Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Correct. The nomination of a party's candidate isn't really a majority rule situation. The parties (rightly) control who their nominees are.

Roughly 43% of Americans of voting age identify as independents.

Time for all states to have open primaries, or at least semi-open primaries, where unaffiliated voters can have the opportunity to vote on either the Democratic or Republican ballots.

Registered Democrats or Republicans would still need to vote in their own party.

Plus, the entire delegate system is antiquated and should be abolished. Go with popular vote across the board.

Same with the Electoral College for the general election. Probably served its purpose well when it was first conceived, but is also antiquated and should be abolished.

Why would the parties want to give up control of the nomination process?

Roughly 43% of the vote in the general election comes from unaffiliated voters. That could swing a party from nominating a loser to nominating a winner.

All the polls say that John Kasich is the only hope the Republicans have to win the White House this November. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's the independent vote that goes primarily for Kasich over the other two clowns in the GOP, and also over the criminal and the socialist from the Democrats. Under the current system, the registered GOP voters are so FUBARed that they are likely nominating an unelectable candidate in Donald Trump, or maybe Ted Cruz. Under an open, or semi-open primary system, they're also getting the pulse of the independent vote as part of their nomination process.

Would that be a bad thing?

Independents voting in the primaries for a party they will at least consider voting for in the general election are a good thing. The very bad thing is people voting in a primary in which they won't consider voting for the winner. For example, Republicans and conservative independents voted later in the 2008 primaries (when the Republican nomination had become functionally settled by late March, long before the Democratic nomination which remained ambiguous until June) for Hillary because she was perceived (correctly, we all think) as being a much weaker and more beatable candidate than Obama. That is a very big detriment to the nominating party.

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/28/2016 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Correct. The nomination of a party's candidate isn't really a majority rule situation. The parties (rightly) control who their nominees are.

Roughly 43% of Americans of voting age identify as independents.

Time for all states to have open primaries, or at least semi-open primaries, where unaffiliated voters can have the opportunity to vote on either the Democratic or Republican ballots.

Registered Democrats or Republicans would still need to vote in their own party.

Plus, the entire delegate system is antiquated and should be abolished. Go with popular vote across the board.

Same with the Electoral College for the general election. Probably served its purpose well when it was first conceived, but is also antiquated and should be abolished.

Why would the parties want to give up control of the nomination process?

Roughly 43% of the vote in the general election comes from unaffiliated voters. That could swing a party from nominating a loser to nominating a winner.

All the polls say that John Kasich is the only hope the Republicans have to win the White House this November. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's the independent vote that goes primarily for Kasich over the other two clowns in the GOP, and also over the criminal and the socialist from the Democrats. Under the current system, the registered GOP voters are so FUBARed that they are likely nominating an unelectable candidate in Donald Trump, or maybe Ted Cruz. Under an open, or semi-open primary system, they're also getting the pulse of the independent vote as part of their nomination process.

Would that be a bad thing?

Independents voting in the primaries for a party they will at least consider voting for in the general election are a good thing. The very bad thing is people voting in a primary in which they won't consider voting for the winner. For example, Republicans and conservative independents voted later in the 2008 primaries (when the Republican nomination had become functionally settled by late March, long before the Democratic nomination which remained ambiguous until June) for Hillary because she was perceived (correctly, we all think) as being a much weaker and more beatable candidate than Obama. That is a very big detriment to the nominating party.

Yeah, but that can happen already in many states.

Don't know about other states, but in CT you can change your party affiliation every 90 days. So if it's pretty clear who "your" parties likely nominee will be three months in advance of the CT primary, you can switch to the other party to vote in their primary to F up their process, and then switch back to your own party in plenty of time for the general election (should you wish to do so).

I would imagine that it's similar for many of the other states that have later primaries.

Also, you made a very substantial error in your analysis tec. 43% of eligible voters identify as independents, not 43% of the vote. Registered independents are substantially less likely to actually vote.

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/28/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Also, you made a very substantial error in your analysis tec. 43% of eligible voters identify as independents, not 43% of the vote. Registered independents are substantially less likely to actually vote.

Well, I'm pretty sure that 100% of all registered Democrats and Republicans don't vote either. So the question is, what the the difference in percentage between the number of registered independents who actually vote, and the number of registered D/R who actually vote.

It's probably not as substantial as you make it out to be, particularly when you consider that the percentage of eligible voters who identify as Democrat (30%) or Republican (26%) is noticeably smaller.

In other words, independents are the largest demographic of voters.

You're acting like most of those independents are up for grabs. For the most part, they aren't.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 4:51:00 PM (view original):
You're acting like most of those independents are up for grabs. For the most part, they aren't.

What makes you so sure?

Most people have their mind made up early. No Hillary, no Trump, no Sanders. Wouldn't have mattered who I was affiliated with.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/28/2016 4:51:00 PM (view original):
You're acting like most of those independents are up for grabs. For the most part, they aren't.

What makes you so sure?

First, a large percentage of people who identify as "independent," do so because they don't care about and don't pay attention to politics. They aren't voting for anyone.

The next largest group of independents are like you. Technically they are independent, but, in reality, they already fall pretty hard on one said of the political spectrum.

Also, tec, you're looking at one crazy election (2016) and ignoring elections like 2012 and 2008 where both parties nominated relatively moderate candidates (obviously excluding Palin as VP).

Posted by tecwrg on 4/28/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/28/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Also, you made a very substantial error in your analysis tec. 43% of eligible voters identify as independents, not 43% of the vote. Registered independents are substantially less likely to actually vote.

Well, I'm pretty sure that 100% of all registered Democrats and Republicans don't vote either. So the question is, what the the difference in percentage between the number of registered independents who actually vote, and the number of registered D/R who actually vote.

It's probably not as substantial as you make it out to be, particularly when you consider that the percentage of eligible voters who identify as Democrat (30%) or Republican (26%) is noticeably smaller.

In other words, independents are the largest demographic of voters.

I don't have time to look up the numbers right now. IIRC, they are pretty hard to find. But basically, it went something like this for the past few elections:

About 75% of registered Republicans vote in Presidential election years.
About 65% of registered Democrats vote.
Under 50% of registered independents vote.

Also, as BL alluded to earlier, most of the registered independents aren't really swing votes. Look back at early polling from 2008 and 2012 after the DNC and RNC. While something close to 40% of registered voters were registered independent in those years as well, generally under 10% are unsure who they will vote for months before the election occurs.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump holds a double-digit lead over his competitors in Oregon, according to a new pollby Portland-based Hoffman Research Group.

Trump has 43 percent support in the poll, followed by Ted Cruz with 26 percent and John Kasich with just 17 percent support.

Trump loves Oregon and Oregon loves Trump!!!

This country has earned Trump as President and every thing that goes with it. I really look forward to how you guys handle that.

There's no doubt that Obama's conduct as President has strengthened the basis of Trump's candidacy. That's why the President reacted so strongly when this was suggested to him -- it's a sensitive topic!