You want to select the democratic nominee and influence the party? Join the damn party.

Actual Democrats actually voting in actually closed party primaries don't favor him.

But the next kook might be more charismatic.

Talk about an undemocratic process.

Chances are neither of us will get our way

Good luck with the dissertation, lots of work!

Democrats to begin with? It doesn't make sense - unless, of course, your goal is to merge the fringe political Parties with one of the strongest major political Party and try to take over from within which, again, doesn't benefit the Democratic Party. So, it's not just no, it's HELL NO.

make mischief. Why would we want Republicans to be able to vote in Dem primaries?

nominee. If you want to have a say in the selection, register as a Democrat. How simple is that?

Republicans have a huge interest in ensuring that the Democratic nominee can't actually win the general election. I'm not sure why anyone would want to let them vote.

We can have a nominee like Dump (D. Trump) and be powerless to do anything about it.



I would like the Dems to eliminate undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses, and to change the order of primaries (maybe rotate which states go first) so that tiny, disproportionately white states do not in essence consistently have a bigger say than do states like California. But it's up to the Dem power structure to decide this, not to the losing candidate.

...I fully agree that there is no way that NH should be the first primary on the Democratic side. Our population may be pretty representative of the modern rEpublican party, but it is a pale substitute for the diversity of our Party. The idea I like best (can't remember the source) is to divide the country into 5 sections, each of which takes turns as the first primary block of states.

Been implemented is that the states would have to agree to cooperate.

There is a real sense of entitlement among many of our local polls. I think one year there was even talk of moving the primary to late December in order to preserve our first in the nation primary status.

This isn't about making changes. This is about taking a torch on everything that kept him from winning.

Hope he's not looking for trouble at the DNC. I'm not all the way to trust with him yet.

If he would have faced 56 open caucuses, he would have won the nomination easily.

His 15 minutes of fame are over. Hillary is going to be nice and give him an public attaboy and a yummy consolation prize, but damn, stick a fork in him please, he's done.

The TV people were hoping for some big announcement and were prepared to cut away and go back to their usual programming as soon as they determined it wasn't going to happen.

Most of that decision comes from the states. Did he say anything about caucus and removing them? Probably not .

Want to determine who DEMOCRATS chose to represent THEIR PARTY in the GE? BE A DEMOCRAT!!!!

or is his liberalization of the rules completely self-serving?

In a red state like mine, many times a Republican is running unopposed, so I can see it now... the Republicans would vote in the Democratic primary and pick the weakest candidate for every office.

No... closed primaries, with generous time-lines to register... and no caucuses either!

It pales in comparison to about half the posts in any Orlando thread involving ISIS and/or homophobia.

Look at this AG twitter thread:

I hope it won't be long now until the man who spent $200 million to bite the hand that feeds him goes away.

Why is he in the Dem Party anyway. We have NOTHING he agrees with.

Are people too fucking stupid to realize that it allows people to tilt elections toward the easier candidates to take down? I mean...

Sanders is not discussing the most undemocratic feature of the Democratic primary process. I wonder why

It is hard to take anything that Sanders says seriously.

You want a say in our party, you join our party. Pennsylvania has always had closed primaries and it works as intended.