called independents are very partisan. They simply like referring to themselves as independent. Numerous studies support that.

Reminds me of '68. Control freaks?

btw, it's Democrats!

I will capitalize the D. If they keep on acting undemocratically like this, they will remain small “d’s.”

Just as they can enter our primary we can enter theirs. Further, If they vote in a democratic primary, they are democrats.

Either way, independents will ultimately decide the election, and open primaries allow us to get more independents on our side, or at the very least get a sense of where their support lies and make changes.

They are already strongly for or against Dems. They aren't middle-of-the-road types or people disenchanted with both parties. They are very partisan and simply like referring to themselves as "independent" (or live in a place where nobody affiliates with a particular party).

Of those who do lean, most lean democrat (48%). Meaning we have an advantage and should capitalize on it.

Embracing independents is still the best way to win elections:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/05/5-facts-about-americas-political-independents/%3famp=1

...CHOOSING our candidates.

And having independents voting in our primaries means a) we will get canadite more mainstream and likely to win in the general and b) they will then be democrats

Closed primaries do the opposite.

And “our” candidates? I thought you were Canadian?

PS: nvm the last bit. I found a post where you said you have duo citizenship

...they want to vote in. Easy.

Democratic primary - register as a Democrat
republican primary - register as a republican

Independent? They should make up their minds. It is THEIR decision to not vote. If they're too stubborn to choose, it's their fault. And if they don't want to be associated with either party, they don't vote. But it is THEIR decision, not anyone else's.

Same result only no one accidentally gets left out because they missed a date or didn’t know they had to register.

....our candidates?

They vote in our primary and are registered as democrats! Only with less chances of missing out.

As for republicans voting in our primary; everyone is entitled to correct past mistakes! Not only that but by allowing remorseful republicans to vote in our primary it has a moderating effect on our candidate making us more competitive.

You know what the OP said they wanted?

And Republicans can vote in our closed primaries too. Just register as a dem before hand.

The only difference is that there will be less disenfranchised voters who didn’t know about, or where, or when to register.

All benefits!

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2018, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

People change their registration to participate in a party's closed primary all the time.

So your solution of closed primaries is just not any solution whatsoever. It doesn't even solve the problem that people claim!

The only effect of closed primaries is to limit voting, not limit cross party voting which goes on regardless of whether the primary is open or not.

You are offering a solution that doesn't even solve your perceived problem, which is not even a problem in the first place.

You want to ensure that only Democrats nominate Democratic Party candidates? Fine! Get rid of primaries and install a caucus system. Is that what you want?

As always.

...some states have time constraints on changing party. They don't allow changing party on Monday before the primary and then going back the day after the Primary.

I just don't see the logic in having people who have different political positions deciding who the Democratic candidate is.

The NFL doesn't have baseball players negotiating their players' union contract with the league.

NFL vs baseball contracts? Where does anybody get that idea? What does that have to do with voting in primaries?

First, there is no problem. It's just made up shit.

And closing primaries doesn't even fix the so-called problem, and if ones answer is to restrict registration, one is chopping off ones own foot.

Everybody stop wearing us all out with these illogical arguments.

Open primaries are the sole Democratic solution. Let everybody vote! And enable Election Day registration. Everywhere!

You haven't responded to my question of whether you would support the return to a caucus system, which is the sole way that I know that one could conceivably universally restrict Democratic Party primary voters to Democrats. And that doesn't work too well either.



Open primaries everywhere. Let everybody vote.

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2018, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

You've done all the damage to your position that I don't need to add insult to injury. Such things normally don't work out too well.

And I respect your position on too many other issues to draw the line here. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you rather strongly on this issue.

Sorry, my friend.
My best. I hope people work this out.

If it does, Dems won't vote period!

It is a way to get rid of nut cases.

Sorry you are so alarmed about it. It has been a good thing and pretty much keeps extreme people of both sides sort of checked.

Which I am all for.

Instead of candidates spending so much time looking for group indorsements they now end up focusing on issues. Instead of spending so much time trying to couple up with groups or a narrowcast segment of the population they tend to spend more time being focused on the REAL issues.

A lot of places might be jealous or feel threatened by us in California. One reason for this is they might feel things are more constrained and compartmentalized where they live. Really we have had a backlash against us and our freelance style as a state for at least as long as the sixty years that have I have been alive. Really we cannot help it being that way, we are just a big melting pot

Open primaries have a SLIGHT moderating influence:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-24/open-primaries-are-the-answer-to-extreme-partisanship%3fcontext=amp

https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary

https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/amdem-_1.pdf

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-primary-puzzle.aspx

If you want to help mainstream democrats, then you want more OPEN primaries not less. That said the moderating effect is tiny.

You are railing against the very thing that helps the mainstream Dems you “claim” to want to support.

so anyone working for them I will assume is against my party and I will have to work to stop them

The caucus system is too time consuming and limits participation. It disenfranchises minorities, low-income earners, and young people, who are much less likely to show up than older, whiter, wealthier voters.