PDA

View Full Version : DNC chairwoman: If up to me, I’d exclude independents from Dem primaries......



MMC
05-03-2016, 10:17 PM
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/wassermanschultzdebbie_011216gn.jpg?itok=sMO4PdpQ

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said if it was her decision, she would scrap open primaries and only allow voters registered as Democrats to participate in primaries.

"I believe that the party's nominee should be chosen — this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opinion — that the party's nominee should be chosen by members of the party," the Florida lawmaker said during an interview with "MSNBC Live" on Monday, according to The Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-chair-wants-to-exclude-independents-from-dem-primaries/article/2590165).

States that have open primaries permit independent voters to participate in their Democratic or Republican contests.

Wasserman Schultz and Democratic party leaders have been accused of trying to anoint Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) as the party’s standard-bearer. Wasserman Schultz faced criticism for the number of primary debates, which some accused the DNC of limiting.....snip~

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from


Looks like Bernie ticked off the Scumbag Lil Debbie and her snacks. Debbie would cheat lie and steal all for Hillary.

Isn't it time the American People run lil Debbie out of US Politics. What say ye?

Standing Wolf
05-03-2016, 10:23 PM
Exclude away...and then pay for your own damned primary elections. What is fair or right about excluding any taxpaying citizen from voting in an election he or she paid for?

Safety
05-03-2016, 10:27 PM
They have the option of closing the primary to party registered voters, just like many states do.

MMC
05-03-2016, 10:37 PM
She wouldn't have said a damn thing about Independents if they were showing up for Hillary. But because 68% of them can't stand Hillary. Now Lil Debbie has something to say.

Green Arrow
05-03-2016, 10:42 PM
Of course she wants to shut independents out of the process, they can't be counted on for blind servitude.

domer76
05-03-2016, 10:58 PM
Exclude away...and then pay for your own damned primary elections. What is fair or right about excluding any taxpaying citizen from voting in an election he or she paid for?

Plenty of closed primaries, both Republican and Democratic. I'm not in favor of them, but they aren't reserved for one party

Crepitus
05-03-2016, 11:02 PM
The DNC would be well within it's rights to close all primaries, they are a political party not the government. As a private organization they can run it any way they want, and elect whomever they choose regardless of how the voters vote. Both the DNC and RNC have taken pains to explain that to us this primary season.

Standing Wolf
05-03-2016, 11:13 PM
The DNC would be well within it's rights to close all primaries, they are a political party not the government. As a private organization they can run it any way they want, and elect whomever they choose regardless of how the voters vote. Both the DNC and RNC have taken pains to explain that to us this primary season.

Exactly right. Which is why the members of those parties should be footing the entire bill for the primary elections, if that's how they want to continue to select their respective candidates. Do any of the minor parties, the Socialists, the Greens, etc., demand that the taxpayers finance their candidate selection process? Of course not.

MMC
05-03-2016, 11:33 PM
Debbie was a little butthurt tonight. Tis all.....tomorrow she will be back out talking about she misspoke. Was taken out of context. Try and do a little damage control.

Common
05-04-2016, 02:48 AM
If Wasserman had her way there wouldnt be a democrat primary she would just annoint hillary and put the queens crown on her.

Common
05-04-2016, 04:34 AM
The RNC was no better they were talking all that contested convention stuff at first. The entire gop establishment wanted to give it to who they wanted at the convention. The voters stopped that in its tracks

Peter1469
05-04-2016, 04:36 AM
States should not allow closed primaries if just one penny of tax dollars is used to support the primary system. Parties that what closed primaries should pay all costs to include security at their events.

Quicksilver
05-04-2016, 04:40 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.

Peter1469
05-04-2016, 04:41 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.

What about those of us who vote third party?

Quicksilver
05-04-2016, 04:46 AM
What about those of us who vote third party?

Then I suppose you are THAT party.

Green Arrow
05-04-2016, 08:09 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.

Classic. You can't debate your opponents intelligently, so you resort to insulting their mental condition.

I'm beginning to think a lot of you Hillary supporters would be better off supporting Donald Trump. You all seem to be following his playbook. When you can't argue intelligently, resort to namecalling, insults, emotional outbursts, and false bravado, all wrapped up in an unjustified and over-inflated sense of self-importance.

Crepitus
05-04-2016, 08:10 AM
Exactly right. Which is why the members of those parties should be footing the entire bill for the primary elections, if that's how they want to continue to select their respective candidates. Do any of the minor parties, the Socialists, the Greens, etc., demand that the taxpayers finance their candidate selection process? Of course not.

Agree.

Cigar
05-04-2016, 08:12 AM
Well they are The Democratic Party, not The Independent Party

Green Arrow
05-04-2016, 08:14 AM
Well they are The Democratic Party, not The Independent Party

And if the general election was only open to Democrats and Republicans, that would be relevant.

Standing Wolf
05-04-2016, 08:16 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.

I disagree. Here in Arizona, Independents are the largest group of registered voters. I believe it's a reaction to those in both parties who have set out certain issues as "qualifiers" - to be a good Republican, you must support this or that issue in a particular way, and the same with many Democrats. Many more voters these days demand the freedom to take on and judge the various issues as they see fit, and not have it assumed by anyone that just because their registration is as an R or a D that their opinions and priorities are predictable and fixed.

Crepitus
05-04-2016, 08:26 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.
Totally completely absolutely couldn't be more wrong. Just because the parties are going nuts doesn't mean the population is. The vast majority of us liberal or conservative lie somewhere in the middle. Sure both parties have their wingnuts, like you and Mac, but you are the exception and not the rule.

Subdermal
05-04-2016, 08:32 AM
Debbie was a little butthurt tonight. Tis all.....tomorrow she will be back out talking about she misspoke. Was taken out of context. Try and do a little damage control.

That presumes that she'd be called on this comment.

Subdermal
05-04-2016, 08:33 AM
I don't think there really are very many true Independents. The parties are now so polar opposite that a person who could vote either way must have a mental condition... like multiple personality disorder. My belief is that people who say they are independent are really only wanting to keep their actual party choice secret.. for whatever reason.

:biglaugh:

Ladies 'n Gentlemen, I give you the staggering intellect of the run-of-the-mill Hillary voter.

Cigar
05-04-2016, 08:35 AM
:biglaugh:

Ladies 'n Gentlemen, I give you the staggering intellect of the run-of-the-mill Hillary voter.


IT doesn't take much intellect to vote ... just look at the Choice the ReTuds have :biglaugh:

MMC
05-04-2016, 09:41 AM
That presumes that she'd be called on this comment.

That is true.....and the Independents really have no mouthpieces.

JDubya
05-04-2016, 10:53 AM
Open and closed primaries are both two-edged swords.

They can work in your favor sometimes, against you other times.

Personally, I don't think independents should be allowed to vote in any primary anywhere. If they don't want to join one or the other party, why should they have a say in choosing the nominee?

Standing Wolf
05-04-2016, 11:14 AM
Personally, I don't think independents should be allowed to vote in any primary anywhere. If they don't want to join one or the other party, why should they have a say in choosing the nominee?

Uh...maybe because they are paying, to the tune of many millions of dollars, for the primaries to be conducted? The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities; how they choose to select their candidates is entirely their own business, but the State shouldn't be paying for it. The only reason the states are paying for it is that the elected officials who approve the expenditures are Republicans and Democrats. Several years ago, I asked a sitting Republican Governor why his Party wasn't paying for their own primary, and his best answer was, "I don't think we could afford to." I remain neither moved nor impressed with that answer.

JDubya
05-04-2016, 11:29 AM
Uh...maybe because they are paying, to the tune of many millions of dollars, for the primaries to be conducted? The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities; how they choose to select their candidates is entirely their own business, but the State shouldn't be paying for it. The only reason the states are paying for it is that the elected officials who approve the expenditures are Republicans and Democrats. Several years ago, I asked a sitting Republican Governor why his Party wasn't paying for their own primary, and his best answer was, "I don't think we could afford to." I remain neither moved nor impressed with that answer.

Who gets elected to run the govt effects us all just like the condition of the roads and infrastructure effects us all, or like the state of the military effects us all or like the state of Social Security and Medicare effects us all, etc, etc, etc. And those are all paid for by the tax dollars of everyone, including those who don't directly use or participate in any of those institutions.

Therefore, States paying for political conventions is a perfectly legitimate use of taxpayer money. But it does not mean that those who don't want to register as a member of one party or the other should have a say in choosing who will represent either party in November.

Either decide which side you're on or sit on the sidelines until election day.

Standing Wolf
05-04-2016, 11:56 AM
Who gets elected to run the govt effects us all just like the condition of the roads and infrastructure effects us all, or like the state of the military effects us all or like the state of Social Security and Medicare effects us all, etc, etc, etc. And those are all paid for by the tax dollars of everyone, including those who don't directly use or participate in any of those institutions.

So, you would be good with taxpayer-funded primaries to decide who the American Communist Party, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Party, et al, were going to put on the November ballot, then?

JDubya
05-04-2016, 01:18 PM
So, you would be good with taxpayer-funded primaries to decide who the American Communist Party, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Party, et al, were going to put on the November ballot, then?

Nope.

Viable parties only.

Quicksilver
05-04-2016, 01:24 PM
Nope.

Viable parties only.

Well that leaves out just about all of the choices..

Green Arrow
05-04-2016, 01:47 PM
Nope.

Viable parties only.

Why only viable parties? Maybe taxpayer funding will give those parties the resources they need to become viable. And even if it doesn't, they still have followers. Why should their followers have to subsidize your party, but you can't subsidize their party?

Peter1469
05-04-2016, 02:47 PM
Then I suppose you are THAT party.I don't have one third party that I exclusively vote for. I don't belong to any party.

Private Pickle
05-04-2016, 02:50 PM
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/wassermanschultzdebbie_011216gn.jpg?itok=sMO4PdpQ

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said if it was her decision, she would scrap open primaries and only allow voters registered as Democrats to participate in primaries.

"I believe that the party's nominee should be chosen — this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opinion — that the party's nominee should be chosen by members of the party," the Florida lawmaker said during an interview with "MSNBC Live" on Monday, according to The Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-chair-wants-to-exclude-independents-from-dem-primaries/article/2590165).

States that have open primaries permit independent voters to participate in their Democratic or Republican contests.

Wasserman Schultz and Democratic party leaders have been accused of trying to anoint Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) as the party’s standard-bearer. Wasserman Schultz faced criticism for the number of primary debates, which some accused the DNC of limiting.....snip~

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from


Looks like Bernie ticked off the Scumbag Lil Debbie and her snacks. Debbie would cheat lie and steal all for Hillary.

Isn't it time the American People run lil Debbie out of US Politics. What say ye?

I don't understand open primaries. If you are a registered member of a political party then you should be the one only voting for the candidate that will run for your party. It doesn't make sense and opens it up to collusion and or corruption.

Private Pickle
05-04-2016, 02:53 PM
Uh...maybe because they are paying, to the tune of many millions of dollars, for the primaries to be conducted? The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities; how they choose to select their candidates is entirely their own business, but the State shouldn't be paying for it. The only reason the states are paying for it is that the elected officials who approve the expenditures are Republicans and Democrats. Several years ago, I asked a sitting Republican Governor why his Party wasn't paying for their own primary, and his best answer was, "I don't think we could afford to." I remain neither moved nor impressed with that answer.

No one is saying they can't join a party and vote. We all gotta pay for the Democratic Process...

Private Pickle
05-04-2016, 02:53 PM
Nope.

Viable parties only.

Oh dear God...

Subdermal
05-04-2016, 03:01 PM
Open and closed primaries are both two-edged swords.

They can work in your favor sometimes, against you other times.

Personally, I don't think independents should be allowed to vote in any primary anywhere. If they don't want to join one or the other party, why should they have a say in choosing the nominee?

Wait.

So you have to be a party member in order to exercise the privilege of voting?

Ok, Comrade.

:biglaugh:

JDubya
05-04-2016, 03:11 PM
Why only viable parties? Maybe taxpayer funding will give those parties the resources they need to become viable. And even if it doesn't, they still have followers. Why should their followers have to subsidize your party, but you can't subsidize their party?

If a political party cannot meet certain minimum criteria, they are not a legitimate entity. If they were legitimate they could easily attract enough people to their cause or ideology.

If we did what you suggest, every goofball in the country would claim to be a political party and clog up the entire system.

There have to be practical considerations.

JDubya
05-04-2016, 03:15 PM
Wait.

So you have to be a party member in order to exercise the privilege of voting?

Ok, Comrade.

:biglaugh:

Not for voting per se.

Choosing the party's candidate, yes.

Eleven states have closed primaries and they are every bit as American as you.

Comrade.

Green Arrow
05-04-2016, 04:20 PM
If a political party cannot meet certain minimum criteria, they are not a legitimate entity. If they were legitimate they could easily attract enough people to their cause or ideology.

If we did what you suggest, every goofball in the country would claim to be a political party and clog up the entire system.

There have to be practical considerations.

How convenient, then, that the "practical considerations" swing heavily in your favor.