That Simple.

...but you've been here for a month and you're being completely disrespectful and rude to someone who's been here for four election cycles. I would hope that if you'd been here for that long and some newbie came along and gave you cynical snark, there would be someone to defend your respect. Until then, maybe reel it in a little and show some compassion.

But thanks for the warm welcome, friend.

Your long time poster hero wrote one sentence, pure hyperbole, no data, no links, right out there in Gee Dee Pee and expected what exactly?

This site is for point and counterpoint debate. Not interested in dissent? Post in a protected group.

I don't care enough to really debate it. It just seemed rude to someone who's probably disappointed in the way the election went last night. I don't care enough to continue this though. Keep on keepin' on.

Peace.

That simple.

North Carolina, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi?

Open primaries instead of caucuses would have hurt him in several states.

Independent voters are roughly evenly split between "democratic leaning" and "republican leaning" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

And in NY for example, 27% of registered voters are independents. http://www.thenation.com/article/three-million-registered-voters-wont-be-able-to-vote-in-new-yorks-primary/

2,686,539 people voted in the NY primaries, so the 27% of independents would have represented about 725,365 voters. Assuming that half would have voted for Sanders and half for Trump would have given Sanders an extra 362,682 votes which would have given him a 72,068 vote lead over Clinton.

But that's assuming that every single democratic leaning independent would have picked Sanders over Clinton which isn't realistic. If you look at a large state with an open primary like Illinois, independents went to Sanders 70-30. In Texas, independents went to Sanders by only 52-46.

So say Sanders only got 70% of the democratic leaning independents in New York. Clinton still would have won 1,162,887 to 1,017,346.

Overall I don't think it would have been enough unless a whole bunch of republicans crossed over to mess with the democratic primary, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Plus you're ignoring the fact that Sanders does much better in caucuses (because his supporters skew younger and have more time and enthusiasm? who knows.). So if every state had an open primary instead, Clinton would presumably get some benefit too. It would probably be a wash overall.

And then the GOP have their candidate they can beat like a drum in the general.

ditto for Republicans, Greens, etc

I also like how you think they are all Bernie supporters...hint, hint-they're not

For pointing out one of the biggest detachments from reality for many of the Sanders people. The independents are ALL across the board, that's obvious to all with even a passing insight into politics.

on the Bernie side

50 States closed to the demographics that support Democrats and Hillary wins easily.

So what?

Geez. I voted, for Bernie, in the open primary in Virginia. Clinton won.

Why post nonsense?

caucuses, which are highly undemocratic.

If you're in the party, then you get the benefits of being in the party. You don't get to pick and choose. If a state party wants its primary closed, then that is their prerogative.