At least that's what I'm told being a Bernie supporter.

It's all about Angus and not about doing what's right.

... I liked Angus King as soon as he arrived in the Senate. Wow! Someone who will actually ask some real questions in those hearings, like Senator Bernie Sanders. Am I an Independent? Hmmmm......

Now you have at least 2 to 1 Bernie supporters that like King, that is if there was a Bernie supporters that said what you said they did.

As such, one wonders what might compel a person to switch to Democrat.

Surely no one would ever make such a move simply for visibility or political gain?

But the 2016 election is sure throwing the Independents under the bus, with the archaic Democratic rules, and the animosity towards Bernie because he always ran for office as an Independent, until running for President in the 2016 General Election, when he changed his party affiliation to Democrat.

However liberal his policies may be (admirably so, I'd say), it seems odd that he staked his claim as an Independent right up until he needed the visibility and access in order to run for President. It doesn't help that he's already registered as an Independent for 2017 in Vermont. If Clinton had done the same, she'd be condemned as a cynical and calculated opportunist for doing so.

This IMO is the source of the establishment's cold shoulder: it's not that they "fear him" as is commonly asserted; it's that he hasn't directly helped the party in the past 4 decades, but now he wants the party's help.

As for voters being denied the opportunity to vote, well, the rules for closed primaries are clear and publicly available well in advance of the cut-off date to register. If a person wants to register (or to remain registered) as an Independent, then that person can't complain when they're only allowed to vote in the Independent primary.

... you would rather he ran as an Independent? You think he changed his party affiliation just so he would be noticed, fame and fortune? Wow. Who have you been hanging around with? He changed party affiliation so there would be a greater chance of a Democrat being elected. Were you around back in the 2000 election when Ralph Nader ran as an Independent and all the Democrats blamed him for Al Gore losing the election? There is NO WAY Bernie wanted to be in that situation. And you do know that Bernie has ALWAYS caucused with Democrats in the House and Senate?

Well I'll tell you something: there isn't anyone that's going to run me out of the Democratic Party, so I won't ever be in that situation as a voter. There is NO WAY I'm going to take a chance of loosing my right to vote by being an Independent.

BTW, can Independent voters only vote in the general when there's an Independent Presidential Candidate on the ticket to vote for?

then why on earth wouldn't he run as a Democrat in the first place? Apparently he wants it both ways: he wants the "maverick" status of an Independent when it suits him, and he wants to make use of the Democratic electoral machinery when it suits him. And his flock of Independents is left holding the bag when they find out that they can't vote for him in their closed primaries.

Also, caucusing with the Democrats is lovely, but what's his record on campaigning on behalf of Democrats and helping with fund-raising efforts for Democrats? That's where the rubber hits the road, and there is no question that Sanders knew this before he decided to say he's a Democrat.

Is the general election party-specific, like closed primaries are? No? Then why did you ask?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you realize this to be a silly question.

... "vote in the primary" instead of the general. Seriously, I swear, I know nothing about being an Independent. I'm a Democrat!

You're right, had I known I was asking a silly question, perhaps to just get under your skin, and asked it anyway, then you would "give me the benefit of the doubt?" That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

No question is silly, Orrex. Unless it's someone pulling your leg or trying to get a rise out of you with an obviously stupid question. Maybe many on DU play those kinds of games, but not me. I don't want to get under your skin. I don't want to argue. As a matter of fact, I TRY to stay AWAY from people who like to argue. Life is way too short.

I hope we can part in peace.

Ok. I'm certainly guilty of occasional typos like that myself.

I believe you. There was a lot of discussion about New York's closed primary, in which only registered Democrats can vote to select the candidate for the general election. A large number of Independents felt that they were denied their chance to vote because they weren't registered with the party.

New York has a stupidly early cutoff for changing one's party to vote in the primary, rather than a much more sensible 30-day or even same-day cutoff. Independents who hadn't already registered as Democrats back in 2015 were unable to vote.

What I meant was that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you knew the answer to the silly question, and that you were therefore asking it rhetorically. No harm, no foul.

Believe me, if Sanders winds up on the ballot, then I will support him wholeheartedly and will certainly vote for him in November. I may very well vote for him in Pennsylvania's primary tomorrow, in fact, though it won't likely sway the state's results.

... You're OK. We part in peace.