Home / General / Lessons

Lessons

Comments
/
/
/
653 Views

Here’s the lesson: Being an independent is worthless. If you register as an independent, you are irrelevant.

If you wanted to vote for Bernie but couldn’t soil yourself with being a Democrat, your fault. Voting isn’t a consumer choice. It’s a compromise with reality. Registering as an independent is fine if you want to remain so pure you can’t be stained by whatever the Democrats choke up. But don’t complain that you couldn’t vote for the candidate you want to win. Because if all those independents in New York who wanted to vote Bernie registered as Democrats, Bernie might have won the state.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Sargon

    Of course, because obviously all 3.2M of them would have voted if they’d been able to. Because that’s a thing that happens in this country. 100% turnout. Yep. Oh, and they all would have voted in the Democratic primary, too.

    Your point, of course, is much more important, but oh my god the innumeracy drives me up a wall.

    • Craigo

      Not only would they have all voted, but 100% in the Democratic primary.

    • Sly

      “Everyone who doesn’t vote shares my unrealized electoral preferences and would only vote if [insert Party here] aligned itself with me… I MEAN US US IS WHAT I MEANT” is one of the longest-running canards in American politics.

    • AMK

      I dunno about the rest of the state, but in the City lots of the politically unaffiliated who would vote Democrat are nonwhite minorities (Clinton) or Bloombergian corporatists (Clinton). Put them together and they outnumber Bernie’s white millennial hipster hordes in Brooklyn.

      • DAS

        Yep. The bigger problem for Sanders, at least in NYC, is not that independents couldn’t vote in the Den primary but that even those Brooklynites who did register Democratic couldn’t vote for Bernie because the polls didn’t open on time … if those voters were on the voter rolls at all … many voters were dropped from the rolls.

        • ochospantalones

          Clinton won Brooklyn 60%-40%, which is slightly better than her statewide margin. I am not aware of any reason to believe that those who were wrongly dropped from the voting rolls in Brooklyn were disproportionately Sanders voters. To the extent to which we are talking about people who have been registered as Democrats for years and were dropped for being “inactive” if anything we would expect them to be Clinton voters.

        • JG

          There were only a few polls that didn’t open on time. The vast majority of polls in Brooklyn were fine.

          Most of the voters dropped from the roll were inactives.

    • ChrisTS

      Bless you.

    • LeeEsq

      Why should people aren’t members of a political party get to choose who that political party nominates for office?

      • Dupe

        Right?! I want to vote for President of General Mills and Microsoft even though I don’t own any of their stock! Gimme!

      • Because a political party in a two-party system should want them to, in order to maximize their chances of selecting a nominee who will win the general election.

        And because getting people to vote in an election helps to draw them into the community and foster that sense of connection and responsibility. This is true of municipal elections, primary elections, all elections.

        • L2P

          That’s not at ALL how political parties work. The point of the party is to nominate a candidate who will best represent your interests (some, but not by any means all, of our interests involve finding the candidate most likely to win).

          For the Republicans, for instance, nominating a knucklehead reactionary is much more what they want then nominating a guy with wide-spread appeal to moderates. They might lose, but they don’t care. Somebody like Kasich, who independents might vote for over Trump, would do a lot of things the Republican party members actively oppose.

          And you’re ignoring the whole issue of trying to get people emotionally committed to a party. If you can get 1 person who will become a lifelong Democrat, that’s far more valuable than getting one more independent voter who will vote for Sanders in the general, ignore the down-ballot races, and never vote again. There’s a ton of Republicans, for instance, who vote republican essentially because that was their first party and it’s now more like rooting for the home baseball team than anything else.

    • djw

      I suspect it’s more spin than innumeracy; presenting the numbers in such a way to suggest Sanders would have won easily had independents been eligible to vote. But it’s obnoxious either way.

    • kped

      That 3.2M will live on in conspiracy theories and MS Paint drawings for generations I think. “They stole our election!”

  • CrunchyFrog

    Speaking as a registered “unaffiliated” let me say that we’re not all raging stupidheads or people who think we’re too pure or whatever stereotype label you want to apply to us. Some of us don’t want our neighbors and/or employers and/or potential future employers to know our political leanings – and since party registration is very much a public record, the only way we can do that and still vote in general elections is to register unaffiliated.

    • paulgottlieb

      I can certainly see that in some places, but not New York!

      • Judas Peckerwood

        Yes, because the entire state of New York is a completely unsullied monoculture of liberalism.

        • Thirtyish

          You don’t have to stray too far from the safe zones of Manhattan and Brooklyn (and inner Queens), either. Even Staten Island is Trumpland.

          • Thirtyish

            Upon further reflection, there is no reason that the Bronx should not be included in there (“safe zones”) as well.

      • cdevine

        A friend of mine who was a social studies teacher in a woodchuck conservative New York district never registered in a party until he retired. The parents could be nasty.

    • efgoldman

      Some of us don’t want our neighbors and/or employers and/or potential future employers to know our political leanings

      I suppose there might be some asshole company somewhere who would look up those records, and I’ve heard of peer pressure kinds of things, but, really? Is it your experience that an employer would really even look that up? If found out, I’m guessing the lawsuit would be epic. What if you’re not even registered? What if you are, and they’d rather you’re not?

      • Cleardale

        I wasn’t aware of the dangers myself, but if you follow Randi Lee Harper on twitter, she was going over some of the many issues with the voter registration roles. Including who can access, what information is on it, and overall security of the list. There are many reasons why people wouldn’t want to be on it that I had never considered. FYI the reason she is so aware is problems with the gamergate losers.

      • Denverite

        I suppose there might be some asshole company somewhere who would look up those records, and I’ve heard of peer pressure kinds of things, but, really? Is it your experience that an employer would really even look that up?

        Think high(ish) level government jobs or jobs that work closely with the government (lobbying, some legal, etc.). They check. I know this 100%.

        • Arouet

          For government, at worst it must very much depend on the Department. For a civil service position (non-political), no one in my Department would screen by political views. It’s just not relevant too our work. I mean, maybe if you had been Chief of Staff for Jeff Sessions or something, but not because you were registered Republican….

          • Denverite

            A lot of govt jobs are exempt from civil service protections.

            • L2P

              That’s kind of shocking. I thought even in “right to work” states most government jobs still have tenure rights, unless it’s a political positions. AFAIK it’s pretty rare that a cop or a filing clerk in building and safety can be dismissed without cause for being a Democrat.

              • Denverite

                Yeah, a good number of professional-type employees are exempt. Here in Colorado, for example, elected politicians (SoS, Treasurer, AG) have a lot of leeway in deciding who they want to be civil service (what the state calls “classified”) and who they don’t (non-classified). Most (all?) of the attorneys at the AG’s office, for example, are non-classified. Senior level staff at many agencies are in the same boat. On the plus side, they’re not limited to the government pay scale, so a lot of times, they get paid a lot more than their bosses.

                • efgoldman

                  OK, but I’m thinking of the overwhelming numbers of people who work for private employers. I can’t and don’t believe that Enormous Brokerage & Mutual Funds LLC knew or cared. In fact, they actively encouraged employees at all levels to vote and participate in politics, without favor.

      • max

        I never had to ‘register’ (?) as a Democrat in Texas because they didn’t keep party registrations in the first place. If you wanted to vote in a primary you just walked in and they stamped ‘DEMOCRAT’ on your voter reg card so you couldn’t vote in the R primary. Likewise, the situation is the same in VA.

        I do not understand the point of registering party affiliations – I would think that what matters is a party membership card, not a separate piece of paperwork that has little to do with anything.

        max
        [‘I do not have a party card for the Dems mostly for the reasons listed above. This is distinct from giving money and voting, or for that matter getting emails from various Dem campaigns, including plenty of Hillary endorsers.’]

      • Thirtyish

        CrunchyFrog is a resident of Colorado, IIRC, and while I cannot speak for him, as someone who lived in Colorado for a few years, I can tell you that the answer to that question is “decisively yes.”

        • Denverite

          I thought that was you!

          • Thirtyish

            Guilty, your honor!

            • Denverite

              I was going to ask, but figured if you changed your nym you might have done so for a reason.

              IIRC, you moved to the big city. Hope that’s working out for you.

              • Thirtyish

                Thanks! I love it so far.

      • Bruce B.

        Friends of mine applying for very generic customer service jobs have had agencies and/or employers go over their social media activity. You probably can’t overestimate the degree to which some managers want to rule their employees’ whole lives.

    • Rob in CT

      This really never occurred to me. Apparently I’m naïve, still, at times.

  • ForkyMcSpoon

    Being an independent isn’t worthless in semi-open/semi-closed primary states. It allows maximum flexibility.

    In any other state, however, yes, it is worthless. Nobody gives a shit what your party registration is except the election officials. You can still tell everyone you identify as a special snowflake or whatever you want.

    • CrunchyFrog

      Nobody gives a shit what your party registration is except the election officials.

      Um. Wrong. Well, maybe where you live no one cares. But in many localities people do care, and so (unfortunately) do many employers.

      • Denverite

        and so (unfortunately) do many employers.

        This. And it’s even justified in some cases. I can “for instance” a number of jobs where everyone would probably agree that political affiliation is fair game. A governor’s chief of staff, most obviously (note: this certainly isn’t what I interviewed for).

      • Warren Terra

        I can imagine this in places like, say, the deep South, where it’s going to be legal to hunt Democrats for sport in rural areas any day now, or in deeply riven states like Wisconsin or North Carolina, but – admittedly from a position of not having been there – I have trouble seeing such strong hatred of all Democrats in New York State, even far from the city.

        Also: if you are asked about it, couldn’t you just – perfectly honestly – say that there was a primary in which you had a preference, and you’re only allowed to express that preference with a vote if you register an affiliation with the party?

        • CrunchyFrog

          “If you are asked about it” – well, yes. If. The problem isn’t when someone asks you about it – it’s when they don’t.

          • Denverite

            Is this just a Colorado thing? Because I know a ton of people (of both political persuasions) in the same boat.

            • so-in-so

              One can, of course, change registration. Unless companies monitor on an on-going basis you could register for a party, become “independent” while looking for work and maybe for a while thereafter. Or register for a party only in election years – but know when the cut off is!

            • The idea of someone checking your party registration as a prerequisite for a job is genuinely shocking to me. I suppose I can imagine some shitty little single proprietor looking at Facebook to figure out if their prospective “assistant” is some kind of heathen, but the idea of someone hiring for a professional position — with HR involved, etc. — checking that kind of thing is as alien to me as the idea they’d check your church attendance or national origin.

              • efgoldman

                but the idea of someone hiring for a professional position — with HR involved, etc. — checking that kind of thing is as alien to me as the idea they’d check your church attendance or national origin.

                Or in my part of the world (RI) your sexual orientation.

        • Origami Isopod

          I have trouble seeing such strong hatred of all Democrats in New York State, even far from the city.

          You ever been in far upstate New York? It’s the Bible Belt with snow.

          (Not that I disagree with Loomis’s overall point.)

          • JG

            Upstate still voted for Obama and the “safest” NY red district is only R+7 (though in reality I think Peter King is probably the safest NY-R congressman).

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        Ok sorry, it is justifiable if you’re worried about your employer.

        Perhaps we could try for limits on who can do such searches.

        What percentage of people likely need to worry about this, though?

  • jim, some guy in iowa

    part of me wonders if Sanders had been a Democrat himself all these years whether the independents would be interested in him now

    • LosGatosCA

      I don’t wonder at all –

      not at the rate that they can project their illusions on to him.

      • eh

        wait…what’s that benchmark again? can you add a little detail for us stupidheads?

      • Judas Peckerwood

        I’m grateful that you don’t project any illusions onto your preferred candidate — someone has to keep us honest!

      • Interesting projection about projection.

        LosGatos has projected onto Sanders supporters the habit of projecting their own illusions onto others.

  • paulgottlieb

    If the Democrats get to pick their own party’s nominee, the whole system is rigged!

  • Bootsie

    “I am aloof from this corrupt *scoffs aristocratically* party system. But I do want a say in who the tainted ones pick as their candidate. Why aren’t I allowed to do that without actually being one of them? STOP DISENFRANCHISING ME.”

  • Davis X. Machina

    American politics is doomed until we:

    a.) get rid of political parties,
    b.) get rid of politicians, and then
    c.) get rid of politics.

    At which point we’ll have back the Empire of Virtue the Founders intended, and the ewes will lamb, the cows calve, and the wheat grow heavy in the ear.

    • LWA

      I love how people who will prattle on and on about The People will also go on about how terrible and corrupt “politics” is, and “partisan politics” is the worst.

      But of course politics is just the process by which The People argue and sort out their affairs, and its as messy and flawed and imperfect as the people themselves.

      I think its kinds of touching and silly how anyone imagines a universe in which policy gets made that isn’t complex and infuriatingly messy and turbulent.

      • Craigo

        To be fair, it’s only messy and turbulent when you don’t put The Right People in charge. Do that, and it’s ponies for days, man.

        • AMK

          …or just get The Wrong People out of the process, which the GOP has made great progress doing.

      • Judas Peckerwood

        But of course politics is just the process by which The People argue and sort out their affairs, and its as messy and flawed and imperfect as the people themselves.

        Oh please. Despite the distractions of the dog-and-prole shows this year, it’s The People With Huge Sums of Money who call the shots in national elections. You don’t have to wait until the next Inauguration Day to know that only someone acceptable to the Establishment will next occupy the White House.

        • cleek

          it’s The People With Huge Sums of Money who call the shots in national elections

          how have The People With Huge Sums of Money wrangled enough votes to keep Clinton well ahead of Sanders this primary season ?

          i voted for Clinton. but nobody’s yet given me any money to do it. i think i saw a single pro-Clinton campaign ad. no lawn signs.

          what’s the process here?

          • so-in-so

            Not to mention, I recall a lot of people with money were pretty unhappy with Obama in 2012 for saying mean things about them and not denouncing OWS and all that equality talk. And yet, Mitt Romney didn’t even come particularly close – he had to be acceptable to the money guys since he was one…

          • ochospantalones

            Yeah, where’s my check? I also accept PayPal and Chase QuickPay. But not Venmo.

            • jim, some guy in iowa

              no check here either- and I was a delegate to the county convention, so there should be an extra bit for that too. maybe we should just bill the campaign?

              • ochospantalones

                County delegate definitely merits a bonus. There is a Goldman Sachs office about three blocks away, maybe I should walk over during lunch and ask.

          • efgoldman

            i voted for Clinton. but nobody’s yet given me any money to do it.

            I’m voting next week. I hope somebody’s gonna’ give me money, but I’m not spending it yet.

        • CD

          it’s The People With Huge Sums of Money who call the shots in national elections.

          Now I understand why Jeb Bush is winning the Republican nomination.

          • Traveler

            Yeah, it looks like CU has come to bit the POGers in the ass big time. Now every Tom Dick or Harry billionaire can keep their kept man in the race far longer than any reasonable chance of being elected. Which wiped out Jeb!

        • UserGoogol

          Correlation is not causation. Although it’s hard to deny that The Establishment has some influence over politics, people who are the establishment are generally powerful on account of being privileged by social forces they do not directly control. As such, those same forces are what encourage pro-establishment candidates to win, not the establishment itself swinging elections.

        • eclipse

          So does the “People with Huge Sums of Money” include dear old Bernie, who managed to outspend Clinton 2-1 and still lose New York by 15+ points? Seems like Bernie is approaching Jeb Bush in terms of wasting other people’s money.

          And, of course, nothing says “anti-Establishment” like a old white dude who has been in Congress for 26 years.

  • Denverite

    Said the person who never worked a job where registering for a particular party could get you fired.

    I literally interviewed today for a job where they’re going to google to see what party I’m registered to vote for. Glad it’s independent! (I always vote Democratic unless Blagojevich is running. Voted against him four times.)

    • RabbitIslandHermit

      Did they straight up tell you that? Is that legal?

      • Denverite

        Is that legal?

        I don’t know if it’s legal, but it’s done.

      • cppb

        If it’s a private-sector employer, it’s legal.

        • Warren Terra

          Really? My (third-hand) understanding is that if a prospective employer can be documented seeking to know about an applicant’s marital status, children, religion, in some jurisdictions sexuality, etcetera they’ve basically automatically lost any possible lawsuits – but political affiliation is a defensible basis for discrimination?

          • efc

            Political affiliation is not a “protected class” under federal anti-discrimination law in private sector employment. In Georgia (where I practice) it would probably be completely legal for a private sector employer to fire an employee specifically for their political affiliation. I can’t think of any marital status protection under federal law either. Religion is definitely a protected class under federal law.

    • Hells Littlest Angel

      Really? How do you use Google to find out someone’s political party affiliation? Are you sure you’re not registered with the Paranoid Schizophrenic party?

      • To be fair, it is easy to do. This is my old district, but still:

        http://voters.findthedata.com/l/76317964/Erik-Shane-Loomis

        • Murc

          Geez, Erik, your full name makes you sound like the last scion of an old-money New England family.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            all he needs is a roman numeral at the end

          • If only!

            Instead, my dad gave me the middle name because he liked the movie.

            • Linnaeus

              Aha! I was totally going there!

              • I really need to live up to my middle-namesake and get a buckskin outfit with all the fringe to wear to the Western History Association.

                • Linnaeus

                  Oh, they’ll love that, I’m sure.

                • “Vote for the Fringe Candidate! Vote LOOMIS!! He’ll put a head on every pike!!!”

              • N__B

                Yeah, now we get to use “Come back, Loomis.”

                Cliff Robertson as Shame was easily the best villain in the 60s Batman show.

                • Joseph Slater

                  Oh man, you beat me to that. Still, I’m going to be mighty tempted to start calling Erik “Shane.”

            • EliHawk

              He just wanted to make sure you came back when you left the nest.

          • Origami Isopod

            I thought “serial killer” but maybe that’s just me.

            • Thirtyish

              “Shane” is dangerously close to “Wayne.”

        • Hells Littlest Angel

          Hmm. I admit that’s fucked up. I wonder why it only show data from 14 states?

          • Denverite

            I thought you could look up voter registration pretty much anywhere. You certainly can here, at least.

        • Thom

          I’m glad to hear Erik is middle-named for the movie Shane.

    • Colin Day

      What if employers fire you for being Independent?

      • alex284

        Because this is the real world where employers tend to be Republican and people get more upset about others having the wrong party affiliation than with bland statements of non-affiliation.

        • Denverite

          This. You just don’t want to be registered with the wrong party. Not the right one is OK.

          • Manny Kant

            So what you are basically saying is that employers insist upon employees whom they politically disagree with not being able to fully participate in the political process? That should be a scandal, if it’s true.

            I would, however, be interested to see some evidence of this actually being a real thing anywhere besides CrunchyFrog and Denverite’s assertions. News articles, poli sci studies, that kind of thing.

            • cppb

              I remember there being several “scandalized” stories during the 2008 election cycle of employees threatened with discharge if they voted for Obama. People thought it was illegal, but when they were told it isn’t, it’s not like there was any concerted effort to change the law. And I would bet that the vast majority of people have self-censored their politics at work to some extent because they are implicitly aware that it may harm their prospects if their supervisors disagree. So I any scandal that may be created comes from the degree of discrimination, not the fact of it.

              Whether such stories are common is a fair question, but if you google “political affiliation discrimination,” you get numerous articles from lawyers and writers correcting the misconception that political affiliation discrimination is illegal. I don’t think they would write and publish them if it were not a reasonably common complaint. When in the history of this country have employers ever been bashful about “insist[ing that] employees whom they disagree with not being able to fully participate in the political process”?

              • Warren Terra

                I remember there being several “scandalized” stories during the 2008 election cycle of employees threatened with discharge if they voted for Obama.

                You remember wrongly. People were told they’d be fired if Obama won the election, which is perfectly legal. I can declare my intention to possibly close down my company and fire all its employees depending on the outcome of a coin flip planned for November 8, or based on the outcome of the election. I recall from a case in Washington State that it may even be legal to announce your intention to give each person who voted money based on the election outcome! But you can’t fire (or reward) people who vote a particular way.

                • efc

                  You can totally fire or reward people for voting the a particular way under federal employment laws (in the private sector, and there may be election law issues that impact the analysis).

                  Threatening to fire people in general based on a political outcome might be a National Labor Relations Act issue in that it may be considered to be designed to effect the employee’s ability or desire to engage in concerted activity in regards to wages and working conditions.

                • cppb

                  Correct. Under the NLRA, there is a line between making unlawful threats to coerce your employees into opposing a union and making lawful statements of opinion about your view of the likely outcome of a successful union vote.

                  But that’s got nothing to do with whether you can simply refuse to hire democrats. Being a democrat isn’t a protected class.

                • Davis X. Machina

                  Depends on how voting is considered, and the status of the public policy exception to employment-at-will law in your particular state.

                  I’ve seen this in mock trial competition…

                  That’s only post-hiring, too.

                • Warren Terra

                  @ efc

                  You can totally fire or reward people for voting the a particular way under federal employment laws

                  Firing or rewarding people who “vote a particular way” may not be a violation of Labor Law; it’s for damn certain a violation of Elections Law.

          • L2P

            That’s not true at all.

            There’s tons of complaints about people getting fired/not hired, because they aren’t the right affiliation, not because they are the wrong affiliation. There’s many businesses that will ask if you’re a Republican, and not hire you if you’re anything except a Republican.

  • NewishLawyer

    A friend from college posted Phil Ochs “Love me, I’m a liberal” in reaction to tonight.

    I like Bernie. I think he pushed HRC to the left on key issues. I am flabergasted that many Bernie supporters he will usher in a new utopia.

    I am honestly torn between HRC and Bernie for the CA primary. The thing that turns me off about Bernie supporters is their love of holier than thou and that their rhetoric seems to amount to “you are bad and should feel bad for supporting HRC.”

    • BubbaDave

      Speaking as an HRC supporter, don’t let the idiot supporters of any candidate drive you away. You’re voting for candidates, not their supporters. There were a lot of Klansmen for FDR, after all….

      • ChrisTS

        This s accurate, but I think some of the sexist crap from ‘supporters’ gets help from the campaign.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      I think Sanders (and/or Clinton) having (a small but loud number of) obnoxious supporters isn’t a reason to vote against him- or her

    • John Selmer Dix

      Good thing you’re voting for Clinton or Sanders, and not their supporters!

    • Linnaeus

      I’ll echo everyone else – vote for the candidate you want. You’ll find nasty behavior in any group of people.

    • Sly

      If you can’t make up your mind and are comfortable with either candidate being the nominee, you always have the option of not voting. Just make sure your registration is up to date for the next primary election.

      • Philip

        At least in SF, there’s other important stuff to vote on in June as well, though (e.g. the DCCC)

    • Origami Isopod

      I voted for Bernie in my state’s primary because I also like how he’s pushed HRC to the left. I don’t regret my vote. That said, I’m becoming less and less impressed with him. Bernie is not his supporters, no, but he is blind to certain things and this is reflected in his least-appealing supporters.

      • CD

        This.

        I caucused for him, but now I kinda think the point has been made, and we have a nominee.

        • But I think it’s fine if he runs to the end.

          If it were obvious that he was hurting us for the general, that’d be an excellent reason to stop. I know Dana thinks that he is (diversion of resources, etc.) but I’m not yet convinced.

          I think a lot of the current noise is just that, noise. People who did better than expected do grasp for straws. (That being said, pieces like the Klein that the idea that independents should have gotten to vote and the super delegates “can make it right” is *not* necessarily a pro-democracy/anti-democracy flip. If you genuinely think that some part of the vote was suppress or unfair, having a less democratic body reverse that outcome may be more democratic. (Consider if the FL supremes had been allowed to do their job.) So, if you think Bernie would have crushed in NY if independents could vote, and you believe that in dependants should be able to, and you are confident that Bernie would have won *that* contest, then it’s not necessarily anti-democratic to ask the institutionally less democratic super delegates to rectify matters.

          Now, this is a big ole chain of reasoning that will be subject to *extremely* motivated reasoning at every step. Which is a good reason to avoid it. Plus, as many have pointed out, the optics are pretty bad. Another good reason to avoid it.)

          Now if he doesn’t come in full throttle in support of the Dems in the general, then we should stomp him. But it seems very implausible that he won’t team up.

  • dl

    well, I’m WFP and probably would have voted Hillary, so there’s one new Bernie voter who would’ve gotten cancelled out

  • Wapiti

    I have to admit, I remain an Independent in part to avoid the junk mail. My wife once made a small donation to the Democrats and they must have spent every cent of it on additional appeal mailings.

    I’m in Washington now – we have a caucus and I frankly didn’t care enough to causus for several hours, even with same day party declaration. Previously I was in California, where the Dems allowed declared Independents to vote in their primary.

    • Becker

      Oh God, Washingtonian here. I was at the legislative district caucuses on Sunday. Complete disaster. Flawed delegate database. Very poor explanation of the voting process and subsequent delegation schedule. Voting on delegates didn’t even begin till after 5:30, after four and a half hours. Caucuses are the worst and need to end.

      • I simply would walk away with that level of time commitment.

        • Warren Terra

          My (a bit vague) recollection is that Washington State’s nomination system has changed dramatically a few times over the years, at least in part because of some court rulings about whether you could have a public primary election to determine party nominations. As I recall, at one time the Democrats simply voted in a primary (conventions happened, but were probably for delegate identification and for fun).

        • Ahuitzotl

          What is the perceived upside to caucuses … anything? that they’re what caucasians use?

          • N__B

            They’re believed, by some, to be more democratic. The demos is present, after all.

            • Schadenboner

              That portion of the demos with the most time to waste (and therefore the portion most unlikely to actually need to spend that time working to make ends meet) maybe.

              ‘Grats: you’ve fucked the poor, bear.

              • N__B

                Where did you get the impression that I favor caucuses?

          • Davis X. Machina

            Cheaper. State-wide elections are expensive, and parties pay for caucuses.

            A lot of the expenses devolves on local party committees — how much help you can get from state party and county committees varies widely.

          • L2P

            Many states have laws that independents can vote in primary elections, but no laws about forcing parties to let independents caucus. It’s possible that parties can’t be forced to let independents caucus.

            So caucuses are a way to exclude induhpendents from choosing the party’s nominee. That way Democrats can make sure that their nominee is the one that the Democrats, as a whole, want, rather than somebody that a bunch of non-Democrats want.

            Especially in early races that can be very important. If the winner of a primary needs only 15-20% of the vote, it’s not unlikely that the winner will be somebody the vast majority of the party doesn’t support.

      • Linnaeus

        Yeah, I knew a couple of people who went and they said it was pretty much a shitshow.

      • tsam

        Oh God, Washingtonian here.

        Me too. The fact that caucuses still exist is pretty fucking stupid.

      • GFW

        Huh. Eight years ago it was very well run at my location. My recollection is it took about an hour or so.

  • Hercules Mulligan

    The whole damn point is to grow the Democratic Party. Instead of mocking independents, maybe we could make it easier for them to change their registration to Dem?

    • Quaino

      I think the actual point of tonight was to pick the Democratic nominee for President.

      Also, I’m a bit confused how growing the Democratic party involves begging the pleasure of supporters of a candidate whose primary campaign platform is ‘Fuck all of those corrupt establishment assholes who are stealing the election from me”

      • alex284

        I too believe that Democrats need to find a way to rid the party of the left.

        /s

        • djw

          Sanders’ Democratic supporters are almost certainly to the left of his independent supporters.

          • tsam

            But are they ABOVE IT ALL like independents and therefore doubleplus better? I THINK NOT, SIR.

          • xq

            But if you want to take over the party from the left, then independent Sanders supporters are important (probably necessary) allies even if they see themselves (and are) more as anti-establishment than leftist. Rejecting their offer of support because their aesthetic preferences annoy you is purism just as silly as that which Loomis decries in this post.

            • L2P

              And they should JOIN THE DAMN PARTY to force it to the left.

              That’s the ridiculous thing about the whole “I’m an independent” thing. The party doesn’t move to the left because of independents. It moves to the left because leftists join the party and vote for our organizing committee members.

              It’s like people think politics happens by magic.

              • xq

                I agree they should join the party, but as an already-registered Democrat I have no control over that.

                The question is–should we support a system that punishes these people for the wrong decision they made, or one that uses them to push the party to the left? Since I care more about outcomes than purity, I support the latter.

                “The party doesn’t move to the left because of independents.”

                Sure it does. Sanders would be doing much worse without his independent supporters, and his example shows that left-populism is a route to success in Democratic primaries. That will move Democratic candidates to the left, as it already has Clinton.

              • That’s the ridiculous thing about the whole “I’m an independent” thing. The party doesn’t move to the left because of independents. It moves to the left because leftists join the party and vote for our organizing committee members.

                Well, I too agree that that’s the better route, but I also imagine that all Democratic politicians (and all politicians) know that there is a sizeable chunk of the reliably democratic coalition that likes to call itself “independent”. It’s a kooky feature of american politics, but pretty stable. I don’t think they will ignore the people who don’t label themselves Democrats, nor should then.

                I do think trying to bring them formally into the party is a good idea for lots of reasons, but eh if someone donates or votes consistently Dem, then they are a Dem as far as I’m concerned.

            • djw

              I don’t understand what you think I’m saying that this would be a response to. Whose offer am I rejecting? What “aesthetic preferences”?

              • xq

                You said that Sanders-supporting independents are not actually more left than Sanders-supporting Democrats. I’m saying that increasing the relative power of Sanders-supporting independents in Democratic primaries is nevertheless the correct move if you want to increase the power of the left in the Democratic party. This point is not in disagreement with yours; it’s an addition.

                The offer being rejected is that of independents who want to vote for Sanders (and thus move the party to the left). Not accusing you of rejecting this offer; I know from previous threads you support open primaries. Loomis and some of the commenters seem to be rejecting it.

                “Aesthetic preference” is the decision to identify and register as independent despite fitting within the ideological range of the Democratic party.

          • Rob in CT

            Some data on this here:

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

            Toward the end of the article.

            “Strong Democrats” who favor Sanders are clearly to the left of those who favor Clinton.

            “Weak Democrats” who favor Sanders are to the left of Weak Dems for Hillary, but notably less so.

            Indies who favor Sanders are to the right of most Dems, except “weak Dems” who favor Hillary. Though the difference is tiny.

            So it ends up like this:

            Strong Dem for Bernie –> Strong Dem for Hillary –> Weak Dem for Bernie -> Indy for Bernie > Weak Dem for Hillary > Indy for Hillary, with the last couple of moves being very, very slight.

            • Indies who favor Sanders are to the right of most Dems, except “weak Dems” who favor Hillary.

              That’s an amazing fact.

              What a wacky races!

              So it’s some sort of outsider/anti-HRC effect there, not ideological sorting.

              That’s….whoa.

              I wonder if these are all partisan-D independents or if we have a bunch of left wing partisan-Ds plus a bunch of right-wingers trying to game the nomination.

              • Rob in CT

                This is an interesting part of the article I don’t think I’ve digested yet:

                Nationwide, 46 percent of people who call themselves weak Democrats were formally registered with the Democratic Party. Among those who call themselves independents who lean Democratic, the number is just 15 percent. (Looking at only states with closed primaries:5 74 percent of weak Democrats are registered Democrats, and 33 percent of independents who lean Democratic are.)

            • djw

              Thanks for finding that. After I posted the comment I started to wonder if it something I actually saw data for, or just assumed as probably true.

      • Also, I’m a bit confused how growing the Democratic party involves begging the pleasure of supporters of a candidate whose primary campaign platform is ‘Fuck all of those corrupt establishment assholes who are stealing the election from me”

        Well, you do belong to a party the majority of which is supporting the unabashedly establishment candidate, no? You know, the one who admires Henry Kissinger and thinks Reagan supported HIV research and all that. So people might be excused for being confused.

        That being said, what better time to recruit people into your party than when they are fired up about one of your candidates? Unless you really don’t care to have them in your party and all you really care is that they show up to caucus with your candidate on election day, after which they can go back home and ride their purity ponies or whatever it is you think they do between elections.

        • so-in-so

          Recruit into the party would involve people registering for the party, not allowing anyone to cast a vote member or no.

          Why would you expect people who refuse to register (or only register late when they find their perfect candidate) to do anything to support the party later?

          • The goal is to bring them into the fold. Unless you don’t want them in the fold, and only care about them on election day.

          • Because recruitment is a process that plays out over time, and often involves stages.

            Voting in a primary gets them in the door. Your strategy is to slam the door on people unless they’re already committed to the party center? Great recruitment strategy!

            You bring up “do anything to support the party later,” but of course, most Democratic-registered voters don’t do anything to support the party, either. Presumably, you think that registering Democratic is a step along the path that will make some people into party activists. Well, broaden your view of that; letting independents vote in the primary is an earlier step along that path.

          • xq

            Why would you expect people who refuse to register (or only register late when they find their perfect candidate) to do anything to support the party later?

            We know that a large group of independents–similar in magnitude to registered Democrats–do the most important thing to support the party; they vote consistently for Democratic candidates for office. I can’t think of a great argument for denying this group a vote in the primary.

            • L2P

              Because they aren’t as consistent supporters as party members?

              Members of political parties eventually start to look like fans of the home team. You want as many of those guys as possible.

              • xq

                Because they aren’t as consistent supporters as party members?

                I don’t think this is actually true. Democratic-leaning independents vote basically identically to Democrats. And remember that the trend towards reduced party affiliation coincided with the trend of increased polarization–the independents of today who vote Democrat probably do so more consistently than their equivalents of earlier decades who would have been Democrats in name.

                • I don’t think this is actually true.

                  It’s not.

                  Democratic-leaning independents vote basically identically to Democrats.

                  There’s “weak” and “strong” leaners, but basically yes.

                  The locus classics is The Myth of the Independent Voter.

                  This reports results from a more recent paper:

                  They broke the 23 policy issue questions into roughly equal buckets of economic and social issues.The further an individual deviated from the “official party” position, the higher their score….Among Democrats, those who said they were “strong Democrats” had an average score of 7.97. Those who said they were independent with a “lean” to Democrats had an average score of 7.73. But, those who said they were “not very strong” Democrat had a higher average score of 9.46.

                  The Republican gap looks similar, with “strong Republican” averaging 5.95 and independent, “lean” Republican at 6.63. Meanwhile, those who identified themselves as “not very strong Republican” had an average score of 8.58.

                  This suggests that voters are not abandoning their party labels because the party has become too extreme in its policy positions. Instead, many may be leaving because they see the party as getting too moderate or insufficiently aligned with its core values. Plenty of “not strong” GOPers believe the party needs to change its position on gay marriage. Yet many of those who say they are independent are actually Republicans who are committed to keeping the GOP platform anti-gay marriage.

    • djw

      Comments in this vein (“why don’t you do X instead of Y” in cases where a) X isn’t a thing the person you’re addressing can do and/or b) doing Y doesn’t make doing X any less plausible) are bizarre.

  • nixnutz

    I think it’s fair to complain that the deadline was too early and that should be addressed, but in a state like New York it should be pretty obvious that the Democratic primary is always going to be the more important race. And so the fact that this is seen to disadvantage Bernie specifically is not very flattering to his supporters.

    • Dilan Esper

      Actually New York has cross-registration in state races, which screws things up further. You have liberals who are registered Liberal or Working Families and conservatives who are registered Conservative.

      The system in New York is basically designed to disenfranchise as many voters as possible. And that’s a totally different point from whether a closed primary is a good idea.

      • DAS

        Indeed. The complication in NY is the existence of viable third parties, which viability exists because those parties generally run with whomever they agree with from a major party.

        I am not sure if this particular feature of NY politics is purely disenfranchising, though. If your position is I’ll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate but I want that person to be pressured from the left, it makes sense to register Working Families Party, because a candidate will have some idea how important that block is by party affiliation.

        Personally, I’m registered a Democrat because I want to have a say in the nomination process. But not all people who didn’t get to vote in the primary yesterday were “purists” disenfranchised because of their idealism … and, as many have pointed out here, many of them may have voted for Clinton.

        FWIW, I do tend to vote Working Families Party in the general election just in case the votes are separately tabulated that way the Dems know their support is coming from the more left edge of liberalism and not just from Wall Street and such.

        • ochospantalones

          The general election results do break out which line the vote came from (e.g. Democratic versus WFP). If you want to support Working Families it is actually more important to vote on their line in the general election than it is to register WFP because qualifications for future ballots are determined based on votes in the most recent gubernatorial general election. So voting for Cuomo as the Working Families ncandidate rather than as a Democrat makes a difference as a legal matter.

          • DAS

            The one thing of which I am not 100% sure, though, is whether my vote actually counts when I vote WFP in the general elections: e.g. supposing the voting percentages are

            D (Candidate D): 46%
            R (Candidate R): 47%
            WF (Candidate D): 2%
            L (Candidate D): 1%
            C (Candidate R): 1%

            with other candidates from other parties getting the remaining votes.

            Does Candidate D win because that candidate received the plurality of the vote (50%) or does the Republican (who happens to be candidate R) win because more voters (47%) voted for the Republican party in this race than for any other party?

            • ochospantalones

              To determine the winner they total up the votes for each candidate across all party lines. So Cuomo gets the votes from any line he is on, including Democrats and the WFP. This actually determined the 1994 governor’s race. Mario Cuomo ran as the Democratic and Liberal candidate while George Pataki ran as the Republican, Conservative, and Tax Cut Now candidate. Mario’s Democratic party line was the plurality leader, but Pataki beat him when you added in the 328,000 Conservative vote and 54,000 Tax Cut Now votes.

              • DAS

                Thanks for the clarification! So I’m perfectly safe voting for Democratic candidates on the WFP line rather than the Democratic line.

      • Warren Terra

        Oh, nonsense. If you truly believe in the WFP or the Conservatives as separate parties (which I’d argue is rather silly under our electoral system), you shouldn’t object that they can throw their support to a nominee who’s also chosen by another party but can’t actually pick that nominee. They’re separate parties! That’s not disenfrachisement!

        • DAS

          Also the WFP, Liberal and Conservative parties don’t have to merely support one particular party’s nominee. For example sometimes the Liberal party will support the GOP’s nominee or the Conservative party will support a Democrat.

      • JG

        WFP should definitely be allowed to vote in Dem primaries.

        • Warren Terra

          Why? They are another party. If they want to be the left wing of the Democratic party, they should be that.

          Should WFP get to vote in other states, too? Maybe they should get to vote twice!

    • Jackov

      In strong party states, one probably should not register as an independent; however, if one is in the boonies of upstate, registering as a Republican for local/state legislature elections might make sense. New York went 32 years between competitive Democratic gubernatorial primaries and is up to 16 for the Senate.

      • bender

        I don’t think anyone knows or cares what my party registration is and I’ve changed it several times. I registered Republican for awhile so I could vote against Christian Right candidates if any of them happened to be running in primaries.

    • Morse Code for J

      For the New York presidential primary, the deadline to register as a Democrat was March 25, either in person at the county elections board or via postmarked voter registration form. Bernie Sanders declared that he was running for the Democratic nomination on April 30, 2015.

      A month out from the election is probably a reasonable time to allow for processing of one’s voter registration. I don’t feel sorry for anyone who says that 10 months and 25 days was not enough time to change their party affiliation in New York.

      • nixnutz

        The deadline was March 25 if you weren’t already registered. If you were registered Independent or WFP, etc. the deadline to switch was October 9.

  • Anticorium

    This really was a bad night for democracy, what with the way that in October 2015 nobody could have predicted 2016 would be an election year. There really should have been some accommodation made for all those people who were surprised by the news.

    • Warren Terra

      I think it’s fair to say that more than six months is an unreasonably long lead time, even if you oppose same-day party affiliation changes. That doesn’t make it some kind of conspiracy or rampant injustice, though.

      • JG

        Exactly. Not everything is a Clintonista conspiracy.

        • Nor is every complaint about the voting system a charge of a Clintonista conspiracy.

  • yupyup

    I’m an ‘independent’. I’m no Hilary fan, but I’m also not, by any stretch of the imagination, feeling the Bern. A national ban on fracking? Please. (Obviously, this is something Loomis would be supporting). Neither Dem candidate (or any of the others, of course) is doing it for me.

    And Loomis seems to be implying that all primaries should be open – or that everyone should just join a party. But how does he feel about primaries vs. caucuses?

    • All primaries should be closed.

      And caucuses need to end.

      • plarry

        For those who live in (for example) red states, voting in an open primary is a time you actually get to express a choice in down ballot or local elections.

      • Agreed on both. Although I’m OK with same-day reaffiliation, because same-day voter registration is a good thing and it doesn’t make much sense to have one without the other.

        What’s worse than any of these are “jungle primaries” like in California, which are simultaneously an affront to a party’s right to choose its own candidates and ultimately highly undemocratic.

        • Dilan Esper

          California doesn’t prohibit any party from choosing its own candidates. They are welcome to spend their own money on elections and have them any way they want to.

          But if they want to have their elections taxpayer funded, they have to play by the taxpayers’ rules. Which is as it should be.

          • The thing I find amusing about the so-called “jungle” primaries in California is the number of cases in the Bay Area where no Republican appears on the general election ballot at all.

            • bender

              That is precisely why the voters passed the initiative, in the teeth of opposition from both the Republican and Democratic parties. A lot of districts in CA are safe for any Democrat who gets the nod. Moderate Republicans can occasionally win a general election–Arnold Schwartzenegger–but can’t get through the gantlet of a closed primary. (IIRC he ran for his first term as an independent; the GOP nominated someone else). In many parts of CA, the only way for voters to have a choice based on policy differences is to allow the entire electorate to choose between a moderate Dem and a more left wing Dem.

              I believe CA had something similar to the current arrangement back in the Fifties and Sixties, and in those days both parties were competitive and a lot of moderates won statewide offices.

              • apogean

                Schwarzenegger’s initial term was on the back of the Grey Davis recall election; while he didn’t technically secure his party’s nomination, it’s because they didn’t hold a primary and more than one Republican was able to run as a Republican on the ballot, and Democrats, and so on.

                • bender

                  A.S. would not have won a GOP primary in the year he ran for Governor. He’s pro-choice and was to the left of the primary voters on a number of issues. The Gray Davis recall created a situation in which he could bypass the party filter and he seized it.

                • JMP

                  He also could not have won a GOP primary in the year he ran for Governor because there wasn’t one, because there it wasn’t a gubernatorial election year.

              • ajay

                A lot of districts in CA are safe for any Democrat who gets the nod. Moderate Republicans can occasionally win a general election–Arnold Schwartzenegger–but can’t get through the gantlet of a closed primary.

                +1 for the correct spelling of “gantlet” – it is a different word from “gauntlet” meaning a glove – but I’m afraid -1 for mis-spelling “Schwarzenegger”.

                • Grumpy

                  http://grammarist.com/usage/gantlet-gauntlet/

                  That site says gauntlet has been the common spellings for the meaning at issue since the 18th century.

                • bender

                  I accept your scoring. I’m currently typing one-handed which requires extra effort.

        • N__B

          I’m okay with same-day reaffiliation, but my god would NY need to improve the database technology used for that to be even remotely feasible.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And Loomis seems to be implying that all primaries should be open

      If by that you mean the opposite of that.

      • Warren Terra

        Poe-tay-toe, Poe-tah-toe

  • MDrew

    So the lesson is really that independents should be independent, not that they are (since they’re very often not), even though we have every power to include them. We just don’t want to.

    • MDrew

      …’Scuse me. Should be worthless.

    • Warren Terra

      independents should be worthless

      No. Independents are brilliant, handsome/beautiful, nice-smelling people who fart rainbows and please will they vote for us in the general election.

      What they’re not, is affiliated with the party. You want to help the party choose its nominee, maybe you shouldn’t disdain to affiliate with the party. Otherwise you’re just heckling.

    • nixnutz

      Registering Independent is the ultimate voting-as-self-expression move. If there’s any upside it’s certainly not in the realm of actually influencing anything, it can only be feeling good about yourself. To expect a progressive to register as a Democrat is a minimal level of civic engagement that I am entirely comfortable with.

      And again, the idea that this hurts Bernie is conceding that his support comes disproportionately from people who are not only ignorant about politics but whose commitment to social change isn’t deep enough that they’d previously considered any of this.

  • GeoX

    I’m registered as “independent.” Of course, I always vote for Democrats in regular elections. I could easily switch back to “Democratic” if I cared about voting in primaries, but I never have, and I have a hard time envisioning a situation in which I would.

    • liberalrob

      If you don’t care who gets nominated, that’s fine. But if you feel strongly enough ideologically to always vote Democratic, you should probably be voting in the Dem primaries too. It doesn’t take that much effort and it lets you express your ideology, which you are already doing to some extent, in a potentially more significant way than when you vote in the general election. It’s worthwhile.

  • Was there anything stopping the Sanders campaign from running a comprehensive appeal to get people to register as Democrats in the months and weeks leading up to the primary? That’s a fairly time-honored way of achieving leftist/socialist takeover of center-left parties – see Corbyn in the UK, and there was an Israeli politician who did the same a few years ago. It doesn’t tend to last very long – at best it allows you to get your foot in the door and then you need to establish yourself with the party apparatus (that’s what sank the Israeli politician, and my guess is that Corbyn will be out before the next UK elections) – but it’s still the way to do it.

    • Sly

      I saw some mailers from Sanders’s New York operation, way the hell back in October, telling people to make sure they register as Democrats so they could vote in the primary. So it was on someone’s radar, but they just didn’t do anything more than that.

      And I remember telling my Bernie-loving sister to make sure she was a registered Democrat so she could vote for him, but she apparently forgot and is now complaining about being “disenfranchised.”

      • MDrew

        October is just ridiculously early. It should be day-of, but it certainly shouldn’t be more than a month out.

        • Sly

          True. But the reason why its been this way is because New York has never played a deciding voice in the Democratic Primary until… well… now. Barring, of course, some extraordinarily unlikely and massive turnaround for Sanders in California. Since our primaries are almost always more competitive than our general election contests, both parties put up barriers to protect those primaries from interference by people in the opposing party.

          On the one hand, any campaign running in New York should know that. But I’d cut Sanders’s campaign some slack due to the unprecedented importance of the state in the race.

          • MDrew

            It’s no kind of excuse for bad rules, a). B) It would be extraordinary for any campaign to be foresighted enough to see in September or sooner that everything was going to ride on getting registered independents to register as Democrats – in October.

            • Sly

              1) You don’t register as an independent in New York State. You’re either affiliated with a party or you’re not. There is the Independence Party, which sometimes new registrants mistakenly join thinking it makes them unaffiliated, but that’s it.

              2) Because the purpose of closed primaries is too limit the impact of the opposing party in the contest, there are different deadlines for new party registrants and people switching party affiliations. To participate in the primaries, the deadline for new registrants was March 25th and the deadline for people to switch party affiliations was October 9th. My sister was unaffiliated.

              • skate

                Re 1. “Sometimes”?

                The Independence party claims 5% of New York’s party affiliations as of April 1, and yet only 2% of votes in the 2014 gubernatorial election went to Cuomo on that party’s line.

                By contrast, the Working Families party claims just 0.5% of party affiliations but received 3% of votes in the 2014 election (again, for Cuomo).

                So my take is that the bulk of people registered with the Independence party is that they were paying no attention when they filled their voter registration form. That Cuomo accepted placement on the Independence line on the ballot is another symbol of what a tool he is.

              • MDrew

                Fair enough, my mistake. People registered with other parties. I suspect a considerable number (maybe not a majority) of the ones looking to vote for Sanders were registered that way as a holdover from an affiliation the voter no longer had much emotional or substantive connection to, and some simply from a mistake.

      • MDrew

        In terms of disenfranchisement, let’s be clear. We would say this kind of rule was disenfranchisement if it actually involved the franchise. The issue is not that the rules are clear, therefore no one was disenfranchisement. There can be clear voting rules that cause disenfranchisement in elections for office.

        The only thing that makes this not disenfranchisement is that voting in party primaries doesn’t implicate the franchise. It’s not voting directly for political office. It’s voting to influence a private (membership) organization in its decisions about how to influence how people eventually vote in elections for public office.

        Of course, this kind of emphasis on people not having a franchise right to vote in party primaries is a striking new emphasis especially for the “Democratic” Party, in this year of outsider challenges to party-sponsored candidates. It’s a clarifying shift. People aren’t being disenfranchised because this ain’t their franchise, not because the rules in question wouldn’t disenfranchise people if they governed the franchise.

    • Warren Terra

      Was there anything stopping the Sanders campaign from running a comprehensive appeal to get people to register as Democrats in the months and weeks leading up to the primary?

      Well, the deadline to change your party affiliation for yesterday’s April 19 primary was apparently October 9. That would seem to be a fairly significant barrier to organizing new party affiliations “in the weeks and months leading up to the primary”. I really think 6 months is probably unreasonably long.

      • N__B

        It is unreasonably long, but the answer to the question you quoted is still “no.”

      • From what I’ve seen people say on twitter (which may not be true) it was six months to change your party affiliation, but people not affiliated with any party could have registered as Democrats up to a month ago. That certainly seems to me like a group far more likely to vote for Sanders than people already registered to vote for another party.

        • kped

          Yeah, from what I hear from Sanders people, is that many are very young and this is their first dance, so I’d think the March deadline would be more relevant, and if the campaign didn’t work to get those supporters registered, tough shit.

        • Manny Kant

          Probably plenty of WFP people who would’ve voted for Bernie. But, I mean, that’s a good reason not to register as a member of the WFP. You can still vote their line in the general election if you’re registered as a Democrat.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            I saw somewhere that the WFP only had less than 50k members… Significantly less than Hillary’s margin over Bernie. The 3+ million unaffiliated are basically the only group that matters much in this discussion.

        • Sly

          Party switchers wanting to vote for Sanders with non-shenanigans intent would likely be registered as members of the New York chapters of the Green Party or the Working Families Party.

          However, their numbers would have been too small to make much of a difference; WFP has a little under 50,000 members and the Greens probably have less than half that, while there are over 5 million registered Democrats in the state.

          • Sly

            Also, owing to the preeminence of Democratic primaries over the general election in state-wide contests, there are some liberal-ish people in New York who are registered as Republicans under the rationale that they have a better chance of having their vote “matter” if they vote in the Republican primary (but still voting for the Democrat in the general).

            It’s not exactly air-tight logic, but I know at least five of these people.

    • Was there anything stopping the Sanders campaign from running a comprehensive appeal to get people to register as Democrats in the months and weeks leading up to the primary?

      The deadline for re-registering for the primary was six months ago.

      • Sly

        the deadline was six months ago for people who wanted to change their party registration. For people who are not affiliated with any party the deadline was March 25th.

        • Hence, the sentence “The deadline for re-registering for the primary was six months ago.”

          In response to the question about getting people “….to register as Democrats.”

  • Docrailgun

    I don’t think any of you understand the seriousness of this situation. You see, the Democratic Party is being run by low-information red state brown women (the traditional lackeys of Goldman Sachs) who are committing voter fraud to complete the capitulation to Reagan by working to defeat Tom Bombadil… er, Senator Sander and to elect a baby-eating Republican Clinton.
    That’s what I learned while reading Daily Los diaries.
    Oh, and Kos is actively working to thwart progressive movements. He’s a Republican too, it turns out.

    • Jeff Ryan

      Yeah, we understand low-info people like you. That’s why we ignore you.

      • I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm.

        • Breadbaker

          I’m imagining the three-part “Adventures of Tom Bombadil” that Peter Jackson has just cast Bernie Sanders for. It will make the three-part Hobbit movies seem concise and faithful to the source.

    • The Bernie vs Hillary wars over at Kos are getting really old.

      • sparks

        It’s so bad, I don’t even go there to read you anymore.

      • tsam

        Those guys really know how to take it to 11. The 2008 primaries chased me away from that outfit for good.

        That and the weepy gushing about how awesome it is to wake up in the morning with Barack Obama as president [[wretch]]. Hero worship is gross.

        • kped

          So you’ve missed the odes to “Birdie Sanders” and all the great talk about how the Pope is a super Bernie Sanders supporter????

          You’ve missed out on a great deal my friend. I pity you.

          (Kos himself has been really good during the primary, just as he was in 2008. Some of the diary writers though…eeeesh. I’m with you on the disdain of hero worship. It’s downright creepy).

        • JMP

          The diaries chased me away shortly after Obama’s inauguration, where there were also home to some of the people who immediately turned on him and claimed he was just like Bush because they didn’t get a pony.

          And I’d bet that they were some of the same people engaging in the insane hero worship before Obama actually took office and had to start actually working to get things done, instead of the perfectly pure non-politician who agreed 100% with all their ideas and could get Congress to do whatever he wanted of their imaginations.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        Oh lord, those diaries chased me away from Daily Kos a long time ago. I used to be a prolific commenter and occasional diarist there. But it’s an insufferable clickbait shitstorm over there now.

  • Jeff Ryan

    You know what? Fuck them. They made the decision to screw the party. And now they’re whining? Boo-hoo, Bernie didn’t win!

    What did you think would happen you idiots? Welcome to the real world. It’s a lot more complicated than free tuition.

    Ouch, idiots.

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      “They made the decision to screw the party.”

      Indeed. The crime of voting for a candidate not approved by Official Arbiter Of All Things Democratic Jeff Ryan can never be expunged.

      When will the FEMA camps be ready to receive the first cattle-truck of subversives?

      Askin’ for a friend.

      • Origami Isopod

        Wow.

        • So there’s a right wing meme I wasn’t expecting to hear from Sanders supporters…

    • CD

      This is some asshole trying to stir the pot.

  • Breadbaker

    Of course, nothing is more democratic than the way minor parties nominate their candidates. I’m sure Jill Stein will face serious opposition, just as Ralph Nader did in 2000 (he says having had the pleasure of voting against Ralph Nader ’58 for Harvard’s Board of Overseers tonight).

    • Damn it all! I just finished throwing out the Household Cliffie’s ballot (unread and) uncast! Had we but known…

      Do you think they’d accept a write-out?

  • alex284

    As others have pointed out, there’s the discrimination issue that comes with registering for a party. Obviously that depends on where, in what sector, and if you work, but this is probably something that affects dems more than republicans because employers tend to be more conservative than employees.

    Completely unrelated, I remember an 8th grade teacher going on about how awesome he was because he voted for candidates based on their individual virtue and not on things like party affiliation or policy issues (seriously, he had some Ben Franklin or someone quote about how virtuous politicians would always choose the best policy, but politicians who tell you what you want to hear are probably lying. Ugh). I remember thinking this sounded vaguely wrong but then I was not a very politically involved 8th grader.

    I just heard someone say something along these lines a week or two ago. Even though the parties have become more ideological over the last few decades, the allure of faux-sophistication that comes with pretending that you go through every single candidate’s bio before voting is strong. I blame the media.

  • Thlayli

    The Berniebots are hilarious. “The majority of Democratic voters like Clinton better? Inconceivable! It’s a conspiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiracy!!!!”

    We’ve known for four years that New York would hold a closed Democratic primary in 2016. If it didn’t occur to you to take part until the Berniessiah rose up, that’s your problem.

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      It might be a good idea to remember that you’ll need Bernie and his voters in November, before you start purging the party. Not to mention the fact that Democrats have before now been very grateful for Bernie’s consistent support in the Senate.

      • Burning_River

        Quiet-there hippies that need punched and millenials that need put in their places.

        • efgoldman

          Quiet-there hippies that need punched and millenials that need put in their places.

          I don’t think it’s hippie-punching to say a presidential campaign should know the rules in a major state and be able to work under them. They’re not secret.

          The other thing is: If you want to change an organization, you have to be part of the organization. Bitching about the primary rules is like bitching about your team’s draft choices: they might be good, you might wish that the team made better or different choices for all kind of reasons, but what you think doesn’t matter unless you’re in a position to influence the choice.

          Senator Sanders is not a Democrat. He has never run as a Democrat. He’s been critical of the party, of which he is not and has never been a member, for his whole career. Now he parachutes in as the Angel of Revolution who’s going to change things? Sorry, not buying it. If it weren’t for open primaries, he’d just be a blot on the political windshield.

          And it’s not as if there isn’t a good Democratic infrastructure in his state. Every statewide office holder except the Lieutenant Governor is a Democrat, as are the other senator and the congressman; both houses of the legislature are majority Democrats. He’d have had all the institutional support he’d ever need as a Democrat. He chose not to be a part of it – nobody pushed him out.

          • cpinva

            this. and my bet is that, as soon as he ceases being a viable candidate as a democrat, he switches back to being an independent. it was strictly a change for convenience sake, no more or less.

            • cleek

              IIRC, he’s already filed the paperwork for his 2018 Senate run, as an Independent.

              • kped

                Must be nice. Get to run as an independent while the party supports you with fundraising and running ads against your opponents. Hell, he took 10K from Hillary in 2006. I wonder how much that corrupted and influenced his votes since then…very suspicious…

          • Burning_River

            You’re right on all of these things.

            However, there is a particular thread of Clinton supporter that seems to think that the overwhelming majority of Sanders’ supporters are ignorant, lazy, etc. There’s enough of that bullshit on the right that we don’t need it on the left. That’s some of what I pick up in comments like this and it irritates me.

            I am a long-standing registered Democrat, and I’m struggling to understand how the party benefits in the short or the long term from standing over what will soon be the remains of the Sanders’ campaign and celebrating, and scolding folks who have more left-leaning views that would likely be more in line with the party were it not run by people like DWS.

            • cleek

              I’m struggling to understand how the party benefits in the short or the long term from standing over what will soon be the remains of the Sanders’ campaign and celebrating

              the party doesn’t benefit.

              but a lot of Sanders’ supporters have apparently made it their full time job to insult and vilify Clinton supporters and the Democratic Party itself. so, the rank and file are defending the party.

              • Burning_River

                Defending the party by summarily trashing voters who should be in the party’s wheelhouse? Well, that is a decidedly Democratic Party-sounding move.

                Anecdotal, to be sure, but, I know a good number of good, solid Democratic voters here in OH who went for Sanders because they believe the party needs to be more Progressive, and voting for Sanders is how they manifest that. So, there’s lots of rank and file in those Sanders voting numbers.

                IE-At least some of the calls are coming from inside the house.

                • cleek

                  Defending the party by summarily trashing voters who should be in the party’s wheelhouse?

                  yeah, that’s the funny thing about people: they really don’t like being insulted. just like the Sanders voters who now threaten to sit it out because some Clinton supporters were impolite to them on the internet, some Clinton supporters aren’t feeling very charitable towards the Sanders supporters who spent months insulting them. spite works both ways.

                  So, there’s lots of rank and file in those Sanders voting numbers.

                  no doubt.

                  but there are more Clinton voters than Sanders voters among the Dem rank and file – the exit polls clearly show that.

                  i’m sure most of us will be one big unhappy family again, in a few months. if not… well, the alternative is the shouty orange asshat.

                • JMP

                  Supporting Clinton is not actually the same thing as trashing Sanders supporters, at all.

                • MyNameIsZweig

                  they really don’t like being insulted. just like the Sanders voters who now threaten to sit it out because some Clinton supporters were impolite to them on the internet, some Clinton supporters aren’t feeling very charitable towards the Sanders supporters who spent months insulting them.

                  Ah, I see now. When Sanders supporters do it, they are “insulting” Clinton supporters.

                  When Clinton supporters do it, they are merely being “impolite on the Internet” to the aggrieved Sanders voters.

                  Got it.

              • liberalrob

                a lot of Sanders’ supporters have apparently made it their full time job to insult and vilify Clinton supporters and the Democratic Party itself

                If by “a lot” you mean “a few.” I highly doubt a lot of Sanders supporters are doing this kind of thing.

            • redwoods301

              It’s an ugly look that’ll leave a bad taste in the mouth of the under-35’s. So, it’ll be another instance of establishment Dems turning off the younger voters at exactly the perfect time for Shouty Orange.

            • efgoldman

              I’m struggling to understand how the party benefits in the short or the long term from standing over what will soon be the remains of the Sanders’ campaign and celebrating

              I’m not celebrating. OTOH, I live in RI, where we have same day party re-registration. Not that I’d ever consider re-registering Republiklown.
              I think it would also be wise for NY to change their rules. I don’t live there, so I have no say.
              However they are what they are. They weren’t going to change between last fall and now. To complain about them the week of the primary is a waste of everyone’s time.

          • tsam

            I don’t think it’s hippie-punching to say a presidential campaign should know the rules in a major state and be able to work under them. They’re not secret.

            This is just the kind of Shillary crap we don’t need up in this joint, ef.

            • efgoldman

              This is just the kind of Shillary crap we don’t need up in this joint, ef.

              C’mon, Snidely, you know better, unless you’re snarking.

          • MDrew

            If you want to change an organization, you have to be part of the organization.

            This is a bad, false, and pernicious idea that should not gain purchase on the left or anywhere else.

            • MDrew

              It may sometimes be the case, but that doesn’t make it a rule, and it doesn’t even make it salutary in all the instances when it’s the case. I’m predisposed to see it as unfortunate when it’s the case.

              • efgoldman

                I’m predisposed to see it as unfortunate when it’s the case.

                Take it out of politics and generalize it. Go back to my analogy to draft choices. Or think about, say, a fraternal organization. If I think the Royal Order of Flying Squirrels wears stupid costumes, they’re not going to change because I stand on the sidewalk and yell at them. If I join, and try to persuade the other members, I might get somewhere – or I might not.

                ETA: Reminds me of a guy I used to work with. He used to bitch about what state and local government did. He was not even registered to vote. Screw him.

                • MDrew

                  So issue advocacy groups are forlorn organizations, because they’re seeking to change government behavior without joining the government.

                  Your vision is a fearsome one of insiderism dominating all human affairs. Luckily, it’s not a true vision of how the world actually is. Organizations respond both to internal and external pressures.

      • cpinva

        “It might be a good idea to remember that you’ll need Bernie and his voters in November, before you start purging the party.”

        except that so many have publicly stated that they won’t vote in nov., or if they do vote, they’ll vote for the republican, if Sen. Sanders isn’t the D party nominee. in fact, according to many of them, they fully expect Ms. Clinton to be sitting behind bars by then.

        Sen. Sanders’ campaign seems to have attracted an inordinate number of exceptionally stupid people to it, ascribing to him their weird conspiracy theories about Ms. Clinton. I’m sure he appreciates that.

        • MilitantlyAardvark

          Sen. Sanders’ campaign seems to have attracted an inordinate number of exceptionally stupid people to it

          And yet, they’ve managed to panic Clinton, push her to the left to the point where she at least resembles a Democratic candidate – and she still hasn’t won a race that she entered as the preemptive favorite. Given her massive … well, let’s charitably call them “institutional advantages” … it all rather suggests that the Clinton supporters aren’t gifted with exceptional political acumen.

          As for conspiracy theories about Clinton, the fact that she has apparently learned nothing since 2008 and was remarkably adept at saying crass and tone-deaf things then explains why many people find her untrustworthy at best. I guess it must be residual trauma from those snipers at Tuszla.

          See how easy it is to rubbish the other candidate and her supporters?

          Or we could all, you know, try doing the sensible, rational, smart thing and recognizing that the GOP are the enemy here.

          • random

            push her to the left

            I think this is something we are telling Bernie supporters to make them feel better about the outcome, but there’s just as much sign that she’s actually the one pushing him to the left.

          • I guess it must be residual trauma from those snipers at Tuszla.

            There’s another one. You should check out this “Breitbart” site, it sounds right up your alley.

            • liberalrob

              It was sarcasm/parody…

          • efgoldman

            they’ve managed to panic Clinton

            Granted, I’m not in the room, but I don’t see any evidence of “panic.” I see steady as she goes, letting the math work inexorably, which it clearly has.

        • GeoX

          except that so many have publicly stated that they won’t vote in nov., or if they do vote, they’ll vote for the republican, if Sen. Sanders isn’t the D party nominee.

          …can we define “so many” as a percentage? ‘Cause I’m guessing it’s about equivalent to the number of pumas in ’08. It’s worth remembering that a few internet loudmouths don’t define a movement as a whole.

          • Rob in CT

            This has always been my take on this.

            To be perhaps overly fair, it seems like there *could* be more BernieorBusters than PUMAs since more Bernie supporters are Indies. Then again, I think a non-zero number of PUMAs were GOP ratfuckers.

            • random

              It is not comparable to the PUMAs, who had a long demonstrated history of voting Democrat prior to that.

              Most of the #BernieOrBust crowd have a proven track record of not voting Democrat and actively encouraging other people to not vote Democrat either.

              They don’t constitute anywhere near a majority of his supporters, but they are also not bluffing either.

              • Hogan

                PUMAs, who had a long demonstrated history of voting Democrat prior to that.

                Which PUMAs are those?

                • random

                  The ones who were voting in closed Democratic primaries as registered Democrats? Clinton ran away with NY in 2008 too.

            • JMP

              To be fair, I also suspect a non-zero number of Bernie-or-Busters are also Republican ratfuckers, especially as some push the various discredited anti-Clinton conspiracy theories as reasons not to vote for her.

          • petesh

            It’s certainly tempting to reduce the Berniebots (bros, etc) to Internet loudmouths, which some of them are, but Sanders did get a lot of votes. Seems to me that HRC has started to be generous in victory, and I just hope that Bernie can find it in himself to be equally gracious in defeat.

            • liberalrob

              He has been and he will.

        • Bruce B.

          Have “so many” said it? Or have a fairly small number said it again and again and again? The difference matters.

      • Thlayli

        You’re (collective “you”) not going to vote Dem in November, because some of the people you’ve shouted “CORPORATE SELLOUT!!!” at for the last few months gave you some backtalk?

        Fine, go ahead.

        Be prepared to spend the next 16 years — and counting — whining that what happened afterwards isn’t you fault.

  • N__B

    I did not know that party affiliation is public record. My next question is “why is it public record?”

    • Warren Terra

      I assume the public-good argument would be that it helps parties and for that matter political movement not (officially) affiliated with the parties identify and get in touch with sympathetic voters.

      • N__B

        IMO, personal privacy greatly outweighs what’s good for the parties. But then again, I am not running a party.

      • ajay

        it helps parties and for that matter political movement not (officially) affiliated with the parties identify and get in touch with sympathetic voters.

        In normal party systems, you actually register as a member of a party with the party itself, so the idea that parties need help to find out who their members are makes no sense. The Labour Party knows (or should know) who its members are because they’ve all got in touch with the Labour Party saying “can I join?” and paid their annual dues. Just like the Tropical Fish Breeders’ Club knows who its members are. And if some other organisation wants to get in touch with Labour Party members without the Labour Party’s knowledge and consent – tough.

        • Just like the Tropical Fish Breeders’ Club knows who its members are.

          I would totally write in the Tropical Fish Breeders candidate in the general election if I could figure out who that is!!!

          But as it is I’ll have to settle for Zombie Screaming Lord Sutch.

          • N__B

            I, for one, would never vote for a fish-fucker.

            • Warren Terra

              Yeah, I expect the next Republican scare-the-old-folks story to be about those perverts who want to breed with tropical fish … and they’re in your grandkids’ bathrooms!

            • Hogan

              Troy McClure haz a sad.

              (“I thought you said he was dead.”
              “No, I said he sleeps with the fishes.”)

            • random

              I, for one, would never vote for a fish-fucker.

              Depends. What’s his position on the capital gains tax?

    • I had no idea either.

      • cpinva

        me either. this might (at least in part) explain why I get those funny looks from other people, during those (very rare) times I go walking downtown. my little city tends very conservative republican, so my liberal/progressive aura tends to stand out.

        • Ahuitzotl

          that, or the horns, tail and pitchfork

      • sharculese

        It doesn’t shock me in the least. The GA Secretary of State’s website has a widget where all you need is a name and a birthday to find out someone’s polling place.

        Georgia doesn’t have party registration, but if they did, I bet it’d be on there, too.

    • Rob in CT

      As to why: probably so that the parties can use the lists to send you mail hitting you up for money.

      That seems to be what the Dems use mine for. I get more Dem mail than my wife (who is unaffiliated). Though that might be b/c I made the mistake of giving some money to the DNC…

      • petesh

        Yes, the analytics (even on the local level I am familiar with) are quite sophisticated. They include not just registration but habits of voting (e.g. presidential years only, etc) and other data, so you can target mailers effectively to swing voters.

  • jpgray

    Here are some arguments for open primaries / same day registration that occur to me:

    (1) A primary electorate closer to that which will vote in the general, lessening the chance of a party nominee viable among the general minority of registered members but unpopular with the majority wider electorate (Coakley?)

    (2) Many (all?) of the arguments for running only closed primaries could easily also be made for running only caucuses – what, can’t bring yourself to sit in a room for four hours, precious snowflake? (Presumably even Erik is not a fan of these)

    (3) Reduces the chance for unintentional disenfranchisement of some registered party voters at the margins; allows for bringing independents in during an exciting race or given an inspiring candidate (same day registration would resolve this also)

    (4) Reduces the advantages of party insiders and establishment clout generally, loosening top-down candidate/platform control

    (5) Pragmatic registration for primary voting as Erik would argue for distorts registration data; ups and downs in party registration are at least noticed more than the truly ignored non-voters, and moreover consumer-style analysis of registration data is how many evaluate a party’s strength and potential (as here)

    (6) Incidence of false flag troll voting is overstated in my opinion and not much of a distorting effect

    (7) Voting for a candidate should be a sufficient show of support for the party/candidate, if checking a box at the DMV is also sufficient

    (8) More people having input on who will run in the general; one of whom will inevitably impact their daily lives for generations

    • Warren Terra

      I think there’s at least one you don’t mention: same-day voter registration. There’s all kinds of reasons to like same-day voter registration, and it’s difficult to imagine how you’d have that without having same-day party affiliation. Though, not impossible.

      • N__B

        it’s difficult to imagine how you’d have that without having same-day party affiliation

        I think the answer involves elephant and donkey tattoos.

        • cpinva

          “I think the answer involves elephant and donkey tattoos.”

          forget that! if I have to get a tattoo, I’m registering Flying Spaghetti Monster party, they only require a single strand of pasta tattoo.

      • jpgray

        Hey, I mentioned it! Right at the top too! The one I didn’t mention was “(9) OBVIOUSLY Bernie would have won it easily Hillbots!!!!” :D

        But seriously yeah, never heard any decent argument for not allowing same day registration. Same day works very well here in MN.

        • cpinva

          prior to the age of computers, especially pc’s and laptops, I can see that there would be some admin problems associated with same-day registration. that, however, hasn’t been the case for the past 15-20 years. with internet connections, the main registration file can be updated almost simultaneously. so yeah, there really is no current decent argument against allowing it, it should be the case in every state in the union, as far as I’m concerned.

          • so-in-so

            It appears many states that do allow same day (or at least closer to the day) registration dis-allow people from switching parties close to the primary. Probably to discourage ratf__king.

            Missing from some people’s “purity of independence” proclamations is the fact that with secret ballot you could be a registered Dem and still vote for the GOP (or Working Parties) candidate.

  • lff

    In NC and most of the GOP gerrymandered south you are irrelevant unless you are republican. To be relevant you have to be able to choose someone who might actually win. If all democrats would register unaffiliated or republican the minority vote would split the party into an irrelevant tea party branch and a much less conservative republican branch and gradually move things to the left.
    (Unlikely unfortunatly.)

    Divide and conquer!

    lff

    • efgoldman

      If all democrats would register unaffiliated or republican the minority vote would split the party into an irrelevant tea party branch and a much less conservative republican branch and gradually move things to the left.
      (Unlikely unfortunately.)

      I don’t know how the mechanics worked historically, but isn’t that essentially what happened in Southern county courthouses, but with nominal Democrats, into the 70s?

    • sharculese

      A lot of those states already have open primaries. I’ve still never asked for a Republican ballot.

  • marduk

    1. I know a good number of young people who were planning to vote for the first time in this primary, went to register within the last few months, and found that they would have needed to register last October to vote in this primary. That’s insane and NY needs to fix it.

    2. Upstate voting hours begin at Noon. NYC and its suburbs start voting at 6AM. This is just a blatant attempt to reduce upstate turnout relative to downstate and it’s unjustifiable. NY needs to fix it.

    These are both issues that will persist into the next primary election unless something is done to fix them. They’re problematic no matter who they helped or hurt in the voting this time around.

    • DEJL

      The registration deadline for new voters was in March.

      The October deadline for changing party registration is ridiculously early, but first time voters shouldn’t have had much problem.

      • MDrew

        Four weeks is too long, too.

    • N__B

      Upstate voting hours begin at Noon. NYC and its suburbs start voting at 6AM. This is just a blatant attempt to reduce upstate turnout relative to downstate and it’s unjustifiable. NY needs to fix it.

      You are absolutely right. That said, I find it an amusing turnaround of the pattern elsewhere in the country where it’s the city-dwellers who get fucked.

    • cleek

      same-day registration + ~10 days of early voting, fuckos! even backwards NC knows how to do this voting stuff better than center-of-the-universe NY!

      (as a transplanted native NYer, i can say shit like this)

  • N__B

    One other way MM is wrong:

    1.6M allowed to vote.

    The New York state democratic party registration as of April 1, 2016 was over 5 million. So the 1.6 million is who chose to vote in the D primary, not who was “allowed.”

    • Rob in CT

      So, if we assume Indies turned out at the same rate for the primary and that 2/3 of Indies lean D, we get:

      3.2 Indies. 2/3 = 2.13MM additional potential voters for the Dem primary

      1.6/5.2M = 30.8% Democratic turnout.
      Assuming the same turnout: 30.8% of 2.13MM = 656k Indy voters who would have voted in the Dem primary if allowed (this strikes me as a dubious assumption, but not crazy).
      Now let’s say they break 4/5 for Bernie. That’s a 525k net vote gain.

      So, if NY had an open primary and my assumptions are roughly right (not sure about that at all), there might’ve been a ~500k net vote gain for Bernie. Which would have swung things.

      Less optimistic assumptions might be more reasonable, though. Lower turnout, less lopsided break for Bernie, etc.

      [note: I’m not arguing for open primaries – actually I’m more inclined toward closed ones]

      • N__B

        That all makes sense. (I’m not sure about the 80% for Sanders, but I don’t have any better info than you do.) But it’s somehow less sensational than saying only 1.6M were allowed to vote.

      • Rob in CT

        Gah, I should’ve used the 65%-70% figure Moore used for Bernie’s share of Indy voters.

        Net vote gain would then be 425 to 460k. No idea what the distribution of those votes would be… Sanders already won a LOT of counties, but they tended to be the low-pop ones. Where the people are, people largely voted for Clinton.

        Also note sure about my assumption that 2/3 of NY indies lean D. Just a WAG, based on it being a blue State.

        • N__B

          Not just low population, lower D percentage of population. That doesn’t make them unimportant (I’m not doing the reverse of Sanders’s unfortunate comments about southern states) but rather means that there may be fewer left-leaning indies upstate than down.

        • kped

          Making one more mistake Rob:

          656K indy voters *.7 = 459K for Sanders.

          656K indy voters *.3 = 136K for Clinton

          Net for Sanders = 323K.

          Now, assuming that is “true”, Sanders would have won by 37K votes.

          I have my doubts that all of that would hold though.

          • Rob in CT

            Right! Obviously I knew I wanted to end up with net gain – I used the term – but somehow failed to actually take the extra step of subtracting out the 30% (or 35%) for Clinton.

            • kped

              I’m at work with Microsoft Excel opened in front of me, so I just had to check the math!

              • Rob in CT

                Heh. I’ve got Excel open too…

                • kped

                  Someone linked to this piece, and I think it’s apt:

                  http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/04/20/a-new-york-state-of-mind/

                  To continue, the idea that the potential flood of independent voters an open primary might have engendered might have turned the tide for Sanders is kinda suspect. To date there have been thirteen open Democratic primaries, and of those thirteen Clinton has won ten, and of the three that Sanders won, one was a virtual tie (Michigan), and the only blowout Sanders had in the format was in his home state of Vermont. Sanders’ best format for wins is actually the caucuses, which reward the especially fervent — he’s won six of nine closed caucuses and all three open caucuses. Meanwhile in addition to the 10 of 13 open primaries, Clinton’s won three of the four closed primaries (the one of these Sanders won: “Democrats Abroad”).

  • cs

    Some arguments being made in this thread to justify the October party-switching deadline, could also be used to justify vote-suppressing voter ID requirements. eg. “it is up to the campaigns to explain to their voters how to obtain an ID”, or “if voters don’t obtain an ID that is their fault for not knowing there was an election coming up”.

    But what I really want to address is the idea that the Democratic party is (technically) a private organization, and they are under no obligation to hold their primary in a democratic or inclusive way. I think that is true only up to a point. In theory they could set the party rules to have Debbie Wasserman Schultz appoint the nominee in July. But there is a reason they don’t do it that way, and I think the main reason is that they want to be seen as picking their nominee in a fair, democratic way. So to the extent the process is unfair or undemocratic, it tarnishes their image and maybe to some extent their legitimacy as one party in the de facto two party system.

    • cleek

      I think that is true only up to a point.

      it’s entirely true, top to bottom.

      (doesn’t mean the NY Dem Party shouldn’t do something about its rules, tho.)

    • MDrew

      +1.

  • kped

    Another lesson: Momentum is bullshit. Clinton won 5 or 6 in a row…followed by 8 Bernie wins (my numbers may be off on both of those, but should be close to accurate). So that momentum got Bernie Sanders a…16 point loss in New York. Momentum is not a thing. The map is a thing. Everything in this race could be predicted with pretty good certainty using the map and demographics.

    Also makes me question those tightening polls. If national numbers were close as some are showing, you would see some of that in New York. Personally, i believed those and figured that Bernie would come in at 47 or 48%. But there was no tightening. So I think the aggregate (49-41) is probably closer to the truth than the closer polls.

    • efgoldman

      followed by 8 Bernie wins

      Mostly big empty caucus states, which is why it wasn’t a big deal.

      • kped

        It was actually 7 in a row. But I have seen some supporters write “8 election day wins”, which is the hackiest slight of hand. See…Sanders won the people who voted on actual election day in Arizona, whereas Hillary got most of her win from early voting…so if you just count who voted on election day, Sanders won 8 in a row!

        Being that desperate for a narrative is so sad. You know people making those arguments are going to go into actual, legit depression when this is done.

  • thispaceforsale

    Since parties are a mod on the original developer’s code, they aren’t going to be compatible with a lot of the user base.
    But because they are a mod, there is nothing stopping independents from joining the Democratic party and changing their rules. You want to make NY an open primary, play an active role in the party. Worried that party affiliation is a public record? Work to create a double opt-in affiliation system whereby registering for the party strictly to vote in a primary is the default, and agreeing to have your affiliation shared with 3rd parties an additional optin (or opt-out if you want greater grassroots reach).
    Then again, NY deliberately has its primary date in late April, meaning it has trained its citizens for decades that the primary process simply doesn’t matter. So while there are a lot of issues with how the parties operate, I’m not sure giving a voice/vote to people who are only interested in voting, and not any of the other party machinations is the best way to improve the party in the longterm for either the state or the country (and lord knows the party can do better).

    • AstroBio

      I’m pretty sure voter rolls are public record by definition. If you want affiliation to be cryptic, you would have to take it up with the state BOE.

  • Something new to add to my collection of Things I never thought I’d see any Democrat argue:

    “Same-say voter registration sucks! If you don’t get your election paperwork in order months before the primary, you’re out of luck, loser!”

    The 2016 Democratic primary has driven Hillary Clinton sharply to the left, and her online supporters sharply to the right.

    • kped

      Says the guy who thinks it would be fine for the election to be decided by Super Delegates going against the primary results and making the loser the winner…

      (but I do agree same day registration is better than this system. Still support closed primaries, but 6 or 3 months is far too early to make a deadline.)

      • Oh, look, bitter off-topic person has a bitter non-sequitur.

        You’ve also made up a position to attribute to me so you can have something nasty to say, but I think everyone here realizes at this point that’s just par for the course for you.

        • kped

          I ain’t bitter child, i’m perfectly happy. And it’s actually not a non-sequitur.

          a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

          Your statement above: Members of the left are moving to the right in terms of voting rights because it supports their candidate (Clinton).

          My statement: Literally 2 days ago you argued with me at length that it is perfectly fair for super delegates to ignore the actual election results and make Sanders the nominee if he’s leading national polls.

          Then you and Bijan got into an extended love fest talking about how great you both were, and how polls would be better than actual elections for reasons. But only national polls. And only good ones. Very Trumpian logic.

          That you are saying I’ve made this up is hilarious. It was 2 days ago. You tried to bait and switch to make your argument almost not terrible (SD’s aren’t elected, so why not vote how they want), but your undemocratic desires were pretty plain.

          • You really should get it through your head that writing really furiously to characterize yourself or some ongoing argument won’t actually make you or the argument look different to people who read it.

            I ain’t bitter child, i’m perfectly happy.

            A perfectly happy person doesn’t use affectations like that. A sentence like this just makes the steam coming out of your ears more visible. Sort like how repeatedly writing comments characterizing an argument of mine doesn’t make people believe my argument is actually how you describe it. The trying-too-hard aspect undoes whatever you think you’re accomplishing.

            And I’ve found that, except when there’s an opportunity to really bury some policy position you’re arguing, there’s really not a lot of point in engaging with you when you get like that.

            • jim, some guy in iowa

              gaslight much?

              • Thirtyish

                Especially since Joe is usually the first to dismiss any characterological discussion concerning him as “joe meta” (as if that dispositively invalidates it).

                • This makes no sense at all as a response to jim’s comment. I think you might be unfamiliar with his terminology.

              • You used to write things worth reading, jim. Now you just do this in response to my comments.

                Maybe you’ll return to something close to what you were before the primary once it’s over. Maybe.

              • Some people are doing something, for example:

                Seriously, this is such an awful argument, clearly made by people trying to hold a coronation for their candidate. I mean, specific people stood in line, many for hours, and placed an actual vote. To say “well, there’s a poll of random people and it’s now different, so change it!” is just amazing. It’s the kind of disenfranchisement I expect from Republicans. I guess primary time people just lose their minds a bit. That’s my charitable interpretation at least.

                or

                Apparently this is a shell game where he isn’t but is talking about Sanders maybe or maybe not…it makes sense in his head.

                I don’t think every speculative claim about a person’s motives in a comment thread is gas lighting per se. Compare with Dilan explicitly saying, multiple times, that I was clinically obsessed with him (relying on a various false claims about e.g., how much effort I put into finding recent comments of his) and I need to seek help before I hurt myself, and this is all pretty low key (either way), eh? Not productive, and very annoying esp. when you are a target, but hardly the worst.

            • kped

              Projecting again Joseph. It’s not a good look on you.

              And no, i’m not mischaracterizing the debate. Here, this is what you said:

              Since national polls at the time of the convention reflect (sort kinds, polls can be off) the will of the public when the super delegates vote, while pledged delegate outcomes (sorta kinda, see Wyoming) reflect the will of the public at the time they voted, why not?

              That’s an exact quote. Spin it any way you want, but your saying exactly what I said you were.

              You even “clarified”:

              As you just “explained,” after pretending I didn’t know this, super delegates’ votes are not determined by election results. The elections only selected pledged delegates. Therefore, overturning those election results would only mean changing the assignment of pledged delegates.

              (I was never confused about SD’s vs PD’s, you seemed to think I was saying SD’s could force PD’s to change their vote or some other such stupidity…)

              You can whine that I’m mischaracterizing your position. But really, your words are clear.

              http://lawyersgunsmon.wpengine.com/2016/04/playing-by-the-rules#comments

              I’m sure Bijan will be in here soon to back you up, have fun with each other, i know you need friends to pick you up after the last few days.

              • Bijan has already joined the discussion, and he agrees that you are are mischaracterizing the previous conversation.

                • kped

                  Oh no! The two of you agree! What ever should i do?? (also, I don’t see him in the discussion, that might be the voices in your head. I’ve not doubt he will be here to join you in saying “nuh uh”, but he hasn’t yet).

                  But that’s fine. Your words are there for all to see. I just quoted them above.

                  (also, his discussion was more “hypothetical” about a random race. Your quote above, mentioning Wyoming specifically shows you were talking about this race, so mixing your two arguments up might be a good way to dodge your awful undemocratic arguments, but it won’t really work Joe).

                • kped

                  Anyway, just thought it funny that you are saying that the primary is moving liberal voters to the right on voting when you moved even more sharply to the right on voting a mere 2 days ago.

                  Self awareness is a good thing, you should try it sometimes. Instead of thinking you are above it all (and don’t pretend you don’t. I’ll dig up you yelling “SUPPORTING BERNIE HAS MADE ME A BETTER MAN, SUPPORTING HILLARY HAS MADE YOU WORSE. PISS ON YOU YOU HALF A HUMAN”), maybe you should acknowledge that you have done the very thing you accuse others of, and maybe not reach for the snark so quick.

                • You should develop some degree of social intelligence, realize that you are not going to make yourself look good here, and stop writing comments.

                  But that’s fine. Your words are there for all to see. I just quoted them above.

                  Actually, you felt the need to characterize them, even trying to restart the fight over one area of contention. As you continue to do in this latest comment.

                  Oddly enough, I didn’t feel the need to do that.

                • Self awareness is a good thing, you should try it sometimes.

                  Lol

                  Anyway, just thought it funny that you are saying that the primary is moving liberal voters to the right on voting when you moved even more sharply to the right on voting a mere 2 days ago

                  Oh, look, you feel the need to characterize the argument you “just quoted” instead of letting it stand for itself again. I wonder what that means?

                  I haven’t changed anything I’ve believed or argued over the course of this campaign, and I understand perfectly why that bothers you so very much, and why you feel the need so strongly to insist I have.

          • Then you and Bijan got into an extended love fest talking about how great you both were, and how polls would be better than actual elections for reasons. But only national polls. And only good ones. Very Trumpian logic.

            This (and the rest of it) is, again, not remotely a correct characterisation of the thread.

            (That links to a comment which has links to the original thread. Sorry, kped is repeating this all over the place.)

            If one does go back to the thread, you’ll find several people besides joe who discuss the uniform sample idea and offer various interesting critiques. It’s a fun think to think about.

            But it’s clear that people mix up a lot of features of various survey techniques (telephone polling; current sampling vs true uniform, that elections aren’t surveys, how errors work,etc.). Plus there is definitely some “reactivity” due to the primary, some of which is understandable and some of it less so. Accusing people of having secret motives and then accusing them of being slippery when they deny those motives isn’t very productive.

            • kped

              It’s a characterization of the argument i was having with joe. and i’ve quoted him and linked to the thread, he was talking to me about this specific race. If he wants to snark on people “tacking right” in terms of voting, it’s entirely fair for people to see what he himself said about voting. What he said about SD’s ignoring votes.

              Your mixing my arguments with you with my argument with joe.

              • Your mixing my arguments with you with my argument with joe.

                Er…I don’t know how else to read:

                Then you and Bijan got into an extended love fest talking about how great you both were, and how polls would be better than actual elections for reasons.

                I mean, you call me out by name and then misrepresent* an argument that pretty much only I made.

                * That’s perhaps aggressive, but as I don’t agree with how you describe the argument, I don’t know how else to state it.

                • kped

                  What you just quoted was after my initial debate with joe. He went to the bottom of the thread and started a “hey can you believe this guy up there, he said X Y and Z”, then you two started agreeing with each other. My characterization stands: I had an argument with you. I had a separate argument with joe (about the same topic, but just me and him). Joe then went to the bottom of the comments, started a new post to hunt for allies, and that’s when you two started what I called your “love fest”. A bit harsh perhaps?

                  But I’m talking about (and quoting above) my argument with joe specifically. So yes, you are mixing them.

                  (and i need to say: Joes constant going down thread to try to get allies against me is quite pathetic. You think you are right? Then people can agree or disagree based on what you said. Trying to sneak to the bottom and say “hey, look at this idiot” is quite pathetic)

                • What you just quoted was after my initial debate with joe.

                  So?

                  My characterization stands: I had an argument with you.

                  Yes.

                  I had a separate argument with joe (about the same topic, but just me and him).

                  Yes.

                  Joe then went to the bottom of the comments, started a new post to hunt for allies, and that’s when you two started what I called your “love fest”. A bit harsh perhaps?

                  You mean here?

                  Well, not harsh so much as wrong. There’s one comment where joe goes “oo burn” in response to a comment of mine, and a few where we agree a bit out of 30 comments in that subthread which included other people discussing the topic. You go straight to “circle jerk” after joe goes “left a mark”.

                  So, yeah, I don’t see that what you wrote remotely characterises the thread even putting aside your tendentious ascription of motive to joe.

                  But I’m talking about (and quoting above) my argument with joe specifically. So yes, you are mixing them.

                  You mean, in this thread, you talk about your argument joe. I agree. But then, here, you talk about two additional things…”the love fest” and my polling arguments. I’m objecting to your description in the comment I reply to. So how am *I* mixing arguments?

    • Rob in CT

      Same-day voter registration = excellent
      Zero waiting period between being a registered Republican (or Democrat) and switching to Democrat (or Republican) = I don’t like.
      Indies being allowed to declare same-day is fine by me, and CT’s rule that you have to do it by noon the day before is suboptimal, though not by much obviously. NY’s rule is obviously worse.

      • I think the MA system of letting independent voters choose one primary ballot is the best answer.

        But prior to working out the details comes the principle, and the principle being expressed here – fuck all those people who decided over the course of the campaign who they liked; they shouldn’t get to vote – is a terrible one.

        Hey, look, we attracted someone to the Democratic Party; let’s turn her away at the polls.

        • Rob in CT

          I largely agree, except that “attracted to Bernie” isn’t necessarily “attracted to the Democratic party.” I’d expect significant overlap, so this is a minor quibble.

          • In the general case, attracting someone to the party will almost always begin by having an individual candidate who attracts them.

            In the specific case, Bernie – or at least “Bernie-ism” – is taking over the party.

            • liberalrob

              Or trying to, anyway.

              • When you see Hillary Clinton adopting Bernie Sanders’ platform over the course of the campaign, there’s very little doubt about the ideological direction of the party.

            • efgoldman

              In the specific case, Bernie – or at least “Bernie-ism” – is taking over the party.

              Right. Which is exactly why he switched back to independent in Vermont when he announced for re-election.
              He’s not a Democrat, he doesn’t want to be a Democrat, we owe him no consideration.
              And NY should still change their rules, but they were what they were for this primary.

              • Your personal feelings towards Bernie Sanders and his very troubling lack of partisan loyalty really don’t have anything to do with the comment you replied to, which is about the ideological direction of the party.

                Hillary Clinton is running away from the cautious centrism, the free trading, the triangulation that defined the party’s ideological center for two decades as fast as her feet can carry her, and she’s doing it in response to political demands of the party primary. Telling me that Bernie Sanders DOESN’T WANT TO WEAR THE RIBBON! doesn’t change what’s happening.

                • Warren Terra

                  Feelings are pretty sore right now, but I think most people commenting here who aren’t the biggest fans of Sanders are glad he’s pushing the conversation to the left.

        • brewmn

          The question remains, of course, whether the people we’re talking about today are actually attracted to the Democratic Party or simply attracted to the idea of blowing the whole system up by denying Hillary Clinton the nomination.

          That said, I’m a little put off by all the support for what seem like unnecessarily restrictive rules governing access the ballot, even in primaries, as well.

    • kped

      Here’s a take from Vox (Ezra Klein) that I like:

      http://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465392/bernie-sanders-superdelegates/in/11224245

      I especially like this line:

      It is, however, a bit unseemly for Sanders to blast New York’s primary for barring independent voters only to have his campaign manager go out and say they’re explicitly planning to use superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

      Seems appropriate to post this to you Joe…

      • liberalrob

        I don’t see what’s so “unseemly” about it. Both statements are perfectly reasonable.

        • kped

          1) They are saying not allowing independent voters to vote isn’t fair to voters, it’s disenfranchisement.

          2) They are saying, eh, in the end voters don’t matter, Super Delegates should make Bernie the winner anyway

          So in statement 1, “Oh no, the voters”, in statement 2 “Fuck what the voters want, we should win”.

  • Steve LaBonne

    I don’t like open primaries- parties should get to decide their own nominees. But a registration deadline many months before the primary is a naked voter suppression tactic, a game that has always been played in NY in multiple ways. Neither party likes nobody nobody sent- that might disturb their cozy arrangements with each other in Albany.

  • Origami Isopod

    Dear lord, people are stupid.

    • liberalrob

      Stop the presses!

    • Thirtyish

      You don’t say.

  • searcher

    There’s a bit of a weird dualism here of “the Democratic Party” and “Democratic voters”.

    There’s this weird desire of voters who don’t really cleave to a party to treat the primary as some sort of hacky implementation preference voting. “I don’t care between Clinton and Sanders, even though I like them both, but I really don’t want Cruz, so I’ll vote for Kasich in the primary and whoever the Democrat is in the general.”

    But the party isn’t just the regions in a final four bracket. The party is a voluntary association of people who are working together to promote a more-or-less shared world view. I’m a member of the Democratic Party because I believe that the world can be a better place than it is now, without violence and suffering and exploitation, and I believe that a well-run government can help alleviate these ills where they now exist.

    As a politician in the Democratic Party, I can propose and support policies which further these goals; as an active member of the Democratic Party, I can promote my particular variant of the worldview to other active party members and help find politicians who will support these goals; as a volunteer for the Democratic Party, I can work to inform the public at large of these political candidates and the opportunity we have to make things better, and to bring back the concerns of the community to inform the politicians of what sort of policies are needed.

    And as someone who is also occasionally an uninvolved voter, I can sympathize with the people who don’t have the time or the energy or the economic opportunity or the pure strength of will needed to devote yourself to a political party. And the party needs you; the Democratic Party cannot win elections with just the active members, we need the support of all of the fellow travelers who sympathize with the goals of the Democratic Party. So I can understand the utility of the primary polling, as opposed to just caucusing, to help find candidates which appeal to these fellow travelers.

    But while I sympathize, when you haven’t been canvassing for the Democratic Party, when you haven’t been going to party meetings and stumping for progressive candidates, when you haven’t been working at the pancake breakfasts and the fish fries and the penny socials to raise $500 bucks for a mailer or a radio spot, when you haven’t been doing a goddamn thing but bitch, and then you show up once every four years to call me a gear in a corrupt machine built for the benefit of nefarious Wall Street billionaires, and that this is who the Democratic Party should pick for President, well, go fuck yourself.

    • So I can understand the utility of the primary polling, as opposed to just caucusing, to help find candidates which appeal to these fellow travelers.

      But while I sympathize, when you haven’t been canvassing for the Democratic Party, when you haven’t been going to party meetings and stumping for progressive candidates, when you haven’t been working at the pancake breakfasts and the fish fries and the penny socials to raise $500 bucks for a mailer or a radio spot, when you haven’t been doing a goddamn thing but bitch, and then you show up once every four years to call me a gear in a corrupt machine built for the benefit of nefarious Wall Street billionaires, and that this is who the Democratic Party should pick for President, well, go fuck yourself.

      This is very interesting pushback on the anti caucus sentiment (note: I share that sentiment, but found your comment food for thought).

      I suspect there’s a more fundamental problem with this line but I’m having trouble figuring it out.

      Oh well, I’m clearly not figuring out now, but I will keep at it. Thanks for the comment!

      • Rob in CT

        I didn’t read that as support for caucuses.

        • Really? That’s what I got from:

          And as someone who is also occasionally an uninvolved voter, I can sympathize with the people who don’t have the time or the energy or the economic opportunity or the pure strength of will needed to devote yourself to a political party. And the party needs you; the Democratic Party cannot win elections with just the active members, we need the support of all of the fellow travelers who sympathize with the goals of the Democratic Party. So I can understand the utility of the primary polling, as opposed to just caucusing, to help find candidates which appeal to these fellow travelers.

          That strongly suggests that caucuses have the advantage of favouring the committed and promoting the voluntary association that is the party.

          • Rob in CT

            Hmm. Ok, rephrase: I didn’t read the comment as being primarily about caucuses. More of a “fuck you if you are gonna tell me that I’m a sellout because I got involved.” But yeah, there’s a side of support for caucuses in there I missed.

            • Sure, but the part I found most interesting is the caucus bits.

              • searcher

                There’s a bit of both in there.

                I personally view the primaries as a tool of a the party, not some sort of divine right of the citizenry in a democracy. It’s not like 90, 95% of party nominations aren’t made through the caucus system, after all. The primaries are a valuable tool to keep a committee from getting too insular or take the pulse of a large number of voters, but if we wanted to decide that the whole experiment with primary elections was a mistake and that the best way to pick a presidential candidate was with a political/economic/history quiz where the voters assign points to the answers, it’s not like a fundamental right has been violated.

                But yeah, most of my vitriol is for reformers who want to show up every few years to float a dream candidate for governor or President or maybe the US Senate or something else fancy like that, instead of working to build a good slate of local and state-level politicians, which is both important in and of itself and gives you a good bench of experienced, known, trustworthy candidates so that when the high-profile seats come into play, you have good choices available.

                • kped

                  Interesting article from Ed Kilgore, who was part of the DLC in the 90’s.

                  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/left-now-obsessed-with-polls-swing-voters.html#

                  A corollary of all this “swinging” was an equally iron commitment to open primaries as a way of ensuring that the party never lost touch with the views of the all-important indies — a positioning that the DLC’s intra-party opponents countered by fighting for closed primaries.

                  And in fact, this attitude reflected the arithmetical calculation — which Mark Penn talked about a lot — that swing voters possessed double the electoral value of base voters because they represented a vote denied to the opposition as well as one harvested by one’s own party.

                  I have to say, i’m laughing a bit that the people demanding open primaries are on the same side as the 90’s DLC and Mark Penn.

                  Personally, i get your point about the caucus, and I agree it is the parties right, so no rights are being abridged if that’s how they decide their candidates. I think it’s a bad idea, as it leads to a far more insular party and some really bad picks. Would Obama have won? Unlikely.

                  In Canada, they parties hold “leadership conventions”, where each riding sends delegates to pick the new leader. It’s pretty much a caucus, and it’s lead parties to make terrible choices, leaders who just had no connection to voters. There’s something to be said about a primary where you have to show you can run a competent campaign. Weeds out a lot of pretenders.

  • Erik’s party-discipline approach is appropriate for an ideologically-cohesive “responsible party” in a multi-party system, not for a 50%+1 catchall party in a two-party system.

  • ForkyMcSpoon

    Sounds like maybe closed primaries only combined with only the government/election officials and the relevant political party being privy to your party registration is the way to go.

    Combine that with automatic voter registration (or same-day). Party registration should be kinda separate from registration for the general.

    And the deadline should be closer to the primary. Perhaps after the first month of primary voting? If you don’t know whether you want to vote in the Democratic primary by Super Tuesday…

  • cleek

    also: Michael Moore is a doofus

    • efgoldman

      Michael Moore is a doofus

      This probably should have been the very first comment at the top.

  • wengler

    There are a lot of people in this thread defending New York’s backwards elections system.

    I guess since Bernie isn’t appealing to traditional Democratic constituencies, perhaps it would be best for everyone if he just ran in the general election and handed it to Trump.

    • Warren Terra

      There’s a lot of people who aren’t happy with what happened, or unhappy with the contentious atmosphere in this primary, and are reading their discontent into what other people say and not really giving them a fair shake.

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      I think it’s relevant to point out that the problems with NY’s system aren’t enough to swing the election much, nor are the various issues with the system overall enough to make Hillary’s nearly certain victory illegitimate (caucuses have gained Bernie more delegates than closed primaries have gained Hillary, for example).

      If you’re using NY’s stupid rules to argue that the overall nomination contest is illegitimate, then yes, you deserve the pushback.

      I think caucuses should be eliminated and the registration deadlines should be made much later (and made more consistent across states).

      Beyond all that, it’s worthwhile to point out that due to the rounding by congressional district, Bernie came out with about 43.7% of the delegates (more like a 12.5% margin), despite only getting 42% of the vote (16% margin). Nate Cohn has found that closed primaries help Hillary by an average of 3%… so it’s not clear that it made all that much of a difference in this particular case.

  • Warren Terra

    Author and blogger John Scalzi weighs in, with a post that doesn’t really have much new to say (that would probably be a miracle, at least if it were new and not crazy), but is fairly comprehensive and expressed well.

    • kped

      Thanks for that, enjoyed his post.

  • PJ

    Um …

    Knowing deadlines and communicating them is like possibly the least you could do, as a campaign. It’s not like these NY primary rules popped up just to disenfranchise Sanders voters. Arguing otherwise means your candidate isn’t ready for primetime.

    I will be voting Sanders in the CA primary, but this emerging line of complaint is totally embarrassing. I wasn’t aware that Sanders’ surrogates in NYC had to literally tell their audience to convince at least 2 people to vote to make up for everyone who had missed the deadline.

    And it would be best for Sanders voters not to complain about primaries when their main man is viable because of a lot of caucus states.

    • Steve LaBonne

      Yeah, I did vote for him here in Ohio, but the whining and excuse-making are really getting old.

      • efgoldman

        Thank you both.
        Many of us have said: The New York rules suck, and they need to be changed, but they were in place for this primary, and Sanders and his people didn’t do a very good job communicating them and acting upon them.
        The fact that he probably had no expectation, last fall, that New York would be meaningful yesterday is totally beside the point.

  • JG

    I think the October switching-date was way too early but you should have also known that NY has always had closed primaries when you registered as independent. If you’re a left-leaning New Yorker who plans to vote in some primaries then it costs you nothing to register as Dem.

  • Pingback: Waaah. – Kahomono – It Means Lucky()

It is main inner container footer text