Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Where Do Perez and Ellison Stand on Open Primaries, Superdelegates and... (Original Post) TomCADem Dec 2016 OP
Honestly I would be fine if they just strongly came out La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #1
I would let Iowa keep its caucus... TomCADem Dec 2016 #2
I would also not let Iowa go first though. Illinois should go first La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #3
how about cali go first then NY. Joe941 Dec 2016 #4
IL is most representative of racial diversity in the US La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #5
That's generous of you. BainsBane Dec 2016 #16
Slightly OT but when is the DNC Election to be held? Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2016 #6
I agree with you on all three. PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #7
You need to be prepared for a more conservative party BainsBane Dec 2016 #17
The individual states decide on caucuses or primaries. DURHAM D Dec 2016 #8
i know that, but their position on it tells me a lot of about them La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #9
Their position on this is just smoke. DURHAM D Dec 2016 #11
Agree with both of you. The "vast right wing conspiracy" Hortensis Dec 2016 #13
The Party Itself Has Say Due to First Amendment TomCADem Dec 2016 #10
Open primary is a different issue than DURHAM D Dec 2016 #12
Elections are local loyalsister Dec 2016 #14
Elections fall to the states. BainsBane Dec 2016 #15
 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
1. Honestly I would be fine if they just strongly came out
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:16 PM
Dec 2016

Against caucuses.

Hillary won several open primaries (13) to be precise. Hence I know that open primaries are not rigged against the democratic base, many who do not have the luxury of having a whole day to spend on a caucus.

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
2. I would let Iowa keep its caucus...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:24 PM
Dec 2016

...and any smaller rural state, which would otherwise be difficult for a candidate to Campaign in because it is so spread out.

But a large state with urban areas being controlled by a small caucus? Makes no sense.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
3. I would also not let Iowa go first though. Illinois should go first
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:28 PM
Dec 2016

Much more representative of the rest of is

PatsFan87

(368 posts)
7. I agree with you on all three.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:44 PM
Dec 2016

Open primaries are necessary. If we want independent voters in the general, we shouldn't shut them out of having a voice in the primary. I hear the "well they can always switch to being a Democrat beforehand." Realistically, some people make up their minds in the weeks or even days leading up to the primary. These people should not be locked out and their voice matters equally. Additionally, some states like New York have deadlines to switch your party half a year before the state's primary. We also had the issue in NY and other states of people being purged from voter lists and when people would check their registration online, they were listed as independent/not declared even if they switched Democrat to vote in the primary. All states should have same-day voter registration.

I'm not a fan of superdelegates but if they are here to stay, they should not be able to get behind a candidate before their state has voted. It wouldn't be a horrible idea for them to stay out of the process until the convention. Numerically, they should have less of an impact and if their state overwhelmingly voted for a certain candidate, their vote should represent the will of the voters they are supposed to represent.

I live in Maine, a caucus state, and the whole process was a mess. In our largest city of Portland, they didn't have enough space for people and they were turning people away (which is illegal). It was also an inconvenience to sit through a long drawn out process of electing people for certain positions, listening to speeches, etc. People want to get in and out to vote.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
8. The individual states decide on caucuses or primaries.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:45 PM
Dec 2016

How do you think the head of the DNC can change a red state from caucus to primary given that they (the state) will have to pay for the primary while the party pays for the caucuses.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
9. i know that, but their position on it tells me a lot of about them
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:48 PM
Dec 2016

that's my reason at least for wanting to know

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
11. Their position on this is just smoke.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:57 PM
Dec 2016

You can assume that every Democrat would like to get rid of caucuses as they are not democratic and they cost the party.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
13. Agree with both of you. The "vast right wing conspiracy"
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:08 PM
Dec 2016

that we now know has a huge religious right component and intends to smash liberalism and secularism has gained enormous power this election, allowing them to move into the mainstream from their previous shadowy sidelines.

There is NO chance we can support open primaries in the face of this extremely aggressive enemy. Only wish we could persuade states to switch from caucuses, but with the right-wing extremists in charge of a majority of states, that will not happen.

For now, though, superdelegates are part of our bulwark against these extremists--if/until they use money and stealth to worm their way into local party politics and become superdelegates themselves.

After hearing Ellison speak a couple of times, I am more than just massively unimpressed with him. Schumer and Warren supposedly supported him to draw Bernie's faction in tighter, but could it be they also thought he'd be a weak leader who wouldn't get in their way? That might not be so bad if so. We must unify as much as possible against the tremendous threat from the reactionary right and dominionists, but the possibility that an influential radical presence in the party could ultimately be an open door for attack by a far left-far right alliance is a frightening specter.

In any case, I like Tom Perez infinitely better. He's both a liberal scrapper and consensus-builder.

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
10. The Party Itself Has Say Due to First Amendment
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:53 PM
Dec 2016

Republicans sued California when it tried to go completely open primary. We do not need the consent of Republicans to change how we choose our nominee.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
14. Elections are local
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:20 PM
Dec 2016

And, the processes are locally determined with good reason.

We have open primaries in my state and I like it that way. There is no state party affiliation requirement. For primary elections, we choose a ballot that is limited to a specific party, though.

I know a lot of people dislike open primaries because people who aren't allowed in the clubhouse might cross over. But, I like our system very much and would not like the DNC to advocate for changes.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
15. Elections fall to the states.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:44 PM
Dec 2016

The federal government doesn't have the ability to impose primaries or caucuses. The DNC chair certainly doesn't.

Superdelegates are another matter. I will say this. The GOP wished they had superdelegates to stop Trump.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Where Do Perez and Elliso...