In states with open primaries, do you get to vote for both parties? I see the need to prevent spoiler votes, but I'm not keen on the idea of needing to register with a party to vote for its candidate, either.
I don't think you should be able to vote for both. You can spoiler the opposition or support your own first choice, not both.
You get a choice between a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, not both.
And re: that article about reforming the primary system. I don't know where McKinnon got the idea that the GOP electorate in either Arizona or Colorado is moderate. If you need a state with a fairly moderate Republican party outside of the northeast it's going to be difficult. Maybe Florida, but they're primarying Crist so maybe not.
In states with open primaries, do you get to vote for both parties? I see the need to prevent spoiler votes, but I'm not keen on the idea of needing to register with a party to vote for its candidate, either.
I don't think you should be able to vote for both. You can spoiler the opposition or support your own first choice, not both.
No, you just don't have to register with a party before hand. You can walk into the polling place and tell them you want the Democratic ballot, the Republican ballot, or just the one with referendums and such.
In states with open primaries, do you get to vote for both parties? I see the need to prevent spoiler votes, but I'm not keen on the idea of needing to register with a party to vote for its candidate, either.
I don't think you should be able to vote for both. You can spoiler the opposition or support your own first choice, not both.
You get a choice between a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, not both.
And re: that article about reforming the primary system. I don't know where McKinnon got the idea that the GOP electorate in either Arizona or Colorado is moderate.
C'mon, choose Colorado. The Colorado with Focus on the Family, the anti-tax crazies, and a caucus system just like Iowa does.
The Colorado GOP began really screwing up in 2000, and it's been mostly downhill since then.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
Last October when I was nailbiting over the Clinton/Obama race most people here were certainly worried about it.
McCain almost certainly won Michigan in 2000 because Democrats wanted to deny their Republican governor a cushy cabinet appointment. Romney may have won Michigan eight years later because of Democratic votes (who wanted to keep him in the race). I know there are other examples but those are the two that come to mind.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
The base is dumb. They'll vote for any schmuck with an R next to his name as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
You don't want to piss them off, but not catering to them and having a Palin on the ticket doesn't mean they aren't going to vote or stop giving a damn. The risk of people staying home out of a lack of enthusiasm, rather than expecting a 'sure thing' seems overblown to me.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
The base is dumb. They'll vote for any schmuck with an R next to his name as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes.
:^:
And woe to any fellow who should stray but a goddamn inch from that base.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
The base is dumb. They'll vote for any schmuck with an R next to his name as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
kdrudy on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
Somehow I forgot about that. But I still think he's wrong, because someone who's selected by a more moderate group of Republicans isn't going to fire up the base enough to win in November. You need the middle, yes, but you also need to make sure the party faithful like the candidate enough to volunteer and vote.
The base is dumb. They'll vote for any schmuck with an R next to his name as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
It's just like in Virginia. No one is particularly passionate about Deeds, even if McDonnel is ...not an ideal candidate.
Last October when I was nailbiting over the Clinton/Obama race most people here were certainly worried about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean those concerns were legitimate.
Yeah, as I recall, the spoiler votes didn't have that discernible an effect on the outcome of any election. Pennsylvania was the big worrisome state, and even then, Obama did much better than the polls were expecting.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
But there's a limited space in which you can move away from the base and still be gaining votes; in today's GOP, I think that space is quite small.
Last October when I was nailbiting over the Clinton/Obama race most people here were certainly worried about it.
That was a special case, with a tight primary on one side, and a crazy, angry, and well mobilized base on the other looking for a way to start dirty tricks early. Even then it ended up not coming to anything, and it almost never will. People like us, really passionate and extremely involved, might be willing to metagame it and try and screw the other side, but most people jsut don't care enough and they'll vote for who they really want regardless of strategic concerns, if they care enough to vote at all.
The real problem with completely open universal primaries is you're basically just skipping straight to a really sloppy version of the general election without a primary. If you're willing to do that you might as well just implement any number of better multi-candidate general election systems and call it a day.
It's just like in Virginia. No one is particularly passionate about Deeds, even if McDonnel is ...not an ideal candidate.
Man, Deeds is such a disappointment. He really did reject the Kaine/Obama path to victory. So much for come from behind primary win = good candidate.
He pulled a Kerry basically. The number two decided to take down the number one who'd blasted to a too early lead and then been steadily chipped away at (Moran burning McAuliffe was Gephardt killing Dean in 04), leaving the distant third place standing for the win.
werehippy on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's just like in Virginia. No one is particularly passionate about Deeds, even if McDonnel is ...not an ideal candidate.
Man, Deeds is such a disappointment. He really did reject the Kaine/Obama path to victory. So much for come from behind primary win = good candidate.
He pulled a Kerry basically. The number two decided to take down the number one who'd blasted to a too early lead and then been steadily chipped away at (Moran burning McAuliffe was Gephardt killing Dean in 04), leaving the distant third place standing for the win.
It's just like in Virginia. No one is particularly passionate about Deeds, even if McDonnel is ...not an ideal candidate.
Man, Deeds is such a disappointment. He really did reject the Kaine/Obama path to victory. So much for come from behind primary win = good candidate.
He pulled a Kerry basically. The number two decided to take down the number one who'd blasted to a too early lead and then been steadily chipped away at (Moran burning McAuliffe was Gephardt killing Dean in 04), leaving the distant third place standing for the win.
Well, and then he ran a hugely negative campaign.
Because, like Kerry, he had no idea what the hell he was doing because he didn't build up properly in the pre-game. Kerry was an overly passive, pompous asshat. Deeds has apparently been ... whatever the hell he's been. Though I give him credit for trying to fluff the transportation issue. I'm not sure he should have made McDonnell's thesis and transportation his entire campaign, but at least he hasn't tried to sugar caot things on the issues.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
But there's a limited space in which you can move away from the base and still be gaining votes; in today's GOP, I think that space is quite small.
Which seems to me to suggest that they should just jettison the base; it's gotten so small and insular that there's no winning with them.
Cervetus on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's just like in Virginia. No one is particularly passionate about Deeds, even if McDonnel is ...not an ideal candidate.
Man, Deeds is such a disappointment. He really did reject the Kaine/Obama path to victory. So much for come from behind primary win = good candidate.
He pulled a Kerry basically. The number two decided to take down the number one who'd blasted to a too early lead and then been steadily chipped away at (Moran burning McAuliffe was Gephardt killing Dean in 04), leaving the distant third place standing for the win.
Well, and then he ran a hugely negative campaign.
Because, like Kerry, he had no idea what the hell he was doing because he didn't build up properly in the pre-game. Kerry was an overly passive, pompous asshat. Deeds has apparently been ... whatever the hell he's been. Though I give him credit for trying to fluff the transportation issue. I'm not sure he should have made McDonnell's thesis and transportation his entire campaign, but at least he hasn't tried to sugar caot things on the issues.
Transportation is basically the Northern Virginia issue, which is basically who he needs to vote for him to win.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
But there's a limited space in which you can move away from the base and still be gaining votes; in today's GOP, I think that space is quite small.
Which seems to me to suggest that they should just jettison the base; it's gotten so small and insular that there's no winning with them.
But they can't. The base is the GOP; they pick the candidates and ultimately call the shots, they're not going to just leave even if the GOP establishment wants them to.
Well, one reason Deeds has always been down is every single pollster is assuming a sizeable chunk of Obama voters aren't going to bother; I think the smallest margin I've seen is 51-46 McCain. I'm really not sure that assumption is completely justified.
Well, one reason Deeds has always been down is every single pollster is assuming a sizeable chunk of Obama voters aren't going to bother; I think the smallest margin I've seen is 51-46 McCain. I'm really not sure that assumption is completely justified.
Seeing as Deeds has completely neglected NoVa, instead focusing on winning over "Reagan Democrats" in the rest of the state, I think it probably is.
No, they won't. They certainly won't vote for anyone else, but they may well be disgusted with their nominee to forego voting entirely, and they certainly won't be as motivated to help his campaign.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
But there's a limited space in which you can move away from the base and still be gaining votes; in today's GOP, I think that space is quite small.
Which seems to me to suggest that they should just jettison the base; it's gotten so small and insular that there's no winning with them.
It's small and insular, but 25-30% of the country isn't something you can just throw away. Especially since if you let it go someone else will inevitably pick it up. Either someone else on your side if you decide to get squeamish, or the other side if you make a sustained and unified effort to repudiate them. Just look at what happened to the moderate republicans in the south and plain states the last decade and the democrats after the civil rights movement respectively.
Stupid, xenophobic, and militant is a segment of the population that doesn't just go away. What we should be concerned about is that we seem to be breeding ever more virulent strains, between homeschooling, social/media polarization, and at this point basically divergent views of not just policy or theory, but outright literal reality.
IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.
Why?
Because it's the party deciding who they're gonna put forth in the coming election.
That doesn't really answer my question. If you want the party to pick its nominees themselves then do away with the primary system entirely and go back to smoke filled rooms.
People who aren't invested enough in the party to register as its members (in states where you can do that) should not be deciding what the party does.
People who aren't invested enough in the party to register as its members (in states where you can do that) should not be deciding what the party does.
IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.
Why?
Because it's not your party. The person selected by the primaries represents the party. If you are not a member of that party, he is not representing you, so you don't get a say. That's why the state of Texas can't drive up to vote against Barney Frank.
IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.
Why?
Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.
I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?
moniker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
But they can't. The base is the GOP; they pick the candidates and ultimately call the shots, they're not going to just leave even if the GOP establishment wants them to.
They are in NY-23, to the point where the Democrats might well steal a deep red seat out from under the GOP's noses and the base doesn't even seem to care.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.
Why?
Because it's not your party. The person selected by the primaries represents the party. If you are not a member of that party, he is not representing you, so you don't get a say. That's why the state of Texas can't drive up to vote against Barney Frank.
You're mixing your metaphors. This isn't talking about people influencing people who don't represent them, it's about people influences people who do represent them. It's a national office, and I reside in the nation. Why should I be excluded from influencing who gets on the ballot?
Posts
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
And re: that article about reforming the primary system. I don't know where McKinnon got the idea that the GOP electorate in either Arizona or Colorado is moderate. If you need a state with a fairly moderate Republican party outside of the northeast it's going to be difficult. Maybe Florida, but they're primarying Crist so maybe not.
No, you just don't have to register with a party before hand. You can walk into the polling place and tell them you want the Democratic ballot, the Republican ballot, or just the one with referendums and such.
C'mon, choose Colorado. The Colorado with Focus on the Family, the anti-tax crazies, and a caucus system just like Iowa does.
The Colorado GOP began really screwing up in 2000, and it's been mostly downhill since then.
Last October when I was nailbiting over the Clinton/Obama race most people here were certainly worried about it.
The base is dumb. They'll vote for any schmuck with an R next to his name as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean those concerns were legitimate.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
You don't want to piss them off, but not catering to them and having a Palin on the ticket doesn't mean they aren't going to vote or stop giving a damn. The risk of people staying home out of a lack of enthusiasm, rather than expecting a 'sure thing' seems overblown to me.
:^:
And woe to any fellow who should stray but a goddamn inch from that base.
They can't win with only their base though, the base they are appealing to is too small to win. Someone too close to the base means the moderates in the party stay home. Someone closer to the moderates get their vote as well as most of the base's vote because they can't let those damn liberals win!
Yeah, as I recall, the spoiler votes didn't have that discernible an effect on the outcome of any election. Pennsylvania was the big worrisome state, and even then, Obama did much better than the polls were expecting.
But there's a limited space in which you can move away from the base and still be gaining votes; in today's GOP, I think that space is quite small.
That was a special case, with a tight primary on one side, and a crazy, angry, and well mobilized base on the other looking for a way to start dirty tricks early. Even then it ended up not coming to anything, and it almost never will. People like us, really passionate and extremely involved, might be willing to metagame it and try and screw the other side, but most people jsut don't care enough and they'll vote for who they really want regardless of strategic concerns, if they care enough to vote at all.
The real problem with completely open universal primaries is you're basically just skipping straight to a really sloppy version of the general election without a primary. If you're willing to do that you might as well just implement any number of better multi-candidate general election systems and call it a day.
I am really pissed about how he has waged the campaign.
Well, and then he ran a hugely negative campaign.
Which seems to me to suggest that they should just jettison the base; it's gotten so small and insular that there's no winning with them.
It's small and insular, but 25-30% of the country isn't something you can just throw away. Especially since if you let it go someone else will inevitably pick it up. Either someone else on your side if you decide to get squeamish, or the other side if you make a sustained and unified effort to repudiate them. Just look at what happened to the moderate republicans in the south and plain states the last decade and the democrats after the civil rights movement respectively.
Stupid, xenophobic, and militant is a segment of the population that doesn't just go away. What we should be concerned about is that we seem to be breeding ever more virulent strains, between homeschooling, social/media polarization, and at this point basically divergent views of not just policy or theory, but outright literal reality.
poor plan.
Why?
Because it's the party deciding who they're gonna put forth in the coming election.
That doesn't really answer my question. If you want the party to pick its nominees themselves then do away with the primary system entirely and go back to smoke filled rooms.
Why?
That said, I also think that you should be able to register or reregister to vote on election day.
Because it's not your party. The person selected by the primaries represents the party. If you are not a member of that party, he is not representing you, so you don't get a say. That's why the state of Texas can't drive up to vote against Barney Frank.
I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?
They are in NY-23, to the point where the Democrats might well steal a deep red seat out from under the GOP's noses and the base doesn't even seem to care.
You're mixing your metaphors. This isn't talking about people influencing people who don't represent them, it's about people influences people who do represent them. It's a national office, and I reside in the nation. Why should I be excluded from influencing who gets on the ballot?