New York GOP/ Democratic Primaries

[Fawlty]

I hope people realize that these results actually are not very indicative of the mindset of a lot of New Yorkers. Over 100,000 people in the Bronx were unable to vote because of DNC corruption and also the fact that 3.2 million independent's were not able to cast their vote which is a demographic that sways heavily towards Bernie Sanders. Fun fact, 40% of Americans are registered as independent. 27% Democrat and 20% Republican. Because most people are aware that our two-party system is pretty broken.

Hillary won where the money is. Bernie won where New Yorkers have been screwed by those with money.

If you were to look at a map of New York and how each County voted and didn't know about the population of each County you would think Sanders won handily.

Not over till the fat lady sings folks.

That's a trick that REPUBLICANS use to suggest they should win every election, by appealing to the geographic dispersal of votes in more rural areas as opposed to a population-focused view. That looks like a county breakdown, not a congressional district breakdown. Why are you using republican tricks to argue for Sanders? Is it really necessary to sink so low? You're advocating for a view that favors landowners having more of a vote than other citizens. That's so fucking immature and against everything Sanders stands for. Shame on you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Note: I live in a real world. One in which, just as not every person without a college degree is ignorant concerning matters of economics and foreign policy, not every person with a college degree is knowledgeable about them.

You're the one who was writing off people without college educations as long as they weren't white. Personally, I think everyone's vote counts and should count. If you're going to say that Bernie does better with voters who are knowledgeable about economics or foreign policy, I'll just silently smile.

Your whole game is to just completely dismiss most of the electorate because Bernie is pretty much losing with every possible demographic group.

 

[Fawlty]

I hope people realize that these results actually are not very indicative of the mindset of a lot of New Yorkers. Over 100,000 people in the Bronx were unable to vote because of DNC corruption and also the fact that 3.2 million independent's were not able to cast their vote which is a demographic that sways heavily towards Bernie Sanders. Fun fact, 40% of Americans are registered as independent. 27% Democrat and 20% Republican. Because most people are aware that our two-party system is pretty broken.

Hillary won where the money is. Bernie won where New Yorkers have been screwed by those with money.

If you were to look at a map of New York and how each County voted and didn't know about the population of each County you would think Sanders won handily.

Not over till the fat lady sings folks.

Quoted you again to add (a point not shitting on you) that Independent voters are an interesting discussion in our winner-take-all system, where the 2-party polarization might be too strong without their influence. For that reason I respect parties who are willing to hold open primaries, and you may be right that Independents should be heard in the primaries.

 

[theBLADE1]

That's a trick that REPUBLICANS use to suggest they should win every election, by appealing to the geographic dispersal of votes in more rural areas as opposed to a population-focused view. That looks like a county breakdown, not a congressional district breakdown. Why are you using republican tricks to argue for Sanders? Is it really necessary to sink so low? You're advocating for a view that favors landowners having more of a vote than other citizens. That's so fucking immature and against everything Sanders stands for. Shame on you.

Sanders won in counties that were hit the hardest by the 2008 recession and by bad trade deals. Also take into account that Over 120,000 people had their voter registration switched to independent and what you have is not a real accurate representation of how the state voted in its entirety. Sanders still managed to do better than Obama did in New York.



That very same thing is now happening in California. Is also not coincidental that the same thing happened in Arizona with the number of Polling locations drastically cut from 2012 the 2016 And that very same thing is now happening in Rhode Island. The DNC is doing everything in their power to assure Clinton sails through to the general election thereby losing millennial voters for the next generation.

Quoted you again to add (a point not shitting on you) that Independent voters are an interesting discussion in our winner-take-all system, where the 2-party polarization might be too strong without their influence. For that reason I respect parties who are willing to hold open primaries, and you may be right that Independents should be heard in the primaries.

This is my main point. If independents Had been allowed to vote in New York(or Florida or most any other closed primary state for that matter) Clinton would have lost out right or one by only a narrow margin. There is no reason why that many voters should not be allowed to decide who is able to run for president come November.

 

[Fawlty]

This is my main point. If independents Had been allowed to vote in New York(or Florida or most any other closed primary state for that matter) Clinton would have lost out right or one by only a narrow margin. There is no reason why that many voters should not be allowed to decide who is able to run for president come November.

There are pretty valid arguments on both side of that for me. But I'm on your side because we have a system that is essentially closed to third parties. If we had 5 or 6 effective parties (even if two were fairly dominant), I would probably be against open primaries and expect the parties to compromise and consolidate their platforms.

 

[Lead]

Sanders won in counties that were hit the hardest by the 2008 recession and by bad trade deals. Also take into account that Over 120,000 people had their voter registration switched to independent and what you have is not a real accurate representation of how the state voted in its entirety. Sanders still managed to do better than Obama did in New York.



That very same thing is now happening in California. Is also not coincidental that the same thing happened in Arizona with the number of Polling locations drastically cut from 2012 the 2016 And that very same thing is now happening in Rhode Island. The DNC is doing everything in their power to assure Clinton sails through to the general election thereby losing millennial voters for the next generation.





This is my main point. If independents Had been allowed to vote in New York(or Florida or most any other closed primary state for that matter) Clinton would have lost out right or one by only a narrow margin. There is no reason why that many voters should not be allowed to decide who is able to run for president come November.

Come on Blade. Do you really have to spin a 15 point loss at this point? Yes, a bunch of the lower populated counties went to Bernie, something that means 0 in terms of popular vote or delegates really. Also, lets say 120,000 voters who lost registration ALL voted for Bernie. Clinton still won by another 120,000 votes.

 

[Fawlty]

Hillary smashed in the Bronx too (I believe district 15 & 16?). Why aren't her supporters crying foul on the conspiracy against her there?

 

[ultramanhyata]

You're the one who was writing off people without college educations as long as they weren't white. Personally, I think everyone's vote counts and should count. If you're going to say that Bernie does better with voters who are knowledgeable about economics or foreign policy, I'll just silently smile.

Your whole game is to just completely dismiss most of the electorate because Bernie is pretty much losing with every possible demographic group.

Sure. And every dem who's not voting for Shillary has been duped by smear campaigns and is acting as unwitting stooge to the right-wing. We all know the song and dance.

Also, thanks for cluing me into Fredrik deBoer. I had never heard of the man but am always pleased to discover a new, clear thinking, unflinching progressive voice.

 

[ultramanhyata]

This is my main point. If independents Had been allowed to vote in New York(or Florida or most any other closed primary state for that matter) Clinton would have lost out right or one by only a narrow margin. There is no reason why that many voters should not be allowed to decide who is able to run for president come November.

If you're not a card-carrying party loyalist - a two-party system zombie - the political establishment would prefer that your voice be silenced during the process that decides the two candidates who will run for the presidency.

What would have happened to someone like Hillary in NY had the Indies been allowed to vote in the primary is a great example of why the closed primaries are just that.

 

[Quipling]

If you're not a card-carrying party loyalist - a two-party system zombie - the political establishment would prefer that your voice be silenced during the process that decides the two candidates who will run for the presidency.

What would have happened to someone like Hillary in NY had the Indies been allowed to vote in the primary is a great example of why the closed primaries are just that.

So, had non-democrats been allowed to vote in the democratic primary, the result would have been different? Why on earth should I care?

 

[ultramanhyata]

But I don't think its that most liberals prefer clinton. I think most democrats prefer clinton, and America in general is just nowhere as liberal as the rest of the developed world. So even our "liberal" wing, isn't really all that liberal.

Well said and exactly correct. But, of course, you're trying to communicate with a man who thinks that hawkish foreign policy, a minimally regulated banking industry and unencumbered, global free-trade are "liberal" agendas. lol

 

[ultramanhyata]

So, had non-democrats been allowed to vote in the democratic primary, the result would have been different? Why on earth should I care?

So Joe, a registered independent who sometimes votes for democrats and sometimes votes for republicans in local and national elections shouldn't have any say in who those republican or democratic candidates might be?

You're basically saying, "Get on the bus or have only half a voice." Establishment democracy at work.

And it's not like a registered republican or democrat doesn't have the option to vote for the opposite party on election day. So why do they get to have it both ways?

 

[Quipling]

So Joe, a registered independent who sometimes votes for democrats and sometimes votes for republicans in local and national elections shouldn't have any say in who those republican or democratic candidates might be?

You're basically saying, "Get on the bus or have only half a voice." Establishment democracy at work.

And it's not like a registered republican or democrat doesn't have the option to vote for the opposite party on election day. So why do they get to have it both ways?

A general election is open to the general public. A primary election is to determine the representative of that party. There is no reason to give non-party members a voice. You also don't get to determine the next president of the Sierra Club unless you're a member. Or the governor of a state in which you aren't a resident. Or senators of a state of which you're not a resident.

Nor are you being prevented from having a voice. In order to have as much a voice in the affairs of the club as members ... all you have to do is register as a member. Not having a voice is the price you pay for refusing to participate in the process.

If primaries are open to everyone, you are no longer selecting the nominee of that party. You're selecting the nominee of everyone, generally. We call this a "general election" and it would be better accomplished through a runoff process, if that is your actual goal.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

So Joe, a registered independent who sometimes votes for democrats and sometimes votes for republicans in local and national elections shouldn't have any say in who those republican or democratic candidates might be?

You're basically saying, "Get on the bus or have only half a voice." Establishment democracy at work.

And it's not like a registered republican or democrat doesn't have the option to vote for the opposite party on election day. So why do they get to have it both ways?

You're free to register with either party. You just have to do so in a timely fashion. Way too much work for some people, but do we really want them voting to begin with?

 

[theBLADE1]

You're free to register with either party. You just have to do so in a timely fashion. Way too much work for some people, but do we really want them voting to begin with?

Right and you better make sure to make up your mind seven months before time to vote in your state..........

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Right and you better make sure to make up your mind seven months before time to vote in your state..........

Exactly!

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Stevia has nothing on the sweetest that is Bernie bot tears.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure. And every dem who's not voting for Shillary has been duped by smear campaigns and is acting as unwitting stooge to the right-wing. We all know the song and dance.

To be clear, the whole "both sides are the same, so vote Republican" thing and general repeating of right-wing smears of Clinton make one an unwitting stooge. If you're criticizing her for her position on education reform or for not raising capital gains taxes enough or something, that doesn't make you an unwitting stooge. Try to be honest when repeating people's positions.

Also, thanks for cluing me into Fredrik deBoer. I had never heard of the man but am always pleased to discover a new, clear thinking, unflinching progressive voice.

Another member of the slow-witted, misanthropic, vanity left, you mean. Kind of shocked you weren't already very familiar with him.

 

[Quipling]

Stevia has nothing on the sweetest that is Bernie bot tears.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Laugh Out Loud.