Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Yet again, there are states where you can, as an independent, vote for the primary. This race brought that discrepancy to the forefront.
Regardless of whether Sanders gets elected or not, his candidacy did a lot of good. It showed just how pervasive money is in politics, it showed that there is a strong progressive movement in this country that deserves representation, it showed just how monumentally disasterous our primary processes are, etc.
He's pulled Hillary left of where she typically stands and brought attention to issues that otherwise might've been ignored, which we desperately need. This country has pulled so far to the right that if we can just try to correct things back to center, it's a good thing.
|
Fully get the first point, but to me all primaries should be closed. Open primaries invite manipulation from outside the party. For instance if the Donald had already clinched the nomination before New York, and NY were an open primary, he could send every single one of his supporters into the open Dem primary to mess with that primary (likely to vote in the weakest general election candidate). Is that fair to the Democratic Party that Republicans could determine who wins their primaries? Obviously not. Parties are private, so restricting access sounds smart if anything. And it's not fully restrictive of course, people simply need to register and follow the rules.
Bernie has benefited significantly from who his opponent is. Exit polls continue to show most Dems want Obama's policies continued, or even less liberal policies from the next President. I also love the money point, because if anything Bernie has proven money doesn't matter. He outspent Hillary 2:1 in New York, and spent $9 for every vote he earned. By comparison, Trump spent 13 cents (!!!) for every vote he earned. Obviously spending lots of money got Bernie nowhere.