2016 Postmortem

crazycatlady

(4,492 posts)

91. I just checked the website-- 6 months out

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:07 PM

Dec 2016

For the 2016 presidential primary, the deadline was not in the same YEAR as the primary.

While I can appreciate the merits of a closed primary, I think the deadline is a little too far out. NY is typically not an early state on the Presidential calendar, and especially in presidential primaries, you don't know when the contest will be over. In NJ, to switch party affiliations (excluding unaffiliateds, so D to R or R to D) the deadline is 45 days out. Even doubling that to 90 days out would make more sense and at least put the deadline in the same year as the primary (and when people are thinking about it).

Let me also say that I think it is ridiculous that NY has different primaries for the presidential, other federal (congressional mostly) and state level races. 3 primaries in a year is insane (and expensive).

(I was born and raised in NY. Registered there from 1998-2006 but unaffiliated).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

172 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We Should Only Let Democrats Choose Our Nominee [View all] TomCADem Dec 2016 OP

I completely agree.....n/t asuhornets Dec 2016 #1

Wonder where Ellison and Perez stand on these issues... TomCADem Dec 2016 #3

Perez probably feels the same way...Ellison, i'm not sure-he was a Bernie supporter.. asuhornets Dec 2016 #9

Sanders got many of his "victories" in non-democratic caucuses Gothmog Dec 2016 #108

So do I. n/t asuhornets Dec 2016 #122

Sanders so-called victories were mostly in caucus states Gothmog Dec 2016 #147

If Sanders could not beat Hillary in the Democratic primaries, why would they think asuhornets Dec 2016 #148

I think that those Democrats who voted for Powell lapucelle Dec 2016 #84

Me too shenmue Dec 2016 #63

I hate caucus MFM008 Dec 2016 #2

I disagree. immoderate Dec 2016 #4

I would like the primaries for all parties to be open to all Americans Zing Zing Zingbah Dec 2016 #17

I'm for closed primaries too hollowdweller Dec 2016 #5

Getting Rid of Superdelegates Will Moderate This... TomCADem Dec 2016 #7

This. Bernie would have won and tRump would be a distant memory right now. Joe941 Dec 2016 #12

... SidDithers Dec 2016 #19

+ a bajillion!!!!!! eom BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #81

Except, no he wouldn't have. Maven Dec 2016 #33

Superdelegates aren't the reason Sanders lost. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #36

No, he would have gotten beat worse than Hillary Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #165

If Republicans had BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #79

Dems do not choose losers, BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #80

You're missing the huge elephant in the room. Clinton, Kerry and Gore had elections stolen . . . brush Dec 2016 #104

100% agree. nt oasis Dec 2016 #6

Approximately 30% percent of the electorate is registered as independent RDANGELO Dec 2016 #8

I disagree..Democrats did not benefit from allowing Independents into the party..Not one bit...nt asuhornets Dec 2016 #10

exactly truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #60

One thing I've learned is that some millenials lapucelle Dec 2016 #86

nope. gklagan Dec 2016 #153

Yup. That's why President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Sanders himself lapucelle Dec 2016 #154

They're voting for a different Party because they don't like the Democratic Party gklagan Dec 2016 #157

Nobody truly counted on people from other parties to vote Democratic. lapucelle Dec 2016 #163

Yeah, keep blaming millennials. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #169

What about the bad attitudes of millinials and independents who voiced very loudly not voting for... asuhornets Dec 2016 #123

well, I'm a millennial and my view is very different: JHan Dec 2016 #128

Yep. We need to appeal to independents or we lose. JudyM Dec 2016 #113

"Independents" aren't who so many seem to think they are. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #119

Regardless of party "leaning" or not, Sanders pulled them in far more. JudyM Dec 2016 #129

12 states do have closed primaries mtnsnake Dec 2016 #11

NJ is semi open crazycatlady Dec 2016 #15

The Republicans do have open primaries crazycatlady Dec 2016 #13

The Sanders campaign did make such a push in New York. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #49

I didn't realize NY was so absurdly closed crazycatlady Dec 2016 #52

In NY, only those who can demonstrate lapucelle Dec 2016 #89

I just checked the website-- 6 months out crazycatlady Dec 2016 #91

The deadline is never in the same year as the primary. lapucelle Dec 2016 #98

I live in NY and have been a registered Democrat for over 40 years. lapucelle Dec 2016 #88

I think six months or eleven months is absurd. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #96

I think it's absurd when people who are not members of an organization lapucelle Dec 2016 #97

I don't disagree crazycatlady Dec 2016 #100

when SCOTUS ruled on NY's requirement in 1973, all 3 of the solid liberals agreed that it was absurd JustinL Dec 2016 #118

Thanks, that's a very interesting analysis of the requirement. Jim Lane Dec 2016 #139

the dissent hints at 30-60 days in the final paragraph JustinL Dec 2016 #140

In addition, in 1973 we did campaigns and primaries very differently lapucelle Dec 2016 #149

I think Connecticut is similar to NY NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #146

I won't get into the open/closed debate. I'd hope closed primaries are empowered (more delegates) SaschaHM Dec 2016 #14

LET IT GO! Chasstev365 Dec 2016 #16

This is the perfect time to tweak primary rules... TomCADem Dec 2016 #20

Interesting issue and I can see both sides. I've never liked the opposition meddling in 24601 Dec 2016 #18

31 states have partisan registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #21

I agree NeoConsSuck Dec 2016 #22

except that's a lazy analogy truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #64

Agree Completely The_Voice_of_Reason Dec 2016 #23

On the other hand, if he wasn't allowed to run as Democrat, he could have run as a third party. LisaL Dec 2016 #50

It would more likely have been a plurality BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #78

Only if she got to 270 Electoral College votes mythology Dec 2016 #111

The most hardline BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #126

If you want closed primaries, PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #24

Your post makes no sense. Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #28

Your post doesn't make sense. PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #30

The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #35

I'd be curious to see who they are asking in their surveys. I think it varies depending on PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #38

Around here that means "republican." Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #39

For some, it means Republican. For some, it means Democrat. Very few are swing voters. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #42

Maybe so, Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #46

I suspect there was a fair amount of crossover voting in Michigan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #93

Well then, form a party, Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #37

You talk about people failing to compromise, PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #45

What's to compromise? Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #48

I am a proud Warren wing Democrat, not a Clinton corporatist Democrat. PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #53

exactly truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #67

Most are party loyalists, not wishy-washy. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #34

actually most Independents I know crazycatlady Dec 2016 #71

There've been a number of studies of "independents." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #94

It probably depends on the state crazycatlady Dec 2016 #99

Whatever the reason might be for non-affiliation, the vast majority are partisan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #106

Hillary won 13 open primaries, sanders won 10 La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #54

I disagree. All candidates campaign to get as many voters from the opposite party to support napi21 Dec 2016 #25

I'm all in on closed primaries. Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #26

I would not support the California Democratic Party excluding decline to state registrants. David__77 Dec 2016 #27

Aren't California's primaries top two? crazycatlady Dec 2016 #152

Other than for the presidential primary, yes. David__77 Dec 2016 #161

The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #29

Anyone can declare as a Democrat or Republican for a primary run. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #31

Joe Manchin likely defines the conservative limit across the Democratic spectrum. But since 24601 Dec 2016 #159

A nice definition of the problem. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #160

Yes, completely agree. Closed primaries 100%. No open primaries, no undemocratic caucuses. Maven Dec 2016 #32

If this is about the primaries...Bernie would have run a strong race anyway. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #40

The open vs. closed thing isn't what made it somewhat close. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #44

People had to have a chance to vote for what they wanted. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #55

I didn't write anything that suggests otherwise. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #58

Bernie never said "both parties are the same" and he's not responsible for those who did. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #68

I didn't say he did, but it's the message many spread. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #92

WA is a state with no partisan registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #72

My point is how much both turnout and the results differ between primaries and caucuses. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #95

I agree 100%. BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #41

I'll give you truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #65

There was NO tipping of the scale BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #77

There absolutely was a tipping of the scale by the DNC. potone Dec 2016 #85

That is total and absolute BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #124

I think that getting rid of Super Delegates is a great idea WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #69

If people can't choose a side, then BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #73

What do you do in the case of state's where you do not register by party - like VT? karynnj Dec 2016 #43

Allowing only democrats to choose nominee might be problematic. LisaL Dec 2016 #47

Do you have a link for your allegation about a difference between the parties? Jim Lane Dec 2016 #51

In Texas, I can vote in any primary LeftInTX Dec 2016 #171

Agree... Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #56

It wasn't lost sab390 Dec 2016 #57

I agree so very much bravenak Dec 2016 #59

Maybe only Democrats can vote for them in the general election, too? jfern Dec 2016 #61

Completely agree NastyRiffraff Dec 2016 #62

And then Hillary would have won the primary just like she did. vi5 Dec 2016 #66

The caucus process picked electors, not just delegates? nt LLStarks Dec 2016 #70

Typically, the caucus picks delegates for the state party convention SaschaHM Dec 2016 #74

They had downballot primary with a non-binding presidential preference poll. Just use that. nt LLStarks Dec 2016 #75

They definitely should, but... SaschaHM Dec 2016 #76

We should let only Democrats BE our nominees meow2u3 Dec 2016 #82

In some states, there's no such thing crazycatlady Dec 2016 #87

I didn't know that meow2u3 Dec 2016 #101

19 states do not have party registration crazycatlady Dec 2016 #102

That also includes Texas meow2u3 Dec 2016 #105

But once you vote in a primary, then you are locked into that party for the rest of the cycle Gothmog Dec 2016 #109

And the states that don't require party affiliation in their voter registration? PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2016 #83

Damn Straight.. it's our party! Cha Dec 2016 #90

I completely agree. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #103

I want to get rid of caucuses and open primaries Gothmog Dec 2016 #107

Independents now make up 40%+ of the electorate Arazi Dec 2016 #110

The vast majority of whom are partisans who just like the term "independent." Garrett78 Dec 2016 #114

Good luck coming up with all that money to fund private elections. TransitJohn Dec 2016 #112

K&R Gothmog Dec 2016 #115

Utterly and completely the wrong thing to do. Kentonio Dec 2016 #116

If you don't have the support of the base, you aren't going to win in the general election. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #117

If you don't win over enough of the base you won't win the primary anyway Kentonio Dec 2016 #120

Agreed. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #121

You notice the way I was talking about the future there, and you keep bringing up Sanders Kentonio Dec 2016 #131

We're in agreement. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #144

This year's Democratic candidate did have the support of the base frazzled Dec 2016 #135

We're in agreement. That was my point. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #143

The problem is that several states have an open primary by law. Yes we should only let Democrats totodeinhere Dec 2016 #125

States cannot force political parties... TomCADem Dec 2016 #142

And in the 19 states with no party affiliation? crazycatlady Dec 2016 #150

California Dem Party vs Jones. 530 US 567 TomCADem Dec 2016 #155

yes because Democrats did such a good job picking a winner last time...... bowens43 Dec 2016 #127

Sort of Like DNC Platform Member Cornell West... TomCADem Dec 2016 #132

So....I'm confused... vi5 Dec 2016 #130

Get rid of superdelegates, too... TomCADem Dec 2016 #133

That didn't answer my question.... vi5 Dec 2016 #136

I am not trying to favor any candidate. In 2008... TomCADem Dec 2016 #137

I still don't see how it helps us in the future. vi5 Dec 2016 #138

I See Party Primaries as Our Party Selecting Our Candidate... TomCADem Dec 2016 #141

Caucus Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #134

Welcome to DU gopiscrap Dec 2016 #164

Thank You Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #167

Yes, yes, yes. I was assailed back in the spring for mentioning that. George II Dec 2016 #145

I agree! Time to end caucuses and open primaries. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #151

Even in a state without an open primary, a person can often change party affiliation Vinca Dec 2016 #156

First Past The Post (FPTP) Voting gklagan Dec 2016 #158

I'll say it again, the vast majority of "independents" are strongly partisan. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #162

I completely agree. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #166

I have no problem with that, but lets overhaul the whole damn thing, including the calendar. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #168

I agree Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2016 #170

I'd be fine with this if there was some way to allow the 40-some % of Indys PotatoChip Dec 2016 #172