I hate states that allow open primaries. Pennsylvania has a closed primary system so you can only vote in the party you are registered to. Why should Dems pick Republican candidates and vice versa. Hope McDaniel pulls it out.
I disagree on having open primaries. It is not the open primary that is the issue, it is the inability for the poll workers to be able to identify that a voter has already voted in a primary - you only get to vote in one primary (and subsequent run-offs, if needed).
It was precisely the open primary process that got John McLame the win in Florida in the Republican primary in 2008 that turned around his campaign. Thus, we really have the open primary system to blame for Obama getting elected both in 2008 and 2012. All of the 2008 Republican primary candidates were better than John McCain, including Romney - who was my 9th pick out of 10 Republicans at the time.
One of the very few things I can say is good about Connecticut.
I was a poll watcher in the last Republican primary. It was amusing how many Democrats saw the "Vote Today" sign, showed up to vote, and were puzzled when told that their name was not registered: "Your name's not registered, sir." "What do you mean, it's not registered?" "Are you registered as a Republican, sir?" "What does that have to do with it?" "Well, sir, it's a Republican primary. You have to a registered voter of a party to vote in their primary. Are you registered as a Republican, sir?" "Hell, no!"
Priceless! Conundrum with the primary system: If I register with a party is that not revealing the secret ballot? What could happen, possibly, is that you get to vote in only one primary but both parties would always have primaries. The incumbent would therefore always be at risk of losing the seat which is a good thing. We have got to fix the presidential election primary system as well. All primaries need to happen on the same day all over the country. This would stop the situation whereby a few states set up who will eventually run against an incumbent president. Am I the only one who sees the current presidential primary process as a lopsided system?
He has the right to challenge it. If the system works and he doesn't find enough votes then he should concede and fight hard for Cochran. Of course if McDaniel wins Cochran should help him as well.
It's a powerful tool for the opposition... engineering your anticipated opponent in the general election is just as good as picking your best candidate for your own... making sure the opponent is as weak as possible, or at least not that different from your own values. Is it right? Hell no, but it's a pretty strong campaign tool.
We have a democratic friend in NC. She was registered democrat but since no democrats were running in a primary, she switched her registration for the primary and voted for the best candidate to lose against the sole democrat running in the general election. I'm not thinking that's the point of voting in a primary.
Excellent example Bryan. I remember Rush Limbaughs operation chaos. In 2008 he had Republicans cross over and vote for Hillary to extend the Democratic primary. I thought it was funny but I also thought it would expose the stupidity of having open primaries.
Once you vote in one party's primary in Mississippi, you may not vote in the opposite party's runoff in the same year.
The Cocnran people admitted they got thirty-five *thousand* Democratic votes. Now did all those cross over? Maybe not. But if enough of them did, that would flip the result.
Correct. Again, if Cochran had any decency and could read the tea leaves (pun intended), he would withdraw and throw his support behind McDaniel. As it is, he's an arrogant bastard (politician - but that's being redundant, isn't it) who believes it is his right to be the elected senator from Mississippi. He won't back down, and he'll lose in Nov.
These county chairmen are stupid. They are cutting their own throats if they support a false winner. They will end up with a candidate that won't win in Nov due to the TP voters being disenchanted and the D voters voting their real intention, which is D.
You nailed a big part of the problem, Robbie, without even realizing it. All politics is local, but elections involving sending people to DC should be national. Yes, the voting should be by district, BUT it is perfectly reasonable for money to come in from other places because someone's rep from the Northeast cancels out my rep's vote.
I think some may be missing the point of the article (as I read several comments). Open primaries are one thing, and if that is the will of the people then so be it. But the article plainly states that some (D) voters voted in their own primary and then voted in the (R) primary, which is a clear violation of voting law. On that basis, those (D) ballots would be rendered invalid at a minimum in the (R) primary.
Regardless, the Republican statist elites will certify this election on the fast-track.
This type of thing is going on all over the country in small elections. I think they are testing us. The question is are Americans docile enough and non-critical thinkers to the point that they care more about the election being done, or done right?
It is good to see somewhere where they care about it being done right.
I was a poll watcher in the last Republican primary.
It was amusing how many Democrats saw the "Vote Today" sign, showed up to vote, and were puzzled when told that their name was not registered:
"Your name's not registered, sir."
"What do you mean, it's not registered?"
"Are you registered as a Republican, sir?"
"What does that have to do with it?"
"Well, sir, it's a Republican primary. You have to a registered voter of a party to vote in their primary. Are you registered as a Republican, sir?"
"Hell, no!"
Most of them went something like that.
Conundrum with the primary system: If I register with a party is that not revealing the secret ballot?
What could happen, possibly, is that you get to vote in only one primary but both parties would always have primaries. The incumbent would therefore always be at risk of losing the seat which is a good thing.
We have got to fix the presidential election primary system as well. All primaries need to happen on the same day all over the country. This would stop the situation whereby a few states set up who will eventually run against an incumbent president. Am I the only one who sees the current presidential primary process as a lopsided system?
Once you vote in one party's primary in Mississippi, you may not vote in the opposite party's runoff in the same year.
The Cocnran people admitted they got thirty-five *thousand* Democratic votes. Now did all those cross over? Maybe not. But if enough of them did, that would flip the result.
If the GOPe pulls this off, I can *very easily* see Tea Party voters staying home in any race for a GOPe type: Boehnor - gone, Graham - gone, etc.
If they want to play that Pyrrhic bullshit, we'll show them how it's really done.
Dems (rats) in a Coke Bottle (red for Republican)
I first heard it from Tom McClintock actually.
Regardless, the Republican statist elites will certify this election on the fast-track.
The Text:
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13407
A Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mYP25k...
Thad Cochran needs to ride off into the sunset.
It is good to see somewhere where they care about it being done right.