300 Former Obama Staffers Urge Elizabeth Warren to Run for President Daniel Halper

[Bigun]

Arguing over how to hold primaries, ignores the fact that conservatives struggle to get enough votes, period.

Nationwide 42% of voters claim to be independent. Their votes are essential to winning general elections, so why exclude them from primaries?

Has anybody got a list of states' primary methods, at hand? If you study it, it will dispel some misconceptions, about "open" primaries with facts.

California changed primary rules a few years ago. It would be called "open" but a democrat can NOT vote on the Republican ballot, and vice versa. But a non-affiliated person can vote on any party's primary ballot they ask for, but only one.

In Texas you can choose to vote in either primary you like but must stick with that choice all the way through any run offs!  And we do have run off elections here.

Requiring of a majority is the key IMHO.

[Relic]

She'll run, and she'll win.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you say so!

I really just explained why conservatives don't win.  i.e because a majority is not required in most cases!  If it were left up to me that would change instantly!

Numbers Bigun. Put up numbers.

Even iof you don't put up numbers, the fact remains that conservatives can't win primaries. If what you claim is true holds up to the numbers (it doesn't... I looked it up) and the reason that they can't win is because they are too divided to stand behind one candidate, then I am right. They can't win the primaries, and ity is no one fault but their own because they can't solidify their vote behind one candidate.

Herer are the early primary vote counts from the last GOP primaries. I'll divide the "real conservatives" from those not considered conservatives:

Not conservative enough:

Romney - 1,854,670
Paul - 511,547
Huntsman - 52,896

Total votes - 2,419,113

"True" conservatives:

Gingrich - 990,898
Santorum - 1,099,596
Perry - 30,067
Bachman - 14,324

Total votes: 2,134,885

Romney won 25 more delegates than the rest of the field combined.

Super Tuesday Gingrich/Santorum outpace Romney/Paul by @3,500 votes, but Romney wins 238 delegates to the rest of the field's (Gingrich/Paul/Santorum) 185.

Mid-March... Romney wins 223 delegates to the remaining candidates' (Gingrich/Paul/Santorum) 144.

April... Romney's  combined 2,099,696 votes and 258 delegates won outpace the combined numbers of Paul/Gingrich/Santorum by 125,801 votes and 234 delegates.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's amazing how quickly we can have our reputations in tatters!

I love tatters, with melted cheese and bacon bits!

[Lando Lincoln]

She'll run, and she'll win.

I agree with you often Relic.  This time?  Yes and no.  Obama continues to gut the brand.  THAT is the biggest thing Republicans have going for them at this moment. 

Let's see where we are next year at this time. 

[Bigun]

Numbers Bigun. Put up numbers.

Even iof you don't put up numbers, the fact remains that conservatives can't win primaries. If what you claim is true holds up to the numbers (it doesn't... I looked it up) and the reason that they can't win is because they are too divided to stand behind one candidate, then I am right. They can't win the primaries, and ity is no one fault but their own because they can't solidify their vote behind one candidate.

Herer are the early primary vote counts from the last GOP primaries. I'll divide the "real conservatives" from those not considered conservatives:

Not conservative enough:

Romney - 1,854,670
Paul - 511,547
Huntsman - 52,896

Total votes - 2,419,113

"True" conservatives:

Gingrich - 990,898
Santorum - 1,099,596
Perry - 30,067
Bachman - 14,324

Total votes: 2,134,885

Romney won 25 more delegates than the rest of the field combined.

Super Tuesday Gingrich/Santorum outpace Romney/Paul by @3,500 votes, but Romney wins 238 delegates to the rest of the field's (Gingrich/Paul/Santorum) 185.

Mid-March... Romney wins 223 delegates to the remaining candidates' (Gingrich/Paul/Santorum) 144.

April... Romney's  combined 2,099,696 votes and 258 delegates won outpace the combined numbers of Paul/Gingrich/Santorum by 125,801 votes and 234 delegates.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I'm not going to argue with your numbers Luis even though you left out the votes gained  by many others in the field but will ask you how many of those delegates were awarded by primaries that required only a plurality of the vote to win? 

[Cyber Liberty]

I think getting it right outweighs any time considerations. But that's just one opinion.

I like the idea of requiring a majority, hadn't really thought of it before.  I'd have to ponder it some, because we're guaranteed to have a lot of runoffs.  Meanwhile, I've always thought it would be good to let Republicans choose the Republican nominees, and Democrats choose theirs.  This open Primary business makes no sense at all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I agree with you often Relic.  This time?  Yes and no.  Obama continues to gut the brand.  THAT is the biggest thing Republicans have going for them at this moment. 

Let's see where we are next year at this time.

It will be interesting to see if she runs on the premise that Obama not being progressive enough is what gutted the brand. She can't move to the center to run for the nomination, that space is occupied by Hillary as "Obama light" (according to progressives).

[Cyber Liberty]

"... and vice versa" being what levels the field.

Only sometimes.  In 2012, for example, there weren't any Dem Primaries, so the Dem voters were free to work their mischief in the GOP Primaries.  2016 will be more like what you describe.

[Bigun]

I like the idea of requiring a majority, hadn't really thought of it before.  I'd have to ponder it some, because we're guaranteed to have a lot of runoffs.  Meanwhile, I've always thought it would be good to let Republicans choose the Republican nominees, and Democrats choose theirs.  This open Primary business makes no sense at all.

And I agree that open primaries don't make any sense at all except to people like John McCain who could not win an election without them!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I like the idea of requiring a majority, hadn't really thought of it before.  I'd have to ponder it some, because we're guaranteed to have a lot of runoffs.  Meanwhile, I've always thought it would be good to let Republicans choose the Republican nominees, and Democrats choose theirs.  This open Primary business makes no sense at all.

We're a Republic, not governed by the will of majorities.

If you establish majorities as the requirement for a win, many small States will be neglected by the Parties, and largest, populated States will forever elect our politicians.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm not going to argue with your numbers Luis even though you left out the votes gained  by many others in the field but will ask you how many of those delegates were awarded by primaries that required only a plurality of the vote to win?

You never argue against facts and numbers. You rarely have any to support your claims.

Go ahead, list your omissions and I'll list mine.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nationwide 42% of voters claim to be independent. Their votes are essential to winning general elections, so why exclude them from primaries?

If voters had to make a choice in order to vote in Primaries, that number would change.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My side would win if only the rules were different" is not the BEST way to decide who should run the nation.

[Bigun]

You never argue against facts and numbers. You rarely have any to support your claims.

Go ahead, list your omissions and I'll list mine.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to play you stupid (IMHO) games Luis!

You think whatever you like about that.

[Cyber Liberty]

We're a Republic, not governed by the will of majorities.

If you establish majorities as the requirement for a win, many small States will be neglected by the Parties, and largest, populated States will forever elect our politicians.

The small state vs large state schism lives on...and it's just as important as it ever was.  This is why the National Popular Vote movement must be crushed.

What you say is certainly true of the General Election, but I'm not so sure about the Primaries.

[Bigun]

We're a Republic, not governed by the will of majorities.

If you establish majorities as the requirement for a win, many small States will be neglected by the Parties, and largest, populated States will forever elect our politicians.

I am NOT talking about an overall majority but majorities in each separate state's primary Luis and you damned well know that!

[Luis Gonzalez]

The small state vs large state schism lives on...and it's just as important as it ever was.  This is why the National Popular Vote movement must be crushed.

What you say is certainly true of the General Election, but I'm not so sure about the Primaries.

Making the argument that it is the right thing for one, but not the other is not a winning argument.

Irrespective of that, if the argument is that conservatives are too split up to unify behind one candidate and win a majority of the votes now, how does requiring a majority of the votes to win help solve that problem?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am NOT talking about an overall majority but majorities in each separate state's primary Luis and you damned well know that!

Majorities win now, but you can't win because conservatives can't unify behind one candidate.

[Cyber Liberty]

We're a Republic, not governed by the will of majorities.

If you establish majorities as the requirement for a win, many small States will be neglected by the Parties, and largest, populated States will forever elect our politicians.

Oh, I forgot something:  We are a Representative Republic, and that does require marshaling some kind of majority.  North Korea is a "Republic" too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Making the argument that it is the right thing for one, but not the other is not a winning argument.

Irrespective of that, if the argument is that conservatives are too split up to unify behind one candidate and win a majority of the votes now, how does requiring a majority of the votes to win help solve that problem?

That's a good question.  It's why I can't just jump right on that bandwagon.  Besides, I'm not looking to win a argument, I want to find what's the best way to get the kind of leadership that will stop the rot.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh, I forgot something:  We are a Representative Republic, and that does require marshaling some kind of majority.  North Korea is a "Republic" too.

Which makes the idea of making the argument that electing candidates via majority vote is good but electing Presidents via majority vote is bad a hard argument to win.

[Bigun]

Majorities win now, but you can't win because conservatives can't unify behind one candidate.

Not true Luis! In many cases it only takes a plurality (NOT the same as a majority)  to be awarded delegates.

[Cyber Liberty]

Which makes the idea of making the argument that electing candidates via majority vote is good but electing Presidents via majority vote is bad a hard argument to win.

May be hard to win, but it's an argument that been made since the founding.  If it were up to me, I'm make the Primaries more like the Generals, in that I'd require a candidate to win a majority of the Counties in a state.  The states have the same problem as the federal, in that it's not always wise to let the urban areas dictate all the election results.

[truth_seeker]

Conservatives have an exaggerated opinion regarding how great their numbers really are.

As if on primary day, the rules can be manipulated such that all "true conservatives" get rounded up and to the polls, if only all true conservatives can be "found."

But if my memories of 16 years on these conservative forums are correct, a great many claim to have long since left the GOP.  And some others are still democrats. And finally still others are 3rd party members.

A closed primary would prevent many of those claiming to be "true conservatives" from voting in the GOP primary.

I did my own study a few years ago. People who believe the results would be different if only primaries were "closed" are dead wrong. Their moderate nemesis candidates had won most if not all the "closed" primaries.

But they nevertheless cling to this, among many misconceptions of political mythology.