Originally, it was a true open primary; anybody could vote for any party. However, the Republican Party Rules say that primaries “don’t count” if any non-Republicans can vote in them, so the first year (2000, I think), they actually had to have two separate counts for the Republicans - one that counted all of the votes, which was ignored, and that counted only registered Republicans, which was used to allocate delegates. The state soon changed it to allow each party to dictate its own rules concerning votes to select its own convention’s delegates.
I know this is a relatively old post, but just to clear up any possible confusion: the NY primary is closed for both parties, with an unusually long “lead time” for changing parties (back in October 2015 I believe); you can register as a brand-new voter up to about 3 weeks before the primary and qualify, but people who registered and didn’t choose a party originally have a much more stringent deadline. Anyway, the Democrats do not allow non-Democrats to vote in the NY primary.
Jerry Brown endorses Clinton. Interesting since he ran a Bernie like campaign against Bill in 1992. Still, I think he realizes it’s best for the party to put a stop to Bernie after June 7.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/an_open_letter_to_california_democrats_and_independents
Jerry’s the man. (Just don’t tell Pearl-catching-whatever his name is that.) 
Absolutely perfect timing. It gives the more reasonable Bernie supporters and the waffling independents some time to think about their primary votes, but not too much time. And it might just bump Hillary over into winning California. If she does, it’s the tombstone for Bernie’s campaign and she doesn’t go into the convention with the ‘limping’ perception problem.
Yes, but the “Official Voter Information Guide” that we get in the mail will clarify everything. I started a new thread, though, to help out.
The San Jose riots outside of Trump’s rally need to be denounced. Anti-trumpsters pelted a pro-Trump woman with eggs. This is bullshit. It makes Trump look good.* And people have a right to attend a rally.
Josh Marshall pointed out that Trump’s antics tend to attract violent supporters and opponents. (If you are violent, where else would you go?) True enough. Over at the Atlantic Conor Friedersdorf characterizes the violence as an attack on democracy. Yup. He also suggests that Bay Area folk who like to promote tolerance need to look in the mirror.
With respect, methinks the tolerance supporters and the rioters come from different sub-cultures. Hippies and assholes, if you want loose terminology. The Bay Area has a certain number of fringe groups, some of which style themselves as revolutionaries. Others are just into recreational rioting. Assaulters need to be arrested. Bozos need to be ridiculed.
Want to take Trump down? Do it at the ballot box. And turn out again during the midterms for good measure.
- And congratulations! I didn’t think that was possible!
All those people waving Mexican flags and burning American ones - yeah real smart.
I’m obviously not a supporter of Trump, but I’m gonna come out and say it: some Mexican “Americans” have a lot of nerve. The same ones who went around beating up Trump supporters are the ones who go out and beat up people at 49ers and Raiders games for wearing the wrong jerseys or colors at a game. Flame me if you want, but I lived in NorCal for years and know the type.
Perhaps you can come up with a way to explain the scare quotes around “American” in a way that doesn’t make you look…bad. Give it a shot.
How about those who waive Mexican flags and burn American flags for starters? Of course I’m not at all talking about all or even a majority of Latinos but I’ve seen some who have an outrageous amount of nerve, like some of those who are brawling with Trump supporters for no reason than just to intimidate and harass them.
Does that make them “Americans” as opposed to Americans? I think that was what elucidator was trying to get at. What if their ancestors weren’t from Mexico? Would that make a difference?
I understood the point he was trying to make. My point is if you want to call yourself American, then at least show a little respect for the country you claim to want to be a part of. I understand they feel threatened and singled out not only by Trump but by angry nativist sentiment, but there’s a right reaction and a wrong one. Throwing eggs at people, surrounding their cars, jumping on police cars, burning police cars, waving Mexican flags while burning American flags…is probably not going to convince someone that they really want to make the effort to be a part of the fabric of this country. Is anyone seriously suggesting that I’m wrong on this?
So, then, if anti-Trump protesters peaceably assemble to protest Trump, but don’t do any of those things, then everything will be just peachy-keen, because Trump people are all, like, civil and respectful? That what you are trying to sell, here?
That those people were being unreasonable fucking assholes and how a different group of people might theoretically behave is irrelevant.
Well, then, by the same token, wouldn’t that mean that the behavior of violent asshole Trump protesters is irrelevant to another different group? Like non-violent Trump protesters?
Okay, fine, violent Trump supporters probably would have been brownshirt Nazis in the 1930s. I said it. Happy now?
Yes, but more than that, by engaging in that type of unruly mob behavior, they are playing right into the hands of Trump and his nativist supporters, who will argue that they are dangerous. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, accurate or not, the images shown on television pretty much reinforce that view.
What do Trump protester have to do with anything? Surely you’re not advocating “two wrongs make a right”, but that is a very reasonable reading of your post.
No, I think elucidator is saying that a peaceable anti-Trump protest at a Trump event would be impossible because the Trump supporters would make it impossible.
Precisely. Anyway, it’s on video. They need to find those cowardly pricks and charge them with battery.