Republicans planning to vote for Bernie in open SC primaries

Anybody can vote in the SC primaries; it's not a closed primary, and there is no Republican primary there, this year. So there is a Republican grassroot movement encouraging their votes to disrupt the Democratic primary. Despite some ambiguous language, at the end of this article, it does appear like they are planning to vote for Bernie.

'Operation chaos': How some conservatives are working to disrupt the South Carolina Democratic - CNNPolitics

It is common here to see posts (including by me) saying that Bernie will have more trouble beating Trump due to alienating independents and moderates with far-left ideas. Still, most polls both nationally and in key states do show Bernie beating Trump. It is suggestive, however, that Republicans themselves prefer to run against Bernie.

What is it? Is Bernie really more fragile against Trump, or are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot by assuming so?

Opinions?

By the way, open primaries are stupid. Registered partisans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. A primary is a consult the Party directs at its members and sympathizers, it is not a general election where all citizens of age have a right to vote. Especially late in the season: if a party defines prematurely its nominee, this would open the door for all their votes to switch sides in open primaries and try to select the weakest candidate from the opposing party. It's absurd. I favor the closing of all primaries to allow only registered members of the party and independents to vote. I don't see a problem in allowing independents to vote. This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side. The reason I don't see a problem with the independent primary vote for either party is that it is unlikely that there will be any grassroot movement by independents to disrupt the primary of either party. By definition, independents are much less likely to be partisan.

It will be interesting to see if this happens.
I know that biden is counting on SC and warren didn't even bother and went straight to Nevada where sanders is not popular.

Have to wait to see how well sanders does in SC and see if there was any influence.
Sanders is not popular among even more moderate and central democrats.

his ideas are simply just too radical for even them.


I do agree i have never liked the idea of open primaries.

GreatNews2night said:

Anybody can vote in the SC primaries; it's not a closed primary, and there is no Republican primary there, this year. So there is a Republican grassroot movement encouraging their votes to disrupt the Democratic primary. Despite some ambiguous language, at the end of this article, it does appear like they are planning to vote for Bernie.

'Operation chaos': How some conservatives are working to disrupt the South Carolina Democratic - CNNPolitics

It is common here to see posts (including by me) saying that Bernie will have more trouble beating Trump due to alienating independents and moderates with far-left ideas. Still, most polls both nationally and in key states do show Bernie beating Trump. It is suggestive, however, that Republicans themselves prefer to run against Bernie.

What is it? Is Bernie really more fragile against Trump, or are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot by assuming so?

Opinions?

By the way, open primaries are stupid. Registered partisans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. A primary is a consult the Party directs at its members and sympathizers, it is not a general election where all citizens of age have a right to vote. Especially late in the season: if a party defines prematurely its nominee, this would open the door for all their votes to switch sides in open primaries and try to select the weakest candidate from the opposing party. It's absurd. I favor the closing of all primaries to allow only registered members of the party and independents to vote. I don't see a problem in allowing independents to vote. This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side. The reason I don't see a problem with the independent primary vote for either party is that it is unlikely that there will be any grassroot movement by independents to disrupt the primary of either party. By definition, independents are much less likely to be partisan.

Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways - if you allow "independents" to vote in either (any) party primary then why not simply do away with party labels (in advance) for all voters? If primary contests are declared to be closed (party controlled?) events then why should they be taxpayer funded at all? That would boil down to all taxpayers being force to contribute to a primary election in which they cannot participate (taxation without representation). It is ridiculous to allow candidates (or their party's officials) to be able to select (or otherwise limit) who may vote.

GreatNews2night said:

This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side.

Click to expand...

What are the perks of being "registered" with a party?

It's a risky strategy. If Bernie wins it could potentially set the country back for decades. I would not risk electing a communist, given the sheer amount of political power the left has granted to the executive branch beginning with FDR.

ttwtt78640 said:

You can't have it both ways - if you allow "independents" to vote in either (any) party primary then why not simply do away with party labels (in advance) for all voters? If primary contests are declared to be closed (party controlled?) events then why should they be taxpayer funded at all? That would boil down to all taxpayers being force to contribute to a primary election in which they cannot participate (taxation without representation). It is ridiculous to allow candidates (or their party's officials) to be able to select (or otherwise limit) who may vote.

Click to expand...

OK, then, make the parties pay for the primaries. I don't have a problem with that.

Parties have a right to consult their members. The issue of independents is a bit more complex, because a party might also think - well, we don't have an interest in consulting the other party on how they feel about our candidates, they won't vote for our candidates anyway, come November. But we do have an interest in finding out how independents feel about our candidates, especially because they may be the swing voters in November.

But sure, I'd still think that closed primaries with registered members only (some states actually are like that) are better than open primaries. I'd prefer members + independents as the best option, but I still think that totally closed is the second best option, with the worst one being totally open.

The idea of "excluding" voters, again, this is NOT the general election. Think of it as a club. Suppose that you are member of a club, and the club wants to select a president or board or something. Should the club go out on the streets and fish out just about anybody to come and vote for this or that club president? Not at all. Only club members should vote. Should a home owners association collect the votes from people who don't own property in that neighborhood when they vote for their board of directors??? Should people from across the state miles away, be voting for the local board of education in a school district? No, these are specific races and only the people concerned should vote. I see a party primary as exactly the same thing and see no problem whatsoever with "excluding" the members of an opposing party, who obviously do NOT have the interest of that party at heart; most the opposite, the opposing party members are investing in screwing that party; why in the hell should they be allowed to do so?

It's like if you have two soccer clubs in town, bitter rivals, and one of the clubs wants to select a president. Should they get the supporters of the rival club to vote? Those would want to select the most incompetent club president possible, just to damage their rivals. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Slavister said:

What are the perks of being "registered" with a party?

Click to expand...

Voting in closed primaries for that party is definitely one. And it's not "registered" between quotes. Party registration is real and official, and done with the State Board of Elections. When you register as a voter you are given a checkmark list to select a party for your registration, or the none of the above/independent checkbox. Are you saying that you didn't know about that? Are you a registered voter in the United States? That's how we do it here. I'd understand it if you are not a US citizen who votes here, but if you are, I'd be very surprised if you ignored this fact.

And then, if you are registered with a different party, you are NOT given the option of voting in closed primaries for the opposing party. If you go to the precinct and try to vote, you'll be denied, because in voting rolls, there is a notation indicating if you are a registered Republican, Democrat, another party, or none (independent) and the precinct workers will verify it and allow you to vote or not, according to that state party's primary rules.

When the primaries are open and occur simultaneously for both parties, you are asked what ballot you want. You can pick only one ballot from one party. You can't vote for both rosters of candidates.

aociswundumho said:

It's a risky strategy. If Bernie wins it could potentially set the country back for decades. I would not risk electing a communist, given the sheer amount of political power the left has granted to the executive branch beginning with FDR.

Click to expand...

That's what some of the people interviewed in the article I linked to, are saying, that if they go vote in the Democratic primary, it would be to stop Bernie, not to favor Bernie. But then, many others, especially towards the end of the article, seem to be interested in going there to vote for Bernie, assuming that Bernie will be easier to beat in November.

My question is, do you think that Bernie will be easier to beat in November? If yes, what are your reasons to ignore the polls that actually say that he'll beat Trump?

GreatNews2night said:

OK, then, make the parties pay for the primaries. I don't have a problem with that.

Parties have a right to consult their members. The issue of independents is a bit more complex, because a party might also think - well, we don't have an interest in consulting the other party on how they feel about our candidates, they won't vote for our candidates anyway, come November. But we do have an interest in finding out how independents feel about our candidates, especially because they may be the swing voters in November.

But sure, I'd still think that closed primaries with registered members only (some states actually are like that) are better than open primaries. I'd prefer members + independents as the best option, but I still think that totally closed is the second best option, with the worst one being totally open.

The idea of "excluding" voters, again, this is NOT the general election. Think of it as a club. Suppose that you are member of a club, and the club wants to select a president or board or something. Should the club go out on the streets and fish out just about anybody to come and vote for this or that club president? Not at all. Only club members should vote. Should a home owners association collect the votes from people who don't own property in that neighborhood when they vote for their board of directors??? Should people from across the state miles away, be voting for the local board of education in a school district? No, these are specific races and only the people concerned should vote. I see a party primary as exactly the same thing and see no problem whatsoever with "excluding" the members of an opposing party, who obviously do NOT have the interest of that party at heart; most the opposite, the opposing party members are investing in screwing that party; why in the hell should they be allowed to do so?

It's like if you have two soccer clubs in town, bitter rivals, and one of the clubs wants to select a president. Should they get the supporters of the rival club to vote? Those would want to select the most incompetent club president possible, just to damage their rivals. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Great, after that (bolded above) happens then we can start talking about allowing the political parties to make the rules.

GreatNews2night said:

Voting in closed primaries for that party is definitely one.

Click to expand...

I am in an open primary state. So is there any perks to register (without quotes ) in states like mine? Genuine question.

Separate question: in a closed primary state, would not a registered Republican be able to easily switch to registered Dem for this scheme? (Just saying "closed" primary may not prevent what you are talking about)

To answer your question, I think it may backfire on 2 fronts. First, I think Bernie can win in fact, not just based on head-to-head polls but also because he clearly can electrify the electorate. Secondly, if Republicans go through with this, after the primaries are over, Dems could make this scheme widely known and get more people come out and vote on the basis of "you did this to yourself, R's, so now we'll vote for your worst nightmare".

GreatNews2night said:

Anybody can vote in the SC primaries; it's not a closed primary, and there is no Republican primary there, this year. So there is a Republican grassroot movement encouraging their votes to disrupt the Democratic primary. Despite some ambiguous language, at the end of this article, it does appear like they are planning to vote for Bernie.

'Operation chaos': How some conservatives are working to disrupt the South Carolina Democratic - CNNPolitics

It is common here to see posts (including by me) saying that Bernie will have more trouble beating Trump due to alienating independents and moderates with far-left ideas. Still, most polls both nationally and in key states do show Bernie beating Trump. It is suggestive, however, that Republicans themselves prefer to run against Bernie.

What is it? Is Bernie really more fragile against Trump, or are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot by assuming so?

Opinions?

By the way, open primaries are stupid. Registered partisans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. A primary is a consult the Party directs at its members and sympathizers, it is not a general election where all citizens of age have a right to vote. Especially late in the season: if a party defines prematurely its nominee, this would open the door for all their votes to switch sides in open primaries and try to select the weakest candidate from the opposing party. It's absurd. I favor the closing of all primaries to allow only registered members of the party and independents to vote. I don't see a problem in allowing independents to vote. This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side. The reason I don't see a problem with the independent primary vote for either party is that it is unlikely that there will be any grassroot movement by independents to disrupt the primary of either party. By definition, independents are much less likely to be partisan.

Click to expand...

I briefly considered voting in the Republican primary this year. So, I could vote against Trump twice. I decided it wasn't worth the aggravation. I don't want to have to put up with the phone calls, e-mails and constant appeals for money from the local GOP if they think I'm one of them. I think the line crossers might rue the day they called themselves Democrats.

When people vote for a candidate because they want him to lose, the logic of democracy is turned on its head. The purpose of democracy is corrupted in a cynical sham.

Slavister said:

What are the perks of being "registered" with a party?

Click to expand...

Depends on what state you are in. If you are in a state that only allows registered party members to vote in their primaries, than you wouldn't be able to help choose who the party's nominee will be. That's about it. If you don't really care who the party chooses or you live in a state that has open primaries, there isn't really any perk to registering unless you want to volunteer for either the RNC or DNC.

ludin said:

It will be interesting to see if this happens.
I know that biden is counting on SC and warren didn't even bother and went straight to Nevada where sanders is not popular.

Have to wait to see how well sanders does in SC and see if there was any influence.
Sanders is not popular among even more moderate and central democrats.

his ideas are simply just too radical for even them.


I do agree i have never liked the idea of open primaries.

Click to expand...

I know 3 people here in Florida who recently changed their registration from R to D so that they can vote for Tulsi in the primary.

GreatNews2night said:

By the way, open primaries are stupid. Registered partisans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. A primary is a consult the Party directs at its members and sympathizers, it is not a general election where all citizens of age have a right to vote. Especially late in the season: if a party defines prematurely its nominee, this would open the door for all their votes to switch sides in open primaries and try to select the weakest candidate from the opposing party. It's absurd. I favor the closing of all primaries to allow only registered members of the party and independents to vote. I don't see a problem in allowing independents to vote. This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side. The reason I don't see a problem with the independent primary vote for either party is that it is unlikely that there will be any grassroot movement by independents to disrupt the primary of either party. By definition, independents are much less likely to be partisan.

Click to expand...

Whether a primary is open, closed, or allowing certain participation is entirely up to the party holding the primary. It is the Democratic Party of South Carolina that is allowing an open primary, and as long as it is open to every eligible voter then it is effectively a general election, but with only Democrat candidates. Political parties can also completely close their primaries and only allow registered members to vote. It is entirely up to the political party in a given State.

aociswundumho said:

It's a risky strategy. If Bernie wins it could potentially set the country back for decades. I would not risk electing a communist, given the sheer amount of political power the left has granted to the executive branch beginning with FDR.

Click to expand...

How so? Please show how Bernie ALL ON HIS OWN will set the country back for decades SPECIFICALLY. What specific actions do you think he could take solo. Because the majority of the Dems do not agree with his solutions. so tell us what actions Bernie solo can take. BTW you need to go back to school to learn what communism and socialism is because Bernie is not calling for either of those.

Thoreau72 said:

I know 3 people here in Florida who recently changed their registration from R to D so that they can vote for Tulsi in the primary.

Click to expand...

lol trolls
that is just too much work for me to even think about doing.

aociswundumho said:

It's a risky strategy. If Bernie wins it could potentially set the country back for decades. I would not risk electing a communist, given the sheer amount of political power the left has granted to the executive branch beginning with FDR.

Click to expand...

The country is headed far left if any of the democrats were to win the election. The democratic party is being pushed to the left and the leadership is not strong enough to stop it. Just look at the things they are advocating. Free this, free that, no borders, radical plans for climate change, gun control, take your insurance. The only course for the country is Republican. I don't care if you don't like Trump, his policies have boosted the country's economy, strengthened the military and put us in a more favorable position around the world. Democrats are set to run us into severe debt with free college and free health care. With enormous expenditures for those and for the green new deal we will see taxation like never before. Study the single payer systems around the world, there really are not any pure single payer systems, they all have a backup of private insurance because care is always rationed and slow.
Vote Trump, and vote republican for the house and senate and then use your voice to help steer the country in a positive direction.

GreatNews2night said:

Anybody can vote in the SC primaries; it's not a closed primary, and there is no Republican primary there, this year. So there is a Republican grassroot movement encouraging their votes to disrupt the Democratic primary. Despite some ambiguous language, at the end of this article, it does appear like they are planning to vote for Bernie.

'Operation chaos': How some conservatives are working to disrupt the South Carolina Democratic - CNNPolitics

It is common here to see posts (including by me) saying that Bernie will have more trouble beating Trump due to alienating independents and moderates with far-left ideas. Still, most polls both nationally and in key states do show Bernie beating Trump. It is suggestive, however, that Republicans themselves prefer to run against Bernie.

What is it? Is Bernie really more fragile against Trump, or are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot by assuming so?

Opinions?

By the way, open primaries are stupid. Registered partisans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. A primary is a consult the Party directs at its members and sympathizers, it is not a general election where all citizens of age have a right to vote. Especially late in the season: if a party defines prematurely its nominee, this would open the door for all their votes to switch sides in open primaries and try to select the weakest candidate from the opposing party. It's absurd. I favor the closing of all primaries to allow only registered members of the party and independents to vote. I don't see a problem in allowing independents to vote. This is a perk of being an independent (like me): being able to freely pick a side. The reason I don't see a problem with the independent primary vote for either party is that it is unlikely that there will be any grassroot movement by independents to disrupt the primary of either party. By definition, independents are much less likely to be partisan.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you clarified at the end. Georgia also has an open primary, I've gone back and forth, voted in both the GOP and Democratic primaries. It has been for the candidate I like and want. Here in Georgia, we register to vote, not by party.

At this early stage, I would say be careful what you wish for when it comes to the other party voting for a particular candidate in your primary. The one you think the weakest may end up being the strongest. I remember Carter's folks jumping up and down with glee when they found out Reagan was going to be the GOP nominee. That damn cowboy, anyone can beat him. Sanders actually could end up being the toughest for Trump to beat, no one knows.

I do agree, the other party shouldn't monkey around in your primary.

ludin said:

lol trolls
that is just too much work for me to even think about doing.

Click to expand...

It takes only 5 minutes to switch party affiliation in FL.

Integrityrespec said:

The country is headed far left if any of the democrats were to win the election. The democratic party is being pushed to the left and the leadership is not strong enough to stop it. Just look at the things they are advocating. Free this, free that, no borders, radical plans for climate change, gun control, take your insurance. The only course for the country is Republican. I don't care if you don't like Trump, his policies have boosted the country's economy, strengthened the military and put us in a more favorable position around the world. Democrats are set to run us into severe debt with free college and free health care. With enormous expenditures for those and for the green new deal we will see taxation like never before. Study the single payer systems around the world, there really are not any pure single payer systems, they all have a backup of private insurance because care is always rationed and slow.
Vote Trump, and vote republican for the house and senate and then use your voice to help steer the country in a positive direction.

Click to expand...

Trump has shown he is a immoral, corrupt and cares more about himself than this country. Vote Trump if you are a traitor to the United States of America.

Slavister said:

Separate question: in a closed primary state, would not a registered Republican be able to easily switch to registered Dem for this scheme? (Just saying "closed" primary may not prevent what you are talking about)

Click to expand...

Sure, voters can change their registration, up to a deadline. But statistically speaking, who would be willing to waste all the time involved in doing that (and then needing to change it back, later)?

Maybe some very committed partisans might do just that, but it won't be a massive number of people, so it will be unlikely to make a difference. While if you totally open the primary and the other party is not having theirs, it becomes very easy to say "oh, I'll just go there and help selecting the weakest possible candidate."

Glitch said:

Whether a primary is open, closed, or allowing certain participation is entirely up to the party holding the primary. It is the Democratic Party of South Carolina that is allowing an open primary, and as long as it is open to every eligible voter then it is effectively a general election, but with only Democrat candidates. Political parties can also completely close their primaries and only allow registered members to vote. It is entirely up to the political party in a given State.

Click to expand...

I know that.

I'm just discussing whether or not having open primaries is a good idea. I say, no, it isn't. If a state party is dumb enough to allow it, it's on them, obviously.

1. It's unethical for a voter to vote in the primary of a party they oppose, just to try to boost a candidate they think is weak.

2. Republicans will get getting a lot of poetic justice if they boost Bernie. Hillary boosted trump thinking she could beat him...

We lived in a closed primary state during the last election, and weren't afforded a vote because we are registered I. We now live in an open primary state, still registered I, appreciate the opportunity to have a say.
Operation chaos is an insult to anyone who takes our privilege to vote seriously.
I so wish the primaries were held nationwide, so that every voter has the same selection of candidates.