2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumworkinclasszero
(28,270 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)This argument is just down right STUPID.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)for the GE...disgusting. If one person one vote...he would have took the state completely and your group knows that. But here ya go ....and when it's time (and Hillary is already begging) you will say unite throw out hugs and it will be so sickening.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Would you be allowed to vote in a club or church if you're not a member of that club or church? Of course not. This is the primary season. All primaries should be closed. Independents can vote in the GE. Outsiders should not have a say in choosing a party's nominee. Want to vote in a primary? Then have some skin in the game, choose a party and register as a member.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)But can't vote in a primary. Best person no matter what party is the best person and everyone should have a choice as to who to vote for. Not wait until others pick for them. The system is not what it should be.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Register for the Democratic Party. There is no roadblock to doing so.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)If they want to vote in a closed primary, then they just need to join a party. That's as it should be.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Why do Berniestas have so much trouble with that initial, essential Step #1?
Response to baldguy (Reply #23)
Armstead This message was self-deleted by its author.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It boils down to the selection someone makes at the time they walk into the voting booth. That's all.
Yes, I know, party organization, etc. But even the vast majority of loyal Democrats don't get involved in that.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)It's not complicated. Want to vote in a primary? Then join the party. Don't want to join any party? Then vote in the GE.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If someone wants to support a particular candidate and register at the voting booth by voting for the Dem they should have that option.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)good luck winning against trump without indys. either the dems welcome the support of independents or they don't. independents are not tools in the box only to be taken out and used when necessary. either they are dem allies or they are not.
and hillary has made it clear she does not want us as her allies.
i am more than happy to oblige.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)That scenario also applies to Republicans. Why should someone be entitled to vote in a party's primary when they are not a member of said party?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and that support is often critical to success for dems. they should be able to participate and will give them more investment in the alliance as well. as to republicans crossing over, that is more contentious. personally, i believe in completely open primaries, but i understand the concern of those who would not republicans jumping in and playing games.
i think indys are a separate case, though.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Not a stupid argument if enough independents were allowed to have a choice and if there were enough of them to push Sanders enough to win the nomination.
Joob
(1,065 posts)And they certainly won't feel* disfranchised with the Democratic Party after that.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)it adds a little something . . . . .
it's in the "..." section
Joob
(1,065 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)are unrepresented in our system.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)It's always your side or mine. In war their side or ours. This constant it's our side our choice not yours is so old change needs to happen.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Want to vote in a closed primary? Then register as a Democrat or Republican and vote for the candidate of your preference. It's not that complicated.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)LAST SUMMER I changed my registration to Democrat.
There was plenty of time to PICK A PARTY and go with it.
I KNEW there was a presidential election coming up....and the others Indies didn't?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I feel like this campaign season has been going on for about 5 years.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"a candidate who has been selected by a political party is said to be the party's nominee."
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)giving a thought to the GE. When you have one candidate who has the worst negatives in history and one with the highest. And one who does poorly with the largest voting block in the GE, namely the Independents, and one who regularly gets 70+% of the independent vote. . .
One would think the intelligent party members would take that into consideration, but apparently not so much.
New Democratic party slogan . . . .choose to lose. Kinda rhymes though.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)The party's best interests. But with so much...let's say...favoritism...in place, so much 'the establishment', it is no surprise how they turn out.
How about "Keeping Our Fingers Crossed" - bumper sticker worthy!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,840 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)knixphan
(4,442 posts)...this rigged system is more than a football game, or a spat in 'Mean Girls'. For some of us, it actually matters what policies are in place and whether or not a leader will actually fight for what helps us in real life. Independent voters are actual human beings, mostly poor and working class folks.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)They want to vote for the person that they feel is the right person to be President. Why should it have to be SCREENED through a party affiliation before they get to choose. I suspect that is why the majority of people prefer to be an Independent. The Party's are trying to disallow that choice if only for themselves. Doesn't seem fair to me. A system where every one has a chance to vote for who they feel is the right person is the real and only fair way to go. I think there will be changes to our system coming.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That is all.