Jake Starkey
Verified User
By nominating the second worst Dem candidate in history in 2016 and screwed up their candidate in 2024.
All of that with MAGA cheating in all three elections.
Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?
- Thread starter Dutch Uncle
- Start date
All of that with MAGA cheating in all three elections.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You have no such right to be left alone, period.
I've always said that nobody beats the Democrats better than the Democrats. Both parties are owned by Big Money. The politicians are figureheads. Nifty will be disappointed to hear that in Colorado, I can vote in primaries. A person can only vote in one or the other primary, but we don't have to be registered with either party. I voted for Buttigieg in 2016. Of course, the Democrats didn't let us vote in 2020. In both elections, they got what they deserved. And fucked every single American in the process.
Last edited:
Jake Starkey
Verified User
QP!
Verified User
@NiftyNiblick is heavily invested in the current two party system as is and does not want the growing Independent block, who want to change the system, to succeed.
And that is fine. He can fight to keep the status quo and to try and force us to pick a party and join in to have any real say.
Where i feel he crosses a line is he seems to think it is wrong for us to try and change them in this way and it is not, even if it is not what he wants.
As Independents start to greatly out number party affiliation people with a message 'the current system is not working for us', simply demanding they comply to the current system and join it will not work.
QP!
Verified User
Ya I think Biden beats Trump in 2016, if Obama backed his VP. Even Bernie may have beat him in 2016. Biden then gets two terms and Trump is out and the Dems have a good chance again after him.
What is?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Try to change the system as much as you want.
Just don't interfere in the matters of established parties to which you have not personally committed.
We've contributed money to them.
We've worked on their campaigns.
We're entitled to nominate our own candidates without your interference.
Support independent candidates or new parties of your own creation.
You've not earned the right to participate in our nominations
with either your work or your money.
Why would you even think that you have?
QP!
Verified User
"...Just don't interfere in the matters of established parties to which you have not personally committed...."
We will interfere as much as the rules allow us to. We want to interfere as the parties will not change without that interference.
You do not get to dictate how these primaries will work nor do it. It will be decided by the powers who be based on several different citizen and special interest pressures.
I think you would see it as silly if i told you 'just do not try and keep the established parties are they are' because that is my view in contrast to yours. I think you would tell me you are going to continue to fight to maintain the status quo in the existing parties and it is silly for me to try and tell you what to do.
Similarly it is silly for you to try and tell me. If my vote and voice along with others in a massive Independent voting block, can influence the powers that be to change the current systems no amount of Nifty trying to tell us not to do (because Nifty supports it as is) will change our efforts.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
A better question is:
Should candidates other than Republicans and Democrats have equal standing and access to being put on the ballot for elected office? After all, neither the Republican nor Democrat(ic) party is even close to being a majority party anymore.
Should candidates other than Republicans and Democrats have equal standing and access to being put on the ballot for elected office? After all, neither the Republican nor Democrat(ic) party is even close to being a majority party anymore.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
And I have no problem with that other than that government should not be financing it in any way, shape, or form. Let your party pay for the ballots and election--IN FULL.
This is not a decision for the Federal Government, the Constitution explicitly defines handling primary elections by State Law.
If you don't like your state law on the issue, use the defined process to change the State Law on the primary process.
The Federal Government does not have that authority. Only a Constitutional amendment could change that.
-
If you don't like your state law on the issue, use the defined process to change the State Law on the primary process.
The Federal Government does not have that authority. Only a Constitutional amendment could change that.
-
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You don't get that we don't care about extremes or special interests.
We want the center making sense.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
What does that have to do with interfering with somebody else's political party?
You don't donate money to them.
You don't work for their campaigns.
What gives you the right to participate in their nomination process?
By all means do your own thing, politically, but you've no right to be a party-crasher.
As for the center making sense, that's just your opinion.
There's no perfection in this world.
Your actual choice is going overboard or going half-assed.
Also, the American "center" is lightyears right of the western civilization center.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I honestly find your view to be radically immoral and devoid of logic as well.
You want privileges to which you are in no way entitled.
Want to participate in a primary?
Join and contribute your money to the party.
Otherwise, you're just an intruding party crasher who needs to meet a bouncer.
On a personal note, I find independents to be commitment-phobic free-riders.
America's biggest deficiency is the character of too large a percentage of its citizenry.
A perverted criminal like Pigshit could never have been elected in a truly civilized nation.
Don't try to blame that on political radicalism.
Blame that on too many despicable cretins in need of being purged.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
It's not interference, John.
It's everyone's right to "interfere."
And my opinion is as good or better than yours. That's politics.
evince
Truthmatters
You want to vote in a parties primarySmerconish question of the day:
Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?
Daily Poll - Cast Your Vote - SMERCONISH
Vote in the Smerconish Daily Poll to get your voice heard on the latest breaking news issues, politics, and other hot topics.www.smerconish.com
I voted yes but have a caveat: voters can only vote in one primary, not both. I might change my mind if more evidence is given on why that is a better.
New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents
A new high of 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025.news.gallup.com
New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents
More independents lean Democratic than Republican, giving Democrats edge in party affiliation for first time since 2021
A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025, surpassing the 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, equal shares of U.S. adults — 27% each — identified as either Democrats or Republicans.
In most years since Gallup began regularly conducting its polls by telephone in 1988, independents have been the largest political group. However, the independent percentage has increased markedly in the past 15 years, typically registering 40% or higher, a level not reached prior to 2011.
View attachment 71113
Join that party
Your idea would just make the parties a bowl of shit
evince
Truthmatters
And primaries are not for the opposition to use to dismantle opposing parties influence con jobs
Primaries are how the center is identified