Progressives (Liberals)

I agree with you 100 percent.

Caucuses might be alright to pick a dog catcher, but it trivializes the serious nature of national elections. You might as well flip a coin.

I agree with this sentiment. We should fight for fewer restrictions. Thousands of voters aren’t party-bound, but are desperate to vote for the best candidate—whoever that is. Some people don’t have the time or knowledge to switch party affiliation in time to vote their desire. Putting up barriers like this is just another variation of having to take a reading or citizenship test before being allowed to vote.

It’s an intentional barrier to voting designed to affect the outcome.

Yes, there is. Your elitism is out in force again today.

Kamala the prosecutor is in.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020-president.amp.html

Announced on MLK day.

The scumbag with the long history of maliciously keeping innocent people in prison with tainted evidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

That does sound like a good fit for today's Democratic Party.

Yep. Caught that. Since a sufficient number of black voters stayed home last cycle, I think we’ll see more announcements today.

I had to laugh. I agree 100%.
Watch out for the progressives, tho, bro. We’re coming atcha!

(Didn’t she actually say she was concerned about adversely affecting the prison workforce??!!)

Lash, I disagree that requiring people to enroll in a party in order to have a hand in selecting that party's candidate is "elitist" — in any way. It costs people no money nor are they forced to support the party's candidate. It's not a matter of party members being considered "superior" to the unenrolled; it's a way for organizations to define themselves and try to insure that the winning candidate is chosen by the majority of the party membership.

and?

Well sure. And in states with decent registration procedures and well-run elections it really isn't that difficult to enroll in a party, switch parties, or vote as an independent.

Let's say a political party — we'll call it the Progressive Party — is gearing up for a presidential election. The party, after a few electoral defeats, wants to select the strongest candidate to present its platform to the voters. There are three strong candidates, all members of minorities, all with strong activist credentials, and then there's this different sort of candidate who claims to support progressive causes but is better known as a celebrity — could be a hotshot businessman like Elon Musk or maybe a movie star — you get the picture. And this guy has his own ideas which play well to a particular audience — he's going around promising a massive tax cut and free childcare for all working families.

Well gee, the leaders of the Progressive Party begin to get a bit worried because these proposals haven't really been studied and conflict with the party's platform and it's desire to appear responsible as well as "progressive". A few of the Progressives criticize the candidate's campaign — and he criticizes them right back. And as he starts winning primaries the establishment Progressives notice that he's getting lots of support from people who aren't even in the Progressive Party but just want to see this big tax cut and get free childcare. They don't care that it's a budget busting gimmick — they're excited to see someone speaking up for them.

So let's say this clown wins the nomination. The regular members are all looking at each other and wondering what happened. The image of the Progressive Party and it's headline policies have been changed. But not by party members — no, by unaffiliated people who streamed to the polls because someone was telling them what they wanted to hear. Could be a well-meaning person, could be a demagogue, could be a conman — but it dilutes the political clout of the party organization.

I'm not a fan of the party system but I recognize that it's the way things work in the USA and, as of now, it represents the most effective method of getting legislation enacted. I don't feel that it's right to let some figure hijack a political party by pandering to people who don't even belong to that party. I don't mind independents running for office — as long as they run as independents. Ranked choice voting for the USA!

People have the constitutional right to vote for everyone and anyone in November. That is the unalienable right that we all share. Everyone could have voted for Bernie in November 2016 even. Write in whomever you want.

Parties are private institutions and their candidates should be determined by party members.


I think it’s a better system than other democracies where you vote in the party and then the party leaders select whom the leader will be.

I think the open party push is because Bernie Sander's lost the primary, or in some minds, he had the primary stolen from him because of the closed primaries in some states which for most didn't allow independents to decide in a primary.

It’s a bigger issue than just Bernie. It’s Party vs Democracy.

You just argued your own point in the Progressive Party analogy where people who ‘know better’ swoop in to de-select this candidate WHO THEY THINK is making promises he can’t (they don’t want him to) fund (with their money).

And, he and I had had a discussion about who might do that. A little bitchy this morning, eh?