2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIndependents may feel the Bern, but they can't vote in New York's closed primary
They might lose.
"This is a tough race for us," Sanders told thousands of supporters in Manhattan last week. "We have a system here in New York where independents can't get involved in the Democratic primary, where young people who have not previously registered and want to register just can't do it."
Boos echoed through Washington Square Park, where plenty of voters had learned this the hard way. They had missed New York's stringent deadline -- in October -- to switch party registration in order to cast a ballot in Tuesday's Democratic primary. Now, the Sanders campaign is pre-spinning a possible loss here by criticizing that rule.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-sanders-new-york-primary-20160417-story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...you got to do more than appeal to their cynicism.
The man running the political revolution should have organized better. He had the same opportunity as Clinton.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)They could have gotten independents to register last year but nooo! 
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)IMHO, Sanders entered the race last year to bring attention to social issues. And that's great: someone needs to address the increasing wealth gap, and lack of social safety nets, and our do-nothing congress certainly isn't going to do squat about it. But I don't think he intended to be in the running this long. At the same time, the DNC has been treating Clinton like the anointed successor to Obama and has not done a lot to bring up and publicize a field of young Democrats in state and federal positions who would be viable candidates. So the Democrats were left essentially with Clinton, O'Malley, and Sanders. After O'Malley dropped out, I think Sanders stayed in so Clinton couldn't win an uncontested primary. Then he started getting a lot more votes than he expected, and what was intended to be a symbolic one turned into a real campaign. And that was past New York's arcane deadline to switch parties.
global1
(25,252 posts)I can't believe the DNC and Hillary supporters are cheering the fact that many Americans won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice.
What kind of message does that send to the people that sit home on election day because they believe that their one vote doesn't count?
What kind of message does that send to new and young Americans that may have just gained the opportunity to vote in their very first election and are entering the political process?
Voter suppression has always been the territory of the Repugs and now we have the Dem Party and some Dem supporters proud that they too have suppressed the vote. They should be ashamed of themselves.
It's no wonder we are hearing the term 'rigged elections'.
That's right - they are knocking the American Spirit right out of the electorate.
What they aren't considering is that somewhere down the line they might need to rely on the very same people whose votes they suppressed to now vote for them.
Yesterday I noticed a trend here on DU that was sending out a message that if Hillary is the nominee in the GE and if she loses - it will be Bernie's fault.
No, No, No.
It will fall on the shoulders of the DNC and Hillary supporters that got a little too smart for themselves to maneuver their candidate to win the nomination.
It will be payback from those very same voters whose votes they suppressed in the primary and were denied to their one vote.
It will really be their shortsighted strategy that will come back to bite them. They might have won the battle - but this strategy will lose them the war.
That's what happens when unfair tactics get interjected into this electoral process.
That's what happens when one will stoop to 'whatever it takes to win' tactics because they believe that it is their turn.
Some Dems that were denied their right to pick the candidate of their choice will do the right thing and still vote for the Dem nominee - but those that denied this right during the primaries and took pride in their clever tactics just to win at all costs - have to sit back and ask themselves - will it be enough?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Why didn't they register when they needed to? They should have at least known that they were going to vote Democratic six months ago, right?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)global1
(25,252 posts)the People can't? So you're OK with voter suppression when it benefits your candidate?
The MSM didn't black out Bernie through most of this primary season? They didn't allow the electorate to get to know all the Dem candidates?
The primaries are supposed to be designed to allow the American People to choose THEIR candidate that best represents THEIR values. That develops over the timespan of the Primary season.
To shut down their option very early in this process - like October in NY - is very undemocratic.
So go on and gloat. You condone winning at all costs. You are proud that you shut out a lot of American People's option to vote for the candidate of their choice.
It's really sad that you feel that way. I feel sorry for you - but I feel especially sorry for all those People that are being denied their right to choose their candidate.
The 'winning at all cost attitude' is what is destroying this country.
Sleep well my friend!!!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)it was no mystery that Bernie was going to be on the Democratic Party ballot (I think?). They didn't have to vote for a candidate in October. They just had to pick a party. What were these people waiting for? To check out the Republican candidates? Nobody has been denied an opportunity to register AFAIK.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Citizens that are engaged in the process know the rules. The Johnny and Jane Come Lately crowd can't be bothered to know the rules, apparently.
LiberalFighter
(50,943 posts)The primaries is not for the American People. It is for Democrats to select their nominee for the Democratic ticket and Republicans to select their nominee for the Republican ticket. If someone considers themselves to be independent or don't want to be associated with a political party then they should stay the hell out of primary elections.
They get to choose their candidate in the general election.
It is not winning at all costs. It is winning by the rules. Which Sanders apparently doesn't want to do.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)in their party as their nominee...rigged. It's rigged so that the close date or registrations does not allow any one new to join. What would happen? Well maybe that JR. Senator who won twice NY wouldn't that is why the close date was so long ago.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Many moons ago we moved and I forgot to register to vote, kept putting it off until tomorrow and tomorrow never came. I didn't get to vote in that election...I blamed myself for being disorganized. Sometimes life gets in the way, but it was still my fault.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)candidates with debates, rally's, speeches, etc. It was done that way so new ones who had never voted or Independents who might change their affiliation after hearing the candidates could not then change or register. Disenfranchisement is what this is called. You knew that she won NY twice as JR. Senator so you and the rest of your supporters would not want any newbies to the race as the outcome may not be the same. It's called getting the upper hand or as I would say rigging the system. Disgusting.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Political parties can and so set their own rules.
There was nothing preventing you from joining.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)disenfranchisement.
hack89
(39,171 posts)not a party primary.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)showing their loyalty to progressive causes by hoping a Christian theocrat (Cruze) or a guy complete with new brownshirts (Trump) gets elected. I see Bernie will lose New York and keep going; waste of money and waste of time.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)You know that group that is at record lows and about to split. Let's be more exclusive, let's take the voter's money for our little behind closed doors selection or corruption and nepotism, it is better this way that the "mature and their friends" (quote from HRC voter) can choose. Or as another HRC poster put it yesterday before they removed all of their posts,"it is a game and we will win by any legal ways necessary".
We are out republicaning the republicans. At this point they may just elect Hillary to their party if she loses the democratic nomination.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)"Young people who have not previously registered and want to register" had until March 25 to register. That is not unduly early. In other words, his claim that they "just can't do it" is a lie.
Those who were already registered (and therefore should be a bit more politically savvy) should know that registration change in their state only happens once a year. After all, they've been through the process once already.
LiberalFighter
(50,943 posts)New York has a later registration date than Indiana and many other states. Instead of 29 days, New York is 25 days.
This should be a good indicator whether Sanders brings new voters into the system too. Since they do get to identify their party affiliation as a new voter. Unfortunately, I couldn't find data that identify new registrations.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)true colors, their stances, their debates, their rallies etc. There was not the adequate information to make a decision whether to change affiliation way back in October. She won twice in NY as a Jr. Senator ..that date was to make sure no one heard enough of any one new to the dance and then added themselves to the Party.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Had until March 25 to register. He lumps them together with those who have already registered with a party or as Independents, so he's lying.
The date for those already registered to re-register hasn't been changed in the last couple of years. You present it as if Clinton and her supporters decided the date purposely to keep Sanders supporters from voting in the primary - which is also untrue.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)We are fighting hard for this win.
We didn't just say 'well the system is broken and stacked but it should be no problem to use the broken and stacked system to fix it.' They will steal the close ones and use everything to stop Sanders.
Bill Clinton is probably recharging that bullhorn right now and he won't be blocking some precinct where the incomes are $100K+ tomorrow.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)He is losing this primary all on his own. He is infected with presidential fever which I once heard someone say is only cured with embalming fluid...incurable.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)What are next week's Powerball numbers ?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Clinton is winning Latino and African-American voters 3:1 against St. Bernard?
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Let's take Ohio for example:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/oh/Dem
Clinton won every income level. Sanders did best with voters making over $100K.
Under $30K: Clinton 59-38
$30K -$50K: Clinton 51-48
$50K-$100K: Clinton 56-44
$100K or more: Clinton won 51-49
So, no, Sanders is not losing because there's some evil alliances of the well-to-do lining up against him. He's losing because of his inability to reach out to voters of different cultures (not skin color, culture).
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Sanders got 41 percent of non-white voters (they don’t break down the category further). I want to come back to this.
Sanders beat Clinton among voters making under $50k, and voters making between $50k and $100k. The only income group she won was voters making over $100k.
Among first-time voters, Sanders got a whopping 71 percent of the vote.
Among independents, Sanders got 65 percent of the votes.
Sanders won among very liberal voters and moderate voters.
Clinton did better among married women than she did among unmarried women.
btw: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/inciteful
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)also, data is rarely 'inciteful' but can be insightful.
why would someone like data that causes incitement?
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)Maybe this year you can channel the frustration of non-Democratic voters who find they can't vote in this primary to give their representatives in Albany an earful about their state's antiquated voting practices, and maybe move them if not into the 21st century at least into the late 20th. And keep up the pressure by voting against them in the next election if they don't deliver. The Millennials for Bernie are young enough to benefit from playing the long game: it worked for the Koch brothers and the Tea Partiers who control too many statehouses as well as Congress.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)when it really matters. Obtaining the nomination through establishment organising is a phyrric victory. She is a top-down ticket disaster waiting to happen. Or should we say: feeling entitled to happen? She and Debbie are such untrustworthy 1% water-carriers, that Clinton's candidacy could well implode the Democratic Party.
But her supporters are (most of them anyway) so privileged that an imploding party is just another risk worth taking if it means preservation of their beloved status quo.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Most of the party seems to be unifying around Hillary (and will further unify once Bernie calls it quits).
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)If you believe that sexism charge redux version 15.8 constitutes unifying, you are sorely mistaken.
And if you believe Sanders will call it quits before June, you are delusional. Nothing he has said so far indicates that he would abandon his supporters; he, like us, believe that the status quo is untenable, and he will take that message to the convention.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Bernie can stay in as long as he wants to make his point but at some point the party is going to have to unify around the winning candidate or risk us having a radical Republican Presidency for the next 4-8 years, which is something that (hopefully), we can all agree we DON'T want.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)If you are fearful of the GOP, Sanders (who polls better against any of the GOP candidates than Clinton) is your best guarantee. Maybe party establishment quid pro quo games are not the best way to arrive at a good candidate.
Just having the majority of votes / delegates in a system that has acquired a reputation for being rigged, that's not a platform for unifying a party. Nor is nominating the candidate who lost a dozen of the last states to vote (as Clinton may well do).
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)all of the big state primaries. Bernie has certainly racked up some good wins recently, albeit in smaller state caucuses, which has barely moved the needle in his direction. The nomination is essentially out of Bernie's reach at this point. If he wants to take it to the convention and fight for concessions or something, that's his choice but the majority of Democratic voters seem to prefer Hillary. Once the convention is over, left-leaning independents will HAVE to choose between (likely) Hillary and Donald Trump/Ted Cruz/John Kasich and there is no way in this reality or beyond to convince me or anybody else that a Hillary Presidency will be the same as (or worse than) a radical Republican Presidency lead by the aforementioned GOPers- even though it may not be everything that Bernie supporters think that it should be. I should also remind people that sitting at home and/or voting for Nader and helping enable Bush to win in 2000 didn't help us move the ball down further down the field on progressive issues for eight long years and refusing to vote for Hillary in the GE (if she is the nominee) will only help make it easier for Republicans to take the Presidency and hold Congress, giving us another 4-8 years of radical Republican policies, SCOTUS appointments, and foreign policy disasters and embarrassments, not to mention ZERO movement on progressive policy goals.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)When Debbie and Hillary have been doing everything to shut out Sanders and his supporters, they are not in any way entitled to any of those votes.
Then starting with the blackmail ("be afraid, vote for Clinton or you will get even worse evil"
could well backfire if you try it on irregular voters.
It is a very crass quote, but if I get the choice between being screwed (GOP) and being screwed with lube (Clinton) I have every right to say: screw this.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)It's the reality of the race. DEMOCRATIC Party voters seem to prefer Hillary. Bernie was allowed to register to run for President as a Democrat and participate in the party's primary even though he has not been a long-time member and, for somebody who his supporters claim has been disadvantaged by party insiders trying to "rig" the contest for Hillary, he has been doing pretty well for himself among left-leaning Indies in primaries where the Indies can participate, although it's looking like he's still falling short (which I'm sure he and his supporters are unhappy about- nobody likes to see their candidate losing). I can't and won't tell you or anybody else who supports Sanders what to do or who to vote for in November if Hillary is the nominee but it's hard to genuinely say IMHO that Bernie hasn't gotten a fair shake.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)of their supporters because of the rigging, the coronation, dynasty's, debate structure etc. They are Dems have been Dems and are not voting for Hillary. It's there for everyone to see just not on DU as much as elsewhere. This change that is coming is not just with Independents. We shall see what will transpire...time will tell.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Bernie has not been made to leave the race and can stay in it as long as he likes, he and Hillary have had several debates (how many were needed?), and Hillary is eligible to run regardless of whether her husband was previously POTUS. If you don't like that, you don't have to vote for her. Also, Hillary seems to be doing fine with Democratic Party voters and is winning in the closed primaries (which is determined by each state). It's the left-leaning independents whom are flocking to Bernie and giving him wins largely in the Caucus states, though it is clearly not proving to be enough to give him the nomination. Bernie IMHO is pretty fortunate that he is allowed to run in the Democratic primary at all given that he only recently became a member of it to run for POTUS this election and has a history of trashing Democrats as much as Republicans.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there is no reason to assume they will reject Hillary.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Besides: the right-left paradigm is ready for history's dustbin when the main issue is status quo versus change.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If you want to participate in party activities, namely... the act of choosing the PARTY'S nominee... then join the fucking party. It's just that simple.
Registering in the middle of an election cycle? No particular candidate to "motivate" you ... well, just pick an actual party that comes closest to representing your views and opinions and philosophy. Again: simple!
If you're truly "independent" or if you place more value on personal "identity" than participating with PARTY ACTIVITIES, then good-for-you! That's your choice and all the limitations that come with it ... but ultimately, it's your choice, and those are the consequences (so to speak) of your own decision.
You can still participate by VOLUNTEERING for, and DONATING to the primary candidate of your preference. And if the PARTY MEMBERS select that candidate as the PARTY'S nominee, then you can vote for that candidate in the General Election.
Don't like the rules? Well... it seems that your best chance of helping to shape and influence the rules would be to do so from WITHIN the party machinery. Standing on the street and shouting about it doesn't seem to be working. Posting on social media and hashtagging it to death isn't working either. When all else fails, come up with a new plan.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)WITHIN the party machinery."
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN.......there is no way the average American can be "WITHIN" the party machinery. That is just for the elite, the club, the ptb, the insiders, the click, the oligarchy, etc.
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)"average" Americans who work within the party machinery. One was asked to be a state delegate to the Democratic national convention this year because he was one of the few people from his county who showed up to the caucus, and got involved by volunteering to record the votes (he declined to go to Phil. for personal reasons). The other started out knocking on doors and delivering fliers, started attending local caucuses (California has them at a district level), got all her friends to register and vote for her, and ended up on the rules committee for the state party. For every Kennedy or Clinton or Bush or Trump who waltzes into an office (or thinks they can) there are dozens of people at the local and state levels who do work their way up within the system. Obama certainly didn't start out as an "elite": he went from community organizer to state legislator first.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)and the Bernie campaign who didnt inform them in time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That doesn't really make them less Independent.
The headline suggests inaccurately that independents are somehow getting surprised by the need to register. There might well be a few such voters, but are they a thing?
IamMab
(1,359 posts)The system is only still partially broken! Yay!!
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)have a say in who they choose as their leader? We don't allow it in the UK, we have one member one vote.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)If the shoe were on the other foot, that is if Hillary were supported by independents...
The Hillary folks would not only be screaming to allow independents to vote...
they would have changed the rules already to allow them to vote.
So stop lying.
beedle
(1,235 posts)
Supporting rules that prevent independents from participating when they are ready to participate, when they largely lean Democratic is about as dumb as dumb gets.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Let's make no bones about this. It's about insiders vs. outsiders. It's also about the "chosen" one winning every single time. It is not about choice, otherwise we'd have more than 2 parties and independents would be able to win sometimes.
This is no "democracy"; it's a joke. We are in for 4 more years of things not getting much worse. No change, while the entrenched corporate tools like Clinton and her ilk (there are lots and lots and lots of them) become even more embedded.
The growing number of independents are a direct result of corporate, Third-Wayers taking over the Democratic Party. And it is time they did something about it. I wonder what happens when Hillary needs independents and progressive to win?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)and our party would be wise to keep them in mind. Left-leaning independents became independents generally because the Democratic party swerved to the right and left them stranded. Left-leaning independents are potentially gettable votes. Right-leaning independents are going to go with the GOP and we should stop wasting time and abandoning our ideals to woo them.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You're the very first to figger that out.
You must be captain of the A Team over at Camp Lying Liars, huh?
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)"where young people who have not previously registered and want to register just can't do it."
This is a lie.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)say but Independents can vote in the GE...The rules are hogwash. This is a game. They want their elite to be nominated then they want those Independents to help them win the GE after they picked the one of their choosing. Do you get how ridiculous that sounds. To hell with the rules of coronations. What is fair about that...disgusting and rigged.