Why the hell do we have "open primaries"????

[El Supremo]

I don't want some jerk who doesn't work helping the Democratic Party from the grassroots level deciding who our candidates are. And I certainly don't want a Repuke voting for the Democrat that he/she thinks will lose to a Repuke in the general.

I want a Damn Yellow Dog Democrat who is dedicated to the Party and has worked in the past to elect our best candidates. The unaffiliateds can vote in the general election but should stay out of the primaries and caucuses. They don't belong.

In my state you must be registered as a Democrat three months before the caucuses or primaries to vote. I'd rather it was even more restrictive and go back two years to prevent people from changing party affiliations just for one election.

And in a similar sense, I have little problem with the idea of Super Delegates. These people deserve that distinction. They are the loyalists.

[ClassWarrior]

1. More importantly, what are you doing to change it?

If it sucks - and a lot of it does - bitching ain't going to help. Acting is.

NGU.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Now that McCain's a lock, the GOP is coming out big to vote for Obama.

I'd rather have Democrats pick our nominee.

[endarkenment]

19. Do you have any actual evidence for that assertion?

"the GOP is coming out big to vote for Obama"

numbers please, not anecdotal evidence.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. I'm still not convinced that's true. At least not here.

I've seen Huckabee signs popping up everywhere and had literature promoting him left on my gate Sunday.

I don't think they're ready to let go of that possibility just yet. Poor delusional folks.

I could be wrong, but if he has a strong showing here in Texas I'm going to be inclined to believe I wasn't.

[BlueGirlRedState]

69. One of my Republican co-workers is voting for Obama in the primary

She says she wants to vote against Hillary and this may be her only chance.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I agree. I've heard the American Nazi Party (ANP) are supporting Clinton in the primaries.

Why do we put up with it?

[nomorewhopper]

13. links?

this seems outrageous, i'd like to see confirmation please thanks

[Bluebear]

29. Where did you hear that?

[no name no slogan]

4. The same reason we don't have party registration

many states do not have party registration, and for good reason. If you're vote is supposed to be anonymous, why should you have to tell the election officials what your party affiliation is?

[El Supremo]

17. Caucuses should not be anonymous.

That is where you stand up and promote your candidate.

Primaries identify you as a party member, but keep your choice secret.

General Elections should be completely secret.

My opinion.

[lapfog_1]

5. Well ya know... we are supposed to be the big tent party and all

but hey, if you just want party purists to play...

[onehandle]

9. Then why have a party at all.

Should we just huddle around individuals here at Democratic Underground?

[no name no slogan]

15. No, that's a caucus

different set of rules

[onehandle]

6. I agree. What business do Independents and Republicans have in our party's choice?

I've complained about this for years.

Nobody need worry about the Super Delegates. Non-Democrats will tell them what to do.

[nonconformist]

7. So Republicans can pick our candidate, obviously.

:puke:

Not that the fanboys and girls mind, they're too busy swooning over the artificially inflated wins.

I hate open primaries... always have.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. I think they suck

we had them here in CA, and the party sued to get rid of them.

I can't believe some state parties WANT them - they were imposed on us via an initiative here. The Supreme Court ruled against it, stating that parties have a first-amendment right of free association.

[Rosemary2205]

10. Because a state has a lot of Indy voters?

Georgia hasn't required me to declare a party ever since I've been voting and my first primary was in 1976.

[onehandle]

22. And crossover Republicans got rid of a sitting Democratic Representative here.

Anyone can walk into a poll and ask for either a Democratic of Republican ballot here.

The GOP organized and did exactly this.

I don't want Independents and Republicans choosing our candidates.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. I wouldn't be so restrictive with registration, otherwise I agree with you on principle.

It especially aggravates me that several independents I know refuse to register as Dems because we're "not progressive enough" to meet their mighty standards. However, they invariably vote Dem. So basically they are not doing anything to help the DNC pump the money and resources that my (red and turning purple rapidly) state needs to elect candidates from the only party who will bring progressive policies.

But unlike you, I'd let them register on the day of the primary. After that, it's our job as Dems to do the outreach to them to make sure they stay registered that way. There are actually very few people who crossover as a calculated strategy. They exist, but the effect they have is extremely marginal.

[OnionPatch]

20. I never really thought of it before

but you're right...if some of the holier-than-thou progressives would soil themselves and register as a Democrat, at least they could help us to nominate and run more progressive candidates. I registered as a Dem years and years ago simply so I could have a say in the primary. I never felt obligated to vote Dem or march lock-step with them.

Your post also makes me wonder just how many people really do the strategic crossover vote. Hmmm, time for a poll?

[Bread and Circus]

12. I see your point but let me ask you this...

if you don't allow independents and other voting for your candidates in primaries how can you expect them to support your candidate in the General Election?

[onehandle]

14. "I see your point, but you're wrong."

:crazy:

Independents went big for Bush. Fuck Independents!

[totodeinhere]

36. And if we don't go after independants this time they will go for McCain just like they went for Bush

last time and then we lose and we will have Grandpa McCain in the White House. Is that what you want?

So maybe allowing independents to be involved in the primary process might not be such a bad thing after all. And remember that in open primary states Democrats have an opportunity to meddle in Republican primaries as well. It's a two way street.

And most importantly, attacking open primaries is code for saying the Senator Clinton should be allowed to steal the nomination. And that's BS. We have already had two stolen elections in the past few years. We can't afford to have another one. Clinton must not be allowed to use Carl Rove's tactics.

[grantcart]

16. In California Dems are modified open and continue to grow while

ever since the Reps closed their primary they have continued to decline in numbers. There is no evidence of any kind that there has ever been any effective use of crossover voting to sabotage a nomination by people voting en mass for a candidate that they did not like. Moreover the fastest growing group in the electorate are the independents. In California independents can vote in the primary but republicans cannot.

This issue is a little like Reps talking about voter fraud. It gets people really excited but there is little evidence.

[El Supremo]

25. That is convoluted thinking.

They will support whoever they want to. Not being able to vote for them in the primaries/caucuses shouldn't piss them off. They will either accept it and hope their candidate is selected by others or they will join the party.

[Bread and Circus]

34. I'm not asking about the "pissed off" factor. I'm asking about fairness.

In reality, you NEED at least Independents voting you way in order to get your candidate elected. Democrats only comprise 40%+/- of the electorate. You can't do it alone. It's not fair to shut a group of people out in the choosing but then ask for their vote when you need them.

Also, as a matter of practicality, let's say you shut out all Independents and Republicans so you can have your primary all to yourself. Now, all of those potential voters who had a chance to get behind your candidate, can't. They might end up lining up behind someone else and as we know once somebody chooses a "brand" they tend to stick with it.

But go ahead, get back to your whining and crying about reality. Cheers.

[El Supremo]

43. Isn't letting I's & R's in helping to eliminate the distinction between the parties?

I mean really, sometimes it is hard to tell the Repubs and Dems apart. I'd rather have a more liberal vs. conservative choice.

[Beregond2]

18. Open Primaries

I agree. Here in WA, there has been a big controversy about open primaries, but for now we don't have them. I have had arguements with my brother about this. He feels he should have the right to vote for the candidates he considers the best from either party. I reply that he already has that right; in the general election. The primaries are about choosing the candidates to represent a party. Why should people from other parties have a say in that? It's like the Eagles thinking they should get to elect the officers for the Elks. Makes no sense.

[endarkenment]

21. In my state of NH independents outnumber enrolled.

We like our primary system just the way it is, thanks. There is nothing at all broken about it. This unsubstantiated nonsense that republicans are crossing over in vast numbers that change the outcome remains unsubstantiated nonsense. You prove that there is an actual problem and I'll start listening. Instead what I see is that independents are deciding to vote Democratic and that is a very good thing for our party.

[onehandle]

27. It happened to Cynthia McKinney here in Georgia.

One year Republicans and Independents banded together and voted in the Democratic Primary. A sitting Democratic congressperson was ousted this way. Her opponent won and for one term we had a Democrat that was selected by the opposition.

[endarkenment]

31. Ok - fair enough. NH has 'semi-open' primaries, and that is what I support.

You cannot vote in the Democratic primary if you are an enrolled Republican. You have to first unenroll. That barrier generally results in no party-to-party crossover voting but allows the unenrolled independents to decide at the poll which ballot to take. I'm fine with banning fully open primaries.

[jasmine621]

40. Unless the Dem leadership changes this shit, most of our candidates

will be chosen by the opposition.

[QC]

48. Alabama got its first GOP governor in more than a century

when Republicans raided a Democratic runoff.

Yes, parties sometimes do ratfuck the other party's primary. I have seen it with my own eyes.

[El Supremo]

33. I know all about New Hampshire and their "proud" independent streak

About as dumb as your granite.

I'm talking about giving money and working hard for the PARTY, then letting others call the shots.

By all means, help all the independents vote Democratic at the general election. But if they don't want to help other than voting - screw 'em.

[endarkenment]

35. well screw you too.

I work hard for the Democratic Party and remain unenrolled, same as many other Democratic progressive voters in my state. Our primary system is not broken and does not result in Republicans choosing our candidates.

[El Supremo]

41. Your whole state is as broken as the Old Man of the Mountain.

And has been since before my ggg grandfather left it in 1794. And since Franklin Pierce, the pro-slavery Yankee President. And your state-run liquor stores. And, and......

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tesha]

42. Of course there's something broken about it -- We let Republicans choose our candidates.

Republicans and their DLC enablers like it that
way, of course, but it's not a coincidence that
New Hampshire often helps choose a LOUSY candidate
for the General Election.

Tesha

[endarkenment]

49. ignorance much?

There is almost no crossover voting in New Hampshire as it is a 'semi-open' primary. if New Hampshire chooses lousy candidates, it is not because Republicans are taking Democratic ballots. This year we chose Clinton over Obama, how would you explain that?

[Tesha]

51. If there's ignorance here, it doesn't belong to me.

New Hampshire allows Democrats and the "un-enrolled"
to vote in the Democratic Primary. It allows Republicans
and the "un-enrolled" to vote in the Republican primary.

A huge swath of the state is officially "un-enrolled"
but these folks are, by and large, Republican-leaning.
I often characterize them as "men whose wives wouldn't
have sex with them if they registered as the Republicans
they really are."

These folks commonly take Democratic ballots and "monkey
wrench" our primaries. This year, that was somewhat less
of a factor because there was a highly-competitive race
on the Republican side. But I can assure you that when
an un-enrolled voter walks into the polling station in
full camo and NRA stickers and he takes a Democratic ballot,
he isn't there to do our party any good. And I say this with
thirty years of experience now participating very directly
in the NH political process.

The New Hampshire Primary isn't on the side of the angels
when it comes to electing Democrats nationwide.

Tesha

[endarkenment]

52. Wow you are so correct about that monkey wrenching

For example, in a really twisted scheme, all these stealth republicans voted for a clean sweep of the state and national offices in 2006. Their nefarious plan is to lure the state Democratic Party into a false sense of security by handing them victory after victory. I stand corrected. Until your post I just didn't get it. Thank you for setting me straight.















:sarcasm: <--- for the sarcasm impaired.

[Tesha]

55. You need to come in out of the dark. (NT)

[endarkenment]

56. You need to explain the 2006 NH election results.

until you do your theory of stealth republican voters is shit.

[Tesha]

57. Yeah! What a dramatic victory!

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Shea-Porter%2C+Hodes+dump+incumbents&articleId=48693d23-9050-40b4-a5dc-1294748171a0

> Hodes's victory was larger than experts had predicted. With 96
> percent of the votes counted, he led Bass, 53 to 45 percent,
> with 2 percent for Libertarian Ken Blevens.

Not exactly a steam-rolling, and Republican challengers
are lining up right now (four have already announced) to
try and recapture the seat from Paul Hodes.


And in the first CD:

> The 1st District followed the same pattern, although the margin
> was tighter. With 96 percent of the votes counted, Shea-Porter
> led Bradley, 51 to 49 percent.

Wow! She won by two whole percentage points!


I think my theory is still standing. On most elections (and
especially in our primary elections), lots and lots of those
"undeclareds" wil turn out to vote for the Democrat who will
be the easiest to beat in November.

Tesha

[endarkenment]

60. you are officially out of your mind, no offense.

Democrats swept the legislature, the governors office, and both congressional seats. When was the last time that happened in NH?

But more importantly how could that have happened in a state where enrolled Republicans slightly outnumber enrolled Democrats if it were not for the shift in voting by unenrolled Independents?

You are grasping at straws and engaging in argument shape-shifting. Independent voters in NH are not, as you have claimed, stealth Republicans. You have no facts to back up your assertion. You have contra-positive facts that you cannot explain away. Your theory is shit.

[Tesha]

61. You seem to be very emotional about this.

And I suspect you've watched fewer elections (primary and general)
than I have.

Tesha

[endarkenment]

62. Again - any facts or just bluster?

Surely since you have watched so many primaries you can provide some actual data to back up your assertion that independent voters in NH are actually just republicans in disguise. I have provided facts not in dispute that argue strongly that this is not the case: the results of the 2006 elections.

[Tesha]

64. As I say, you seem to be taking this personally.

As I say, you seem to be taking this personally and
if anyone's blustering here, it might be you.

Do I take it that *YOU* are registered as an "undeclared"
and are using that piece of anecdotal evidence to dismiss
my claim? Meanwhile, I haven't taken hard data over the
years, but based on poll watching and sign-holding many
times, I will stand by my assertion that most undeclareds
are white, Republican men; sorry if it gores your oxe.

Tesha

[endarkenment]

66. Once again - can you back up your theory with facts?

I've presented the facts of the 2006 election in NH as a direct contradiction of your theory that independent voters in NH are actually 'stealth republicans'. You have provided no facts to substantiate your theory and no rebuttal to mine. It seems you have nothing and are reduced to idiocy such as "you seem to be taking this personally".

" I will stand by my assertion that most undeclareds are white, Republican men" fine - provide substantiating evidence and explain the 2006 election results in NH.

[endarkenment]

68. I'll do your research for you, you are not going to be happy.

http://graniteprof.typepad.com/graniteprof/2008/01/is-there-such-a.html

Is there such a thing as a McCain-Obama voter?
Happy 2008!

The Los Angeles Times offers a good view of the alleged battle for New Hampshire's independents between Barack Obama and John McCain. Unfortunately, they stuck it with a misleading headline:

McCain losing votes to Obama in N. H.

What's wrong with this head? Verb tense. The story itself amply demonstrates that McCain lost those voters some time ago.

...

And in the last two general elections, New Hampshire's undeclared voters have not been undecided between the two parties. In 2004, 56 percent of independents voted for John Kerry. Polling in 2007 indicates that 60 percent of undeclareds plan to vote in the Democratic primary. Is McCain's persona enough to turn a Democratic-leaning undeclared into a McCain voter?

Good luck with your research!

[endarkenment]

73. But wait there's more!

The evidence is also in voter registration figures and polling. Currently 43 percent of the state's registered voters are not affiliated with any party. That's compared to 38 percent in 2000. The Republicans had a 35-26 edge over the Democrats in 2000. Now, it's narrowed to a 31-26 edge.

Moreover, independents are saying they plan to vote in the Democratic primary, a major break from 2000, the last time there were competitive primaries in both parties. According to a recent University of New Hampshire poll , 68 percent of registered independents will vote in the Democratic primary, compared to the 62 percent of independents who voted in the GOP primary in 2000.

The immediate effect of the changing political currents is greater excitement and enthusiasm for candidates in the Democratic race. In December, at a fundraiser for the state's Democratic Party that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) attended, roughly 1,500 people showed up. In March, at another fundraiser for the party at which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was present, some 1,100 people were there. "It's stunning that we had 2,600 to a state party fundraiser over a three and half month period," said the state Democratic chairman Ray Buckley. "That's not business as usual."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501961.html

This article is probably reporting the same data as my previous post. I'm still waiting for your fact filled rebuttal.

[sniffa]

23. To annoy people like you

and to allow people like me to participate in any primary I wish.

I'm sure others will fill you in on the distinct rules of each state, including states that don't have registration by party.

[El Supremo]

37. Traitor!!!!!

The truth is out!

[BootinUp]

24. I think there is a place for them

this is up to states and their party organization I think. I don't have a problem with it as long as they are in the minority in terms of percentage of delegates.

In any event candidates a free to spin results with these facts in mind which tends to even things out.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. agreed

[insanity]

28. Not a huge fan myself

But I'll be glad if the Republicans swing en masse for Obama... let them pick their own poison.

[OHdem10]

32. The GOP is selecting our nominee. When they talk of highly

educated surburban voters for Obama, not all--but many are
Republicans. What proof do we have they will vote for him
in the GE when votes really count.

If he wins the primary and flat loses the GE because of GOP
games, forget it Democratic Party.

[juajen]

38. Yeah, why in Hell do we?

I sincerely hope they will take care of this virus that infects our dem elections in primaries and caucuses letting pugs and indies choose our candidates. I have no problem with them actually voting for our candidates in the GE. At least there, they cannot pull a switcharoo. I am sick of our vote being manipulated. In addition, if there are problems with electronic voting and central tabulators, no one has a right to complain. We tried ad nauseum to get everyone to addresss this problem, to no avail. No complaints over those messed up voting machines.

[CK_John]

39. It is a state bt state issue. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. So people can cheat. It makes it easier for the REPUKES to vote for the WEAKEST candidate in the

Primaries (THAT would be Obama) and then vote for their repuke candidate in the GE.

In Illinois we have to declare our party and vote accordingly in the Primary....we get a DEMOCRATIC Ballot.

[onenote]

54. and Democrats have picked the weakest candidate for the repubs, then, right?

[LadyVT]

45. agree

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. So are you in favor of caucuses then?

Because then that would ensure that everybody's serious about working for the party.

[El Supremo]

47. I like them except for this year.

When it was a wild zoo. Due to the huge turnout, people didn't follow the instructions and left much of many ballots unmarked. And many people decided that it was too crowded to participate. That was mainly due to moving dozens of precincts into one building when before they were held mostly individually in peoples' homes. This year was an anomaly.

But the same reasoning applies to primaries. Caucuses just get more things done like electing precinct captains and voting on a platform. Our primaries just whittle the candidates down to one for each office. Both should be done by the party faithful. The caucuses do get the people to work more than a primary.

[Occam Bandage]

50. The general election is open, too.

[Hobarticus]

53. Some people are treating these primary votes like automatic GE votes

And that is very, very dangerous and foolish.

[IronLionZion]

58. Who do you think votes in these primaries?

Who do you think these "repukes" are exactly? Not everyone is quite as partisan as DUers.

[robbedvoter]

59. Because dirty tricks shouldn't be too difficult - some people only had this much education

[CalebHayes]

63. We are a party of inclusion.

Thats why.

[Major Hogwash]

65. First they came after the caucus goers, but I wasn't a caucus goer, so I didn't speak out.

Then they went after the open primaries, but I wasn't involved with an open primary, so I didn't speak out.

Now the entire system is under attack because they don't like the results.

[GarbagemanLB]

67. I think I hear whining coming from Camp Desperation.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. The idea is to win the General Election

More independent voters means it is likely that you will have a more moderate candidate, who will be more competitive in the November.

[TheDoorbellRang]

71. Independents comprise anywhere from 25-40% of the electorate, depending on whose stats you use.

Independents are independents so that they can vote for the person, rather than the party. Most of us figured out a long time ago that an asshole with a D or R behind their name was still an asshole.

You can't win an election without us, so you'd be better served to woo us rather than throw us under the bus. Just sayin'

[democrattotheend]

If we shut independents out of our primaries

we are more prone to picking candidates whose appeal is limited to 25% of the country. Allowing independents to vote in the primary helps to ensure that we select candidates who can appeal to a general election audience. I agree about Republicans though...registered Republicans should not be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries.

[sabbat hunter]

72. it is decided on the state level

not by the parties. You would need each state with open primaries, to change.