Recent debates at another site bring up the idea of closing Democratic Party Primaries. Why should those who won’t sign on to the National Party be allowed a say in its candidate.
To paraphrase, -The role of the Democratic Party is to build the Democratic Party.- Great because building a Political party just for the sake of building a party does nothing.
The purpose of the Democratic Party is to serve the Nation and its non-millionaire citizens. And the best way it can do that is to win elections; local, state and federal.
The purpose of the Democratic Party is not to serve, build and enhance the institution of the Democratic Party; but since the 1930’s, its role is to help those citizens of the US who don’t have armies of lawyers, tax accountants, and public officials on the payroll.
It is not to strengthen the self associated group called the Democratic Party who may, or may not reflect the interests of those non-millionaires.
It has been argued that the Party did not reflect those interests effectively and it is such Institutional thinking that has brought the disaster of 2016. Scorn has been heaped on those who joined the Party in name only to vote or run as a Democrat. Well, guess what. You have a better chance of advancing Democratic non-millionaire goals with them on board than not.
Shutting them out of a primary does nothing but apply a negative stigma to the Party in their mind. By allowing a “registered” independent to vote in an open Democratic primary, engages them in the process and increases the likelihood that will look on the eventual candidate favorably. Unless they are a complete failure like some.
And you know, with the increase of technology, one’s public political party registration is easily found and is used as a sub-rosa filter for jobs, credit, housing, employment advancement. Many who rely on the public for their income register as independent so as to appear neutral. So that “registered” independent may have grown up in a Democratic home, been attracted by its policies, etc.. but due to personal/economic reasons cannot be known as such on the voting rolls.
So, if its your stated goal to build a self perpetuating Fortress Democratic Party which only allows and rewards insiders and long timers who follow a rigid policy dogma; checking off each approved position in the approved manner, you will get the result of 2016.
If you want a big tent broad enough to win a majority of states with a safe margin, then that will have to include “registered” independents. Blocking them is just another tool of solidifying influence and policy positions in an increasingly smaller and smaller Democratic Party.
Ridge
Let’s see…only half the population thinks it has a reason to vote, and that is split into three sections, say roughly even. Already down to 1/6 of the population. The winners of closed primaries at a minimum would then be the decision of 1/12 of the voters.
Well, guess is better than a hereditary king.
At least that 1/12th will be pure of heart and righteous with the Lord. The apostates can eat Big Macs and deer hunt.
Democrats lost in 2016 because they tried to control voting behaviours instead of listening to the voters.
Open primaries mean more conservative voters, more conservative nominees, and a real chance of rat-f*cking, especially against an incumbent, which is likely to be the case in 2020. We’ll get more Manchins, even in districts that aren’t scarlet red. Is this worth getting more people engaged?
Manchin is not that different than his constituency. Liberal in some ways, conservative in others.
If you want to save Social Security, Medicare, Medicare and infrastructure investment; he will be a reliable vote.
If you don’t care about that vote because he doesn’t meet some purity standard; then a Republican can take the seat who will vote party line.
If the Democratic Party wants to be a NATIONAL party, it has to reflect elements of all the states, not just the ones approved in DC parlors and NYC dinner parties.
R
It’s where the rubber meets the road.
If you want to be a National Party then stop screaming ‘blue dog!’ or ‘neoliberal!’ at every Democrat that does not meet your purity test.
If you insist every Democrat must meet some arbitrary purity test that by coincidence matches exactly what you believe, no matter how unattainable, then accept you won’t have ANY of the three branches of government.
And when you lose, what you have now as President elect is what you get.
Welcome to the reset.
.
Run on a platform and educate your voters. Talk about the waste and abuse of Public/Private Projects and how corrupting they are. You don’t have to call them neoliberal, you just have to SHOW why they are a BAD idea.
For example, this is unacceptable…
“If people from communities like that make a trip to Madison to go to a [University of Wisconsin] Badger game or they go to Milwaukee to take in a Brewers game, they see all these new traffic circles and cloverleafs and these massive highway expansions, and they can’t fill their own potholes,” he said in an interview on Wisconsin public radio. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/02/what_dems_and_the_gop_learned_in_pennsylvania_1
32480.html)
And this…
“In an era of dismal infrastructure spending, where the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the country’s roads a D grade, rural areas all over the country are embracing this kind of strategic retreat. Transportation agencies in at least 27 states have unpaved roads, according to a new report from the National Highway Cooperative Highway Research program. They’ve done the bulk of that work in the past five years.” (https:/www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-roads-cant-afford-fix)
Milwaukee has terrible roads and I have the misfortune of driving on them every day.
The new construction mostly benefits the wealthier suburbs and commuters from outside the city limits.
Curious, how is Manchin on selling off the TVA? Bet he might like that idea, no?
I think he is toast anyway, what with his daughter’s exploits.
I’m sure the people in WV could care less about the TVA. As for his daughter, unless his GOP opponent runs on an anti-capitalist platform; won’t matter much in 2 yrs.
What will matter will be aggressive put downs and contempt in the leftward leaning members of the national media. That and lack of support from the national party could cause him to flip allegiance; under current conditions that would not hurt him statewide at all. Might hurt the Party in the Senate though.
R
We already have county roads returning to gravel. Do we want private utilities to find it not profitable enough to supply rural communities and maintain the lines, eh? Rural de-electrification coming up!
Manchin is not that different than his constituency. Liberal in some ways, conservative in others.
Really? You remember that WV voted overwhelmingly for Sanders in the primary, right? If you don’t give people Sanders-esque candidates to vote for, how do you know he’s electable or not? The Democratic Party doesn’t want Sanders type people running for office. I hope I don’t have to explain why that is.
This was not true in 2008: Obama would not have won the nomination if all the primaries were closed.
And Sanders would have been out of contention after the Iowa caucus.
Iowa is closed to Democrats only. But they have same day registration so you can change your registration at the caucus.
So it doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t get more open than same day registration.
And NH allows independents to vote in the primary.
So the 2 early primaries, where insurgents and dark horses can make a splash and get attention, are open or near open. If closed, then Whomever the media crowns before Iowa has a good chance of getting the nomination; with independents having no say.
“We don’t need your input, just shut up and vote for our candidate in the General.”
I’m afraid with the explosion of information sources (partisan or not), that may no longer work.
R
You must have bought into the fiction that Independents are to the right of the DP. They’re a mixed bag running the gamut from far right to far left. None of them seem to be interested in gaming either the Democratic or Republican primaries. What they’d like is a candidate they could vote for in the general election.
The non-party members who show up to vote in primaries are more conservative for the Democrats and more liberal for the Republicans. Regardless of where other independents sit, that’s who you’re going to get coming in and voting.
Yeah, because all those Independent BernieBros that showed up for Dem caucuses and primaries in 2016 were more conservative than DINOs. Or maybe they were GOP ratfuckers trying to stick the Democratic Party with an “unelectable” socialist as the nominee. Wow, are those guys clever or what?
Meanwhile, team Clinton (as documented in their internal paper) was engaged in pushing a “pied piper” on the GOP under the impression that Trump would be easy for HRC to beat.
Actually, Sanders supporters were more conservative than Clinton’s. Probably due to rat-f*ckery – but that’s what you get with open primaries. There will be a lot more of that in 2020 if Trump has a noncompetitive primary.
Your evidence for your conclusion is a NYTimes opinion piece? Based on several notions: 1) On policy there was not difference between Sanders and Clinton. Complete fiction. 2) Bernie had more support among white man than Clinton did (factoring out the vagina voters that claim wouldn’t stand up) 3) white men are all conservatives. Who the hell do you think was instrumental in building unions and the socialist New Deal?
White men vote GOP because they aren’t trashed by Republicans; otherwise, neither party delivers for people like them.
Say it again, Sister. Say it again.
Non college, white women as well. At least in my experience. They are serious about welfare/assistance, and its not racial. Its their relatives and neighbors getting high, having babies and getting checks or free health care while they have to work. “They’re no damn good.”
The appeal to identity politics didn’t help as well. “Where is the politician for me?”
R
Your one piece of evidence is the West Virginia Primary?
NY
Very Liberal
Sanders 64, CLinton 44
Moderate
Clinton 67, Sanders 33
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/dem
Michigan
Very Liberal
Sanders 59, Clinton 41
Moderate
Clinton 55, Sanders 44
Florida
Clinton won liberals (did not break it out as in other states) by 18, and won moderates and conservatives by 44
MA was close Clinton won liberals (again did not break it out) by 5, lost moderates by 9
In PA Clinton and Sanders split the liberal vote almost exactly 50-50. Clintons margins came from her 18 point lead among moderates and consertatives.
In Wisoonsin, an open primary state, Sanders won the very liberal vote 62-38, but split the moderate vote.
In state after state Clinton’s best groups were among moderates.
You are completely wrong.
Did you look at a single exit poll during primary season?
This is NOT true.
You mean the exit polls that showed Sanders won conservatives over Hillary? Even though she won the primary vote by 60-40%? (and thus a smidgeon more among non-conservatives).
You did not look at the exit polls.
I did – see above.
You are unambiguously wrong.
That is the main arguement you hear, There are hoards of registered independents and Republicans who will cross over to inflict a conservative loon on Democrats during a primary; and steal our precious bodily fluids as well.
If it happens, its a handful.
But closing a primary means you won’t be infected by non party approved ideas, posistions, or (God forbid!) a candidate who has not been manufactured and promoted by the party elites. You know, one who has fire and ideas that might appeal to a wider than razor thin majority of voters.
Can’t have that, so closing the Primaries cuts off those possibilies and leaves the choice of accepting the approved candidate or wandering in the 3rd party wasteland for 40 yrs.
R
Once again Democrats fixate on tactics instead of process. Open primaries do not necessarily mean and open process to handle the divisions in the party locally and on a state level before putting the coalition in a national caucus. Those divisions will not be handled by hippie-punching or blue-dogging; they will only be handled by what’s not happening — negotiation with some honest political conversation at the local and state levels. The frat-politics spirit of national politics is what has led to overwhelming dysfunction and disaster. Policies do matter; they are not just talking points to wave in front of voters. The most effective political education happens at the local level. Unfortunately, what people are learning is that the same old gang is always in charge, and that turns them off because the same old gang is not listening to their issues or their ideas.
Local politics where I live is dominated by money from developers, real estate companies, and the lawyers who represent them or who support various candidates for judges. The result is poor zoning decisions and wired judges. A closed primary would do little to affect that.
Democrats should stop tinkering with the process and start talking about how to bridge their differences.
But there are those who want to ensure that the US has no left wing in its politics but are content that the right wing goes as extremely far as possible. Any Democrat who supports Trump’s agenda does not understand how economic policy can become too entrenched to change and Democrats can be marginalized in what is effectively a one-party national state.
The fossil fuel supporting Democrats are foreclosing the future of the economy and the party. That they want to be pandered to because they have not done the necessary political education of their own voters about the actual policy options shows how easily they can be led around by big money. Closed or open primaries won’t change that situation one whit. The proposal right now is a distraction.
Ideally yes, one should work from the local up. But because of the closeness, you sometimes feel that you “can’t fight city hall” because the fix is so obviously in. At a national level, distance can obscure flaws and heighten strengths.
Also a truly inspirational leader and his goals can lead to actions and reforms on a local level. I think we may have seen that this last cycle with reports of many of his supporters investigating or signing up to run for local positions. If even a few are successful, that is evidence of a political trickle down.
R