Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
I think that had independents in NY been allowed to vote, this race would have gone much differently. Independents by and large have gone for Bernie throughout the US, and independents make up a large percentage of the electorate (for the full American population: dems 29%, repub 26% independent 42%).
That each state's primary rules are vastly different from other states seems very awkward to me, not to mention primary vs. caucus, states that don't even hold a primary or caucus, etc.
I don't know that most people had paid much attention to the primary process before this race, but I think it's a good way to draw attention to what a crapshow that system is.
|
I think if Bernie Sanders wanted to win a nomination process based almost entirely off independents...he should have ran as an independent where there are no party rules. But Bernie knew the rules (or if he didn't, is a moron) when he chose to run as a Dem. That he now wants to change them in the middle of the race to help him out is laughable. He's also won a couple closed primaries himself, and I don't remember him saying anything bad about them then.
The ironic part of the "independent" argument is that a significant amount of Bernie's support comes from people
to the left of the Democratic Party, and a lot from people who choose to be independent so as not to be labeled, even though they back one party most of the time (mostly the Democratic Party). They pridefully chose not to align themselves with a political party... and now they're whining they've been excluded from the party process. Maybe if they just swallowed their pride and registered with Dems, who they vote for the most often anyway, things could have gone different. Pride, as always, ####s with you though.