2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOpen primaries: If you believe there is cross party sabotage, you have bigger problems
I continue to see threads posted decrying the use of open primaries. The main reasoning is that this allows Republicans to cross party lines to sabotage the selection of the Democratic Party nominee. As such, these saboteurs are swinging the vote in the direction of Bernie Sanders. If you truly believe this then you should really be scared of your implications.
The total number of votes cast for Republican candidates in this primary cycle exceeds the number of votes cast for Democrats. Under the theory that saboteurs are influencing our primaries, you have to believe that an incredible number of Republicans are crossing lines to vote for Bernie. This means that not only are they leading in popular vote on their side, we can expect a large amount of our primary votes to go their way as well in the GE.
Is this really the belief, that Republicans are that much more popular than the Dems or is this just another ridiculous talking point to try to keep party purity and eliminate independents? I know my vote.
Skink
(10,122 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)There's a lot of anti-DEM sentiment in this country. That's what the DEM party needs to stop.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)open and closed. As I understand it each state is responsible for determining their primary format, I am fine with that and I don't see any effort to get states to change anything from the national level. So seems a moot point really.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Who honestly thinks huge numbers of republicans are switching over just to screw with the democrats? It's a conspiracy theory all its own. The amount of coordination it would take to actually do anything meaningful with that tactic is ridiculous.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...it's naive to think there aren't manipulative, disingenuous people who wish to increase dissension among the ranks of those they oppose. People aren't going to bother doing so in a state where the underdog is already expected to win with ease, or in states that aren't very consequential (delegate-wise). It's certainly within the realm of possibility, though, that such folks were the difference between Sanders winning and losing Michigan. In Ohio, on the other hand, there was a hometown guy in the race and the "Stop Trump" movement had an opportunity that wasn't available in Michigan. Ohio and Michigan are 2 fairly similar states that had much different results on the Democratic side.
I don't have any idea how many people crossover for the purpose of furthering dissension, but it'd be foolish to think such people don't exist.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Do you know how many would be required to turn a state from Hillary +8 to Sanders +8? That's a lot of votes you are telling me will go to the Republicans in the fall. If this is something people truly believe, they should be very scared.
I think the most likely reasoning is that a lot of independents have been swayed to vote for a Democratic candidate when they may not have been inspired to before. We risk the likelihood of alienating them when we tell them we don't want them to participate in selecting someone they would vote for in November.