The long-standing outrage about closed primaries

[NanceGreggs]

I just read all of the 2004 and 2008 DU posts expressing outrage at the very idea that some states have closed Democratic primaries.

It was a very quick read – being as there were no such posts.

Funny how closed primaries only became unfair, un-democratic, and an example of “voter surpression” in the past few months.

I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with Bernie. Surely the same people who are now expressing their outrage have been infuriated by closed primaries all along – they just forgot to mention it until now.

[mcar]

1. I was thinking this very thing, Nance

I've been here since 2002 and I don't remember anything ever being said about closed primaries on this board - or anywhere else, for that matter.

Curious, isn't it?

[Hortensis]

19. Interesting info, guys. Of course, we all know

that for some anything that benefits is good, anything that doesn't is bad. Period. (Scary when you think about it...)

But being able to see current events within a context that includes other elections is always interesting.

[onehandle]

2. Funny, that. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... nt

[apcalc]

3. And caucuses

Don't forget to include the undemocratic caucuses.

[Hoyt]

4. Yep. So outraged, they forgot to check how they actually registered. Probably voted for Nader 2000.

[DURHAM D]

5. It feels to me like us regular Democrats are now

mostly babysitting.

[seabeyond]

7. YES!!!!! Lol. Read the post right under you. Yes. I was thinking just that.

I stopped posting further.

[DrDan]

17. I think that is spot-on!

[seabeyond]

6. Entitled snowflakes that do not believe they have to follow any rules, having a collective tantrum.

And I am tired of it.

[Maru Kitteh]

75. right?

Too good to fill out a registration card.
Too good to call themselves Democrats.
Too good to worry their pretty little heads about the downtickets.

Enough is enough indeed.

[Number23]

94. Plus a freaking million. SO sick of these whining people and so ready for the primaries to be over

[Sheepshank]

8. the obvious...is so obvious

the timing in bringing up all the problems BS supporters are having with the Primary process, as with everything else in this campaign is a last minute, "I just noticed", total unorganized, fuck up.

[randome]

9. What don't you understand? Independents are like ultra-super-delegates!

They should be allowed to do any damn thing they want!! (Except form their own party, of course. That would be dull.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[DrDan]

20. not only that - we (Dems) should bend the rules for them, and of course, be aware and

cater to the threats of them not voting Dem.

[Stallion]

45. Careful-Walk Lightly or They'll Bolt to the Green Party!!!!!!

so Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or maybe both win in November.

[DrDan]

48. or bolt directly to trump

[Stallion]

50. It Might Be Time for Special VIP Gift Bags to BEG Super Vote Sanders Supporters to Vote Democratic

Its really getting old

[NurseJackie]

10. If they were as involved with politics as they say they are... HOW COULD THEY NOT ALREADY KNOW?

I'll wait here for an answer from one of them ...

[ismnotwasm]

11. But of course!

It was all a plot then and it's all a plot now... Or something.

[Squinch]

27. 2.5 million more people SO FAR!!1! conspiring against Sanders than not conspiring against Sanders.

[George II]

47. It's a vast left wing conspiracy.

[sheshe2]

12. Well they are so outraged now...

They are filing lawsuits! Three threads in GD about it. It's voter suppression now.

Thanks Nance.

K&R~

[George II]

13. Yeah, surprising that all of a sudden this is a major issue. I posted this a little while ago....

....elsewhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7765441

In 68 years of living in and around New York City, I never heard anyone complain about....

....New York's voting laws until just a couple of weeks ago.

I wonder why that is?

[Hortensis]

24. Did you check back around nineteen-68?

That was in the last big era when the Far Left emerged from the sidelines. They engaged in lots of suppression of free speech themselves in those days, using the same sort of tactics as are being reported, on university campuses for instance, today, and I'm guessing they would have jumped to claim their failure to sweep the nation up into their revolution was due to corruption.

[LiberalFighter]

36. I don't recall any of the complaints I hear today back in those days either.

[Loudestlib]

14. Did you really look?

2008-What Do You Think Of Closed Primaries?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5674406

There are lots of others. I'm shocked that your post is dishonest.

[Squinch]

18. Not seeing any outrage in there. But you knew that. Shocked that your post is dishonest.

[Loudestlib]

23. Of course you don't see what you don't want to.

This was in that thread.

" Coming from New Hampshire

I want to begin by saying that there is absolutely no way, no way, no way, that NH would ever go for closed primaries. Say what you will about that, but it's fact. If 'closed primaries' becomes associated with Democrats and is floated in NH, it would be a huge setback for the party."

That's outrage. Take off the blinders my friend.

[Squinch]

25. I don't think outrage means what you think it means. NH still has open primaries.

[Loudestlib]

31. It was outrage, the OP didn't research anything.

Research for yourself, I found two on the first page of google. I'm moving on. n/t

[Squinch]

35. Suuuuuure it was.

[NanceGreggs]

21. That was a discussion about open/closed.

I don't see any outrage there - but I sure see plenty of it now.

[Squinch]

15. I've been neck deep in the zero posts that blamed Kerry for Iraq in the 2004 campaign.

[mcar]

51. This +1000!

Thank you, Squinch. Just where are all those good Dems and progressives saying they won't vote for Kerry cause he voted for the IWR? But HRC is responsible for everything that happened because of it.

[Squinch]

60. Yep. But Sanders isn't responsible for casualties of the weapons systems HE voted for.

It's only Hillary.

One of these things is not like the others.

[rhett o rick]

16. They've become unpopular because the system has been corrupted. Of course you are ok with the

corruption because it favors your candidate the Rich Fat Cat's candidate. Funny how the Fat Cat's money can buy elections.

Funny how all the voter mistakes have happened to Sen Sanders supporters. SwiftBoating by the Rich.

[sheshe2]

70. ...

[rhett o rick]

72. Roll your eyes. It will be the hubris that brings down the Fat Cats.

You are fighting on the wrong side of the class war.

[sheshe2]

79. ?

[Bobbie Jo]

84. !

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sheshe2]

86. Bwahahahaha. Couch Cat!

!!!!

[Jack Bone]

22. To my recollection..

in a non re-election year, has there been this much collusion between the party establishment and one candidate on the ballot.

[Odin2005]

26. Keep shitting on Independents, that will surely help Hillary win the GE!.

A large % of Independents are former registered Democrats disgusted with the Third Way fuckwits who took over the party. Not allowing Independents a say in what in effectively a 2-party duopoly is anti-democratic.

[Squinch]

29. This is shitting on Independents? Gracious! Independents must be very sensitive. And they

must not have read the paper they signed when they registered.

[Odin2005]

41. Now you are sounding just like Republicans defending their trying to make it harder to vote.

[Squinch]

57. You sound like you don't understand the difference between "using your own free will to choose

a party affiliation" and "being disenfranchised."

[dsc]

74. you mean like caucuses

those are hard to vote in, no wait Bernie wins those so they are awesome.

[okasha]

92. Caucuses are a pain in the ass.

Texas was delighted when the Two-Step bit the dust. Primaries are a lot easier both for voters and for election commissions.

Now I have never heard a single person complain that closed primaries are a bad thing. Quite the opposite. They're appropriate for the same reason Franklin Graham isn't allowed to vote for a Pope. You don't want your enemies foisting their choice of candidate onto your party.

[NanceGreggs]

33. How long have you felt this way?

I don't remember any posts here BB - Before Bernie - expressing outrage about closed primaries.

My OP has nothing to do with "shitting on independents", BTW. It's about the fact that what is now being raised as a major issue was rarely even opined upon in the past.

[Odin2005]

39. Since before I joined this site in 2005.

[LiberalFighter]

40. You are basing that on what data?

Nearly 50% of the registered voter in New York are registered as Democrats.

[ibegurpard]

28. maybe you can discuss your angst with a counselor

I'm pretty sure Canadian single-payer will cover that won't it?

[NanceGreggs]

43. Pointing out that people who are now outraged ...

... over closed primaries never even mentioned them in the past is "angst"?

If you want to see angst, check out all of the posts from Bernie supporters who are suddenly infuriated over closed primaries - that's angst.

[JimDandy]

30. Yes, I have been against some states' rules regarding closed primaries

for decades. I am also against the party's use of caucuses, even though caucuses have been a more favorable process for the candidate I support this election cycle.

Courts have ruled that political party elections are quasi-public processes. Democrats should, without fail, make our party's election processes fair, equitable and just, and should do everything in our power to insist that Republicans and every other party do so as well. It is mind-boggling to me that there are Democrats who resist being the standard bearer in this area.

[Codeine]

59. Courts have also ruled parties

have the right to free association, and can choose to exclude or include non-party members in a primary election at their discretion.

[Beacool]

32. IMO, caucuses should not exist and all primaries should be closed ones.

Caucuses are the most undemocratic way to choose a nominee and open primaries allow people outside of the party to vote. Want to vote in a Democratic primary? Then join the party, have some skin in the game.

[mcar]

54. I agree completely

People don't seem to realize that primaries are the party's system to choose a nominee. They are not anywhere similar to a GE.

[Beacool]

91. Imagine not being a member of a club or church and expecting to have a say

on how they're run. Why should anyone who is not a registered Democrat be allowed to vote in a Democratic primary? People who want to remain "unaffiliated" can do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote in the party's primary elections. They should have to wait until the GE to vote for the nominee of either party.

[Codeine]

61. This. Precisely this. nt

[dchill]

34. Outrage? That would be a straw man.

A grasping at straws man. And no, I don't still beat my wife.

[democrank]

37. I want EVERYONE who is eligible to vote to be able to do so

Republicans, Independents, Democrats, Greens.....EVERYONE. Voter suppression is very real and very wrong.

[NanceGreggs]

46. So do I ...

... but NOT in elections that choose a specific Party's candidates.

[Codeine]

62. Everyone who is eligible to vote in New York may do so

in the General Election. In the party primary the only eligible voters are those who are members of that party.

[George II]

78. All three of those ARE eligible to vote. It happens every November.

[NCTraveler]

38. Neither Obama or Clinton were drawing a sizable contingent of Paul supporters.

It's not that way this go around.

[seabeyond]

44. This. The baggers. They do not get to decide our Democratic candidate. Nt

[NCTraveler]

49. It's really not a hit.

It is really Paul supporters next best option. Paul supporters have really found themselves at odds with the current Republican brand.

Is what it is. I'm good with closed.

[LiberalFighter]

42. An outsider is complaining because he doesn't want to follow the rules.

Obama and Clinton didn't have this as an issue in 2008. Sanders is just looking for an excuse that he can cry about.

[Squinch]

64. A wise woman named Peggysue says, "The hitchhiker is demanding the car keys."

I think that is a perfect analogy.

[LiberalFighter]

71. Absolutely!

[DemonGoddess]

52. My preference for BOTH parties is closed primaries

and do away with caucuses. After all, if I'm working to GOTV, voting in each and every election, for MY PARTY that I register with, then it is up to MY PARTY to select the PARTY nominee.

Nope, I've never seen anything like this before either Nance.

[hellofromreddit]

53. No such posts?

You must have missed this gem: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2684333

This is a damn hoot: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5095734

Hey! Voter registrations getting mysteriously clobbered in PA in 2004! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2529078

Here's one about election fraud in various forms in 2006: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x448639

Now, I know exactly what's coming: a deflection. "Oh, that's something different because of these pissant reasons." Well, let's assume you're right. How sound is the reasoning: "Nobody ever complained before, so why should I care now?"

Just think of the various scenarios where that's completely retarded. "Hello, 911 here. Your house is on fire? Hmm. I don't seem to see any earlier complaints about it. I think you're lying. <click>" First woman that wanted to vote? Nah. First slave that wanted freedom? Nah. First worker that wanted a union? Nah. First anybody to push any good idea? Nah.

Way to stagnate.

[NanceGreggs]

67. None of those links ...

... are relevant to my OP. I don't see anyone screaming that closed Dem primaries are unfair, un-democratic, or represent voter surpression.

Where did I say, "Nobody ever complained before, so why should I care now?"

What I am pointing out is that many posters who are now complaining about the "unfairness" of closed Dem primaries since Bernie entered the race showed absolutely no concern about them until they realized that Bernie fares better in open primaries.

It's just another example of how Bernie supporters believe that long-standing rules and procedures should be changed for his benefit.

[hellofromreddit]

81. That's just not true

None of those links are relevant to my OP. I don't see anyone screaming that closed Dem primaries are unfair, un-democratic, or represent voter surpression.

Called it:

Now, I know exactly what's coming: a deflection. "Oh, that's something different because of these pissant reasons."

It's amazing that you people equate blanket insults, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness with "winning."

Well, whatever. Revel in your "victory," Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

82. Oh my!

I "deflected" by pointing out the fact that your links don't have anything to do with posters calling closed primaries unfair, un-democratic, or voter surpression.

[chillfactor]

55. I was thinking the same thing...

closed primaries have been around forever.....but all of a sudden they are titled as "voter suppression." really?

[Skink]

56. Lets just run a Democrat in the fall.

Not a republican

[democrattotheend]

58. Didn't Obama supporters complain about it in 2008?

Obama was also getting a lot of his support from independent voters, and Clinton supporters were complaining about open primaries a lot in 2008.

[greatauntoftriplets]

63. I was a moderator through the 2008 primaries.

You're correct. Such threads never happened back then. It was not an issue until now.

[blm]

65. This Sanders voter will give you a K&R. The misplaced blame and outrage HAS

to stop at some point. I'm hoping both sides will start heading their bullshit exaggerators off at the path. It seems too few (imo) are concerned with the longterm damage being set up before the general.

seventhsonitis

[OKNancy]

89. LOL - I give you a rec for the disease at the end

and of course your always level-headed replies.

[treestar]

66. It's all about Bernie

If the closed primary favored Bernie, it would be fine.

[MichMan]

68. I think they all should be closed

I am in favor of closed primaries. Too much opportunity for malicious crossover voting by either side. This is especially a problem when an incumbent is running like Obama in 2012 or Bush in 2004.

For those who think it never happens, I beg to differ. My state, Michigan, has a governor that has been characterized as one of the worst in the country. We have open primaries. In the 2010 election, Gov. Jennifer Granholm was term limited and with the state reeling in economic recession due to the auto industry, it was fairly obvious based on polling that a Repug was going to win. Her Lt Governor, John Cherry and other prominent Democrats all refused to run leaving it to "America's Angriest Mayor" Lansing Mayor Virg Benero and a somewhat obscure Mich House Speaker, Andy Dillon.

The Republican race had several candidates including a few prominent politicians and an unknown businessman Rick Snyder. With rather widespread crossover voting with 66% of the voters voting in the Repug primary, Rick Snyder was a surprise winner. It appeared that Democratic crossover voters wanted to play spoiler by making sure the better known politicians were defeated by someone with no political history.

Well the problem was that Snyder won easily over Benero by 20 pts, as expected and the "non political" businessman enacted right to work, instituted a pension tax on previously tax free public pensions, signed a controversial Emergency manager law and others. To this day, I blame the Democratic crossover voters for ensuring he won the primary

[PufPuf23]

69. The DNC never gamed the primary system to favor a specific candidate - Hillary Clinton -

in 2004 or 2008 or other previous elections.

The Democratic Party use of super-delegates (and primaries or caucuses in all states) was not the protocol when I registered and began voting as a Democrat in 1972.

One could easily argue that the super-delegate rule is not democratic, is unfair, and fosters vote suppression because this is fact, some voters have more vote than others.

There were reasons and even good reasons for the super-delegate rule. The super-delegate rule served as a check and balance. It may still be working but that depends if the super-delegates reflect the will of the voters at large and respect momentum and other dynamic factors rather than preserving the status quo for no other reason than to preserve positions of influence. I am not saying that Sanders deserves to win but the political contest is much closer than anyone predicted and this fact is certainly uncomfortable for Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporters.

The Hillary Clinton campaigns has made mistakes; the repeat of mistakes from the 2008 POTUS primary campaign is hard to explain.

The DNC under DWS never favored a candidate much less began stacking the deck in favor of a specific candidate so early in the POTUS election cycle; in 2016 the timing and degree was such to dampen any real effort by any other potentially competitive candidate making an effort.

One could argue that Hillary Clinton played by the rules so should be justly awarded the Democratic POTUS nomination.

However, an error in judgment was made in that Hillary Clinton has an extremely high unfavorable rating for a politician of high national recognition, both among the nation and within the Democratic Party.

The problem is that Sanders ran for POTUS as a Democrat (in good faith) so as not to split the vote and enhance the chance that the next POTUS be GOP.

Sanders has spent his political career outside the Democratic Party but has been a dependent vote within Congress and has caucused and had committee assignments as a Democrat.

One could argue that Sanders in policy in Congress and during his political career has been truer to the traditional FDR "New Deal" policies than the neo-liberal "New Democrats" beginning with Bill Clinton.

Things regards the 2016 Democratic POTUS primary and nomination process are materially different because it is uncertain as to whether the super-delegate rule "works" and because the DNC seemingly put all its eggs in the Clinton basket before going through process.

I am irritated not at the super-delegate rule but how the system has been gamed where we may end up with a Democratic nominee that so many view with disrespect and who is not our most favorable candidate for a national election nor in my opinion a person of the character required to be POTUS.

Edit to add after reading thread:

My preference would be for closed primaries and no caucuses with each delegate able to vote their own conscious as of the second vote of the nominating convention should the initial vote not be a clear absolute majority (for example set some rule like a minimum of 53% of delegates selected by proportion in the state primaries). Rule should also be formulated and used such that the DNC and other Democratic Party structures provide a level playing field for all candidates. There should also be fixed and identical rules for voter registration with a flexible method and time (say within 30 days of election).

[NanceGreggs]

73. I appreciate your well thought-out reply.

However, I do not see millions of more voters casting their ballots for Hillary as "gaming the system".

You are entitled to your opinion that HRC is "viewed with disrespect" and is not "our most favorable candidate". However, it is now apparent that millions of voters do not share that opinion.

[PufPuf23]

76. Thank you. Note that I added an edit you may not have read

after reading the thread and prior to reading your response to me.

The edit was what I would like to see.

From post #69:

Edit to add after reading thread:

My preference would be for closed primaries and no caucuses with each delegate able to vote their own conscious as of the second vote of the nominating convention should the initial vote not be a clear absolute majority (for example set some rule like a minimum of 53% of delegates selected by proportion in the state primaries). Rule should also be formulated and used such that the DNC and other Democratic Party structures provide a level playing field for all candidates. There should also be fixed and identical rules for voter registration with a flexible method and time (say within 30 days of election).

[Sky Masterson]

77. Wow!

You said all of the words.

[PufPuf23]

80. I am glad to not be ignored. lol eom

[William769]

83. Some people don't understand and complain about the rules right here on DU!

How are they to understand closed Primaries?

The scary thing is they actually let these people vote!

[LuvLoogie]

85. Hillary ate my registration!!

[Gothmog]

87. One reason for closed primaries-GOP voters- for example- Did Rush Limbaugh Tilt Result In Indiana?

Does anyone remember 2008 and Operation Chaos from Limbaugh? McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination very early and so GOP voters could vote in Democratic primaries that were open. Limbaugh pushed a project to try to hurt President Obama that he called "Operation Chaos" where GOP voters voted in the Democratic primary to try to keep the contest open for as long as possible. There is some evidence that this program may have worked in Indiana http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703932.html

Even as Barack Obama's campaign celebrated Tuesday's primary results, aides charged yesterday that they would have had an even stronger showing were it not for meddling by an unlikely booster of Hillary Rodham Clinton: the popular conservative radio host and longtime Clinton family nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

The impact of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" emerged as an intriguing point of debate, particularly in Indiana, where registered voters could participate in either party's primary, and where Clinton won by a mere 14,000 votes. As he had before several recent primaries, Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for Clinton to "bloody up Obama politically" and prolong the Democratic fight.

Limbaugh crowed about the success of his ploy all day Tuesday, featuring on-air testimonials from voters in Indiana and North Carolina who recounted their illicit pleasure in casting a vote for Clinton. "Some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh," Limbaugh said Tuesday.

But Limbaugh called off the operation yesterday, saying he wants Obama to be the party's pick, because "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees."

He added: "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

Democrats should get to pick the Democratic nominee

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. That's okay... someday all 50 states will be progressive enough to allow same-day registration.

[Thinkingabout]

90. With the current rules in some states where even republicans can crossover and vote in the

DNC primaries changes the idea of selecting a candidate for the Democratic Party. Republicans do not need to speak in our primaries as we do not need to speak for the Republicans in the GOP primaries.

[Surya Gayatri]

93. Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting.