Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Well yeah but only one was on the ballot. In NY-23 that's not the case.
The two republicans are the two democrats in this scenario. I'm saying just because the party is split doesn't mean they will be at the end.
Of course, they don't have an Obama rallying the troops, or a Clinton conceding in a classy way.
Also, the Clinton/Obama fight ended five months before the general election, and it was two or three months before the most committed of her followers softened to Obama.
There's one week left to heal the rifts in NY-23. I don't know that the (D) will win the seat, but I'm guessing that the Republican vote will be quite fractured.
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2009
I hope this "Conservative Party" thing takes off. Splits the right-wing vote, pulls the loons out of the GOP and gives the Republicans some turf in the middle ground to be a not-stupid party again.
Irond Will on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
I hope this "Conservative Party" thing takes off. Splits the right-wing vote, pulls the loons out of the GOP and gives the Republicans some turf in the middle ground to be a not-stupid party again.
Alternately, the Conservative party can Perot every election in traditionally red areas, thereby increasing the size of the Blue Dog caucus. I'm not actually sure if I prefer this alternative.
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was an excellent candidate before he actually began campaigning.
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was an excellent candidate before he actually began campaigning.
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was an excellent candidate before he actually began campaigning.
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
HOLY SHIT HE THREW A ROCK
Fred Thompson was the guy from Law&Order
You're thinking of someone else.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I hope this "Conservative Party" thing takes off. Splits the right-wing vote, pulls the loons out of the GOP and gives the Republicans some turf in the middle ground to be a not-stupid party again.
The Conservative Party is nothing new. They were somewhere near the bottom on the 2008 Presidential ballot. The recent notoriety is something new, though.
My take on why primaries are closed. Party affiliation being required to vote not only ensures that members of that party are voting, but that people of opposing parties aren't. If primaries were open, what would stop all of the Dems in the disctrict or state from voting for the worst possible candidate in the Republican primary (and vice versa)? Instead of choosing a strong candidate that represents the views of the party and appears competent enough to lead, they can vote for a horrendous candidate on the other side that has no chance of winning while voting in some dude on their side that only has to strongly appeal to the base. I see this especially becoming a problem in states that heavily lean one way or another, as the less dominant side would never be able to get a strong candidate in place that has bipartisan appeal. Closed primaries force both sides to put up or shut up, so to speak.
I hope this "Conservative Party" thing takes off. Splits the right-wing vote, pulls the loons out of the GOP and gives the Republicans some turf in the middle ground to be a not-stupid party again.
The Conservative Party is nothing new. They were somewhere near the bottom on the 2008 Presidential ballot. The recent notoriety is something new, though.
Well in New York its a bit different. The Conservative Party in NY doesn't have any national affiliations. NY allows third parties to cross endorse candidates, so in 2008 you could vote for John McCain - R, John McCain - Conservative, Barack Obama - D, and Barack Obama - Working Families. The Liberal Party in NY used to have a good deal of influence as well but doesn't have "ballot status" anymore.
Its a good idea IMO, and would work as a decent way for 3rd parties to get some say. We had a ballot initiative to bring it back in IIRC 2007 in Massachusetts but it failed.
Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?
Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was an excellent candidate before he actually began campaigning.
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
HOLY SHIT HE THREW A ROCK
Fred Thompson was the guy from Law&Order
You're thinking of someone else.
"Your average Russian doesn't take a dump without a plan."
My take on why primaries are closed. Party affiliation being required to vote not only ensures that members of that party are voting, but that people of opposing parties aren't. If primaries were open, what would stop all of the Dems in the disctrict or state from voting for the worst possible candidate in the Republican primary (and vice versa)? Instead of choosing a strong candidate that represents the views of the party and appears competent enough to lead, they can vote for a horrendous candidate on the other side that has no chance of winning while voting in some dude on their side that only has to strongly appeal to the base. I see this especially becoming a problem in states that heavily lean one way or another, as the less dominant side would never be able to get a strong candidate in place that has bipartisan appeal. Closed primaries force both sides to put up or shut up, so to speak.
This is a very real possibility, especially in presidential elections. If your candidate has already won, then why even bother voting in your party's primary? Fuck it, let's just go sabotage the other guy! Though it's a possibility in any open primary in which one party has a shoo-in candidate and the other has a tight race.
That said, both open- and closed-primaries have pros and cons. The above is one such con. Overall, I think open primaries solve more problems than they cause, because the problems they address strike me as more prevalent than situations like the above.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Fox News is separate from CNN/MSNBC. Because CNN and MSNBC are the same.
They should've just broken it down into "Liberal Media" and "The Alamo of Truth".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My take on why primaries are closed. Party affiliation being required to vote not only ensures that members of that party are voting, but that people of opposing parties aren't. If primaries were open, what would stop all of the Dems in the disctrict or state from voting for the worst possible candidate in the Republican primary (and vice versa)? Instead of choosing a strong candidate that represents the views of the party and appears competent enough to lead, they can vote for a horrendous candidate on the other side that has no chance of winning while voting in some dude on their side that only has to strongly appeal to the base. I see this especially becoming a problem in states that heavily lean one way or another, as the less dominant side would never be able to get a strong candidate in place that has bipartisan appeal. Closed primaries force both sides to put up or shut up, so to speak.
This is a very real possibility, especially in presidential elections. If your candidate has already won, then why even bother voting in your party's primary? Fuck it, let's just go sabotage the other guy! Though it's a possibility in any open primary in which one party has a shoo-in candidate and the other has a tight race.
That said, both open- and closed-primaries have pros and cons. The above is one such con. Overall, I think open primaries solve more problems than they cause, because the problems they address strike me as more prevalent than situations like the above.
I think it happens about as often as people using fake ID's to vote as someone else in the general. Wich is to say rarely and not in an organised way. 2008 was an outlier in that the lenght of the primary. Usualy the guy that wins New Hampshire/South Carolina is the main candidate. The speed with wich he is anoited, turns the whole thing into a steam-roller.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I love going back and reading Bush-era conspiracy theories that never happened. I think my two favorite are:
"Hilary Clinton is already in place to be the next President. After her will be Jeb Bush. End the Clinton-Bush dynasty now. Vote McCain."
and
"Mark my words, shortly before the 2008 election there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil, manufactured by the Bush administration. He will use the opportunity to suspend the elections and truly become a tyrant."
I'd love to see the denial those people would put up when questioned about what happened to those theories. Either, "No that wasn't me" or "OBAMA IS PART OF IT."
Speaking of, my friend hasn't gotten back to me about the contrails thing ever since the wiki article linking.
All conspiracy theories about new world orders and cabals that secretly run the world are stupid for just being implausible, if nothing else. If a secret cabal could actually get enough power and influence to run the world such that leaders aren't elected but installed, I'm pretty sure said cabal could hide its existence well enough to thwart the probings of your average conspiracy theorist.
The cabal actually hires people to go on about "secret cabals controlling the world" and generally acting crazy so you people will just reject the idea out of hand
Don't you see you're all falling into the trap like the mindless masses you are
I think I could be more of a fan of closed primaries if more states allowed same day registration. As it stands, open primaries make it easier to get people involved. '08 was interesting in that I had relatives in Wisconsin that had voted completely Republican in previous elections that were completely disillusioned with the party and were very excited about voting to nominate Obama. If they'd had to jump through the hurdle of changing party affiliation at some date prior to voting, I don't think they would have gotten as involved or as excited as they did.
Posts
Well leave it to me to be mostly ignorant of the details of something that's a bit of a big deal.
Also, the Clinton/Obama fight ended five months before the general election, and it was two or three months before the most committed of her followers softened to Obama.
There's one week left to heal the rifts in NY-23. I don't know that the (D) will win the seat, but I'm guessing that the Republican vote will be quite fractured.
I don't remember that. I do remember the book that promised it would be Hillary vs. Condaleeza Rice, though .
Go find some reputable political blog and read posts from about August/September '07. After McCain's campaign nearly died in July of that year, Clinton v. Giuliani was a popular pick until pundits began to realize that the "Don't compete in any primary before Florida" wasn't a very good idea. Once Rudy's star started to burn out, though, no one had any clue who the Republican nominee was going to be.
Edit: In November 2007, Rasmussen was doing three-way polling: Hillary vs. Giuliani and Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
Alternately, the Conservative party can Perot every election in traditionally red areas, thereby increasing the size of the Blue Dog caucus. I'm not actually sure if I prefer this alternative.
Fred Thompson was an excellent candidate before he actually began campaigning.
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
*stare*
HOLY SHIT HE THREW A ROCK
You're thinking of someone else.
And it was surrealistic genius.
The Conservative Party is nothing new. They were somewhere near the bottom on the 2008 Presidential ballot. The recent notoriety is something new, though.
My take on why primaries are closed. Party affiliation being required to vote not only ensures that members of that party are voting, but that people of opposing parties aren't. If primaries were open, what would stop all of the Dems in the disctrict or state from voting for the worst possible candidate in the Republican primary (and vice versa)? Instead of choosing a strong candidate that represents the views of the party and appears competent enough to lead, they can vote for a horrendous candidate on the other side that has no chance of winning while voting in some dude on their side that only has to strongly appeal to the base. I see this especially becoming a problem in states that heavily lean one way or another, as the less dominant side would never be able to get a strong candidate in place that has bipartisan appeal. Closed primaries force both sides to put up or shut up, so to speak.
Well in New York its a bit different. The Conservative Party in NY doesn't have any national affiliations. NY allows third parties to cross endorse candidates, so in 2008 you could vote for John McCain - R, John McCain - Conservative, Barack Obama - D, and Barack Obama - Working Families. The Liberal Party in NY used to have a good deal of influence as well but doesn't have "ballot status" anymore.
Its a good idea IMO, and would work as a decent way for 3rd parties to get some say. We had a ballot initiative to bring it back in IIRC 2007 in Massachusetts but it failed.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
oh right, thompson was the guy who always looked like he was about to fall asleep at the podium
"Your average Russian doesn't take a dump without a plan."
That guy.
Sarah Palin slipped him that nugget. Know how she knows?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
She can see Russian nuggets from the toilet-cam she installed in Putin's house?
I'm sure she was involved in the writing for that film anyway. It deals with Russians*! With weapons! And in cold places! Of course she's there.
Sarah Palin--making bad writing even worse.
*Technically Soviet citizens of Russian and other nationalities
I was always partial to "Let's stack 'em, pack 'em, and rack 'em."
Edit: Which, coincidentally, was roughly Fred Thompson's foreign policy.
Stupid actors, acting like people they're not. It outta be a sin.
This is a very real possibility, especially in presidential elections. If your candidate has already won, then why even bother voting in your party's primary? Fuck it, let's just go sabotage the other guy! Though it's a possibility in any open primary in which one party has a shoo-in candidate and the other has a tight race.
That said, both open- and closed-primaries have pros and cons. The above is one such con. Overall, I think open primaries solve more problems than they cause, because the problems they address strike me as more prevalent than situations like the above.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I went to a town fair this weekend, and someone was wearing a t-shirt that said "I miss Reagan"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They should've just broken it down into "Liberal Media" and "The Alamo of Truth".
I think it happens about as often as people using fake ID's to vote as someone else in the general. Wich is to say rarely and not in an organised way. 2008 was an outlier in that the lenght of the primary. Usualy the guy that wins New Hampshire/South Carolina is the main candidate. The speed with wich he is anoited, turns the whole thing into a steam-roller.
You really love that one don't you Jeffe?
People with Alzheimer's are allowed to vote?
Give that the are allowed to run for, and hold, elected office, I can't see why not.
Wait, was it this guy?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The cabal actually hires people to go on about "secret cabals controlling the world" and generally acting crazy so you people will just reject the idea out of hand
Don't you see you're all falling into the trap like the mindless masses you are
Wake up sheeple