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

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

I think there are as many definitions or "what's a conservative" as there are people in the country, about 350 million right now.  Not being firm on that definition makes it rather difficult to assess the relative impacts on vote totals.  I see you put "true conservatives" in quotes, and that is a good recognition of that difficult assessments.

I've been surfing the political forums for many years, and I totally agree that "true conservatives" (by their definition) would likely have trouble being elected to anything above Precinct Committeeman.  Can you tell I've spent some time at TOS?   

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

As I said above, close the primaries and that will change.

[Bigun]

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.

All that may very well be true in California but it is not true all over the country! Not by a long shot.

[truth_seeker]

All that may very well be true in California but it is not true all over the country! Not by a long shot.

Then cite some real world example from other "open primary" states, whereby the conservative candidate was prevented the nomination, by cross-over voters.

As I already stated, I investigated the claim a few short years ago, and it was not proved by real world results.

[Bigun]

Just look at any recent Arizona U. S. Senate primary you like.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

You think whatever you like about that.

Lacking the ability to back up your assertions with facts, you retreat into your usual mode.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think there are as many definitions or "what's a conservative" as there are people in the country, about 350 million right now.  Not being firm on that definition makes it rather difficult to assess the relative impacts on vote totals.  I see you put "true conservatives" in quotes, and that is a good recognition of that difficult assessments.

I've been surfing the political forums for many years, and I totally agree that "true conservatives" (by their definition) would likely have trouble being elected to anything above Precinct Committeeman.  Can you tell I've spent some time at TOS?   

As I said above, close the primaries and that will change.

Not being able to agree on one candidate during the primaries, "true conservatives" would love to see a Louisiana-style election where a non-"true conservative" would be forced to garner the highest number of votes to win on two occasions (the primary and the runoff if needed) but a "true conservative" would only need to win the runoff.

That's fair... right?

[Cyber Liberty]

Not being able to agree on one candidate during the primaries, "true conservatives" would love to see a Louisiana-style election where a non-"true conservative" would be forced to garner the highest number of votes to win on two occasions (the primary and the runoff if needed) but a "true conservative" would only need to win the runoff.

That's fair... right?

Right!  No, wait, that's silly.

(I think this would be a reasonable time to point out the "true conservative" did not win in Louisiana.  The "true conservative" endorsed the "conservative who can win" for the runoff, which is actually the way things are supposed to work. Proof of concept that a run-off does not guarantee anything.)

[Cyber Liberty]

Then cite some real world example from other "open primary" states, whereby the conservative candidate was prevented the nomination, by cross-over voters.

As I already stated, I investigated the claim a few short years ago, and it was not proved by real world results.

Your investigation may not have been deep enough.  AZ senatorial election, 2010.  McCain beat a more conservative opponent because enough Dems, posing as Indies, crossed over to vote for him.  There's one firm example.  Same seat, 2004, same thing, so there's another one. 

AZ 2012 is a different case, because Jeff Flake was considered to be the most conservative (his record in the House was pretty good), and since it was an open seat (therefore more competitive), the Dem/Indies voted on the Dem side.  They will go to Flake next election, because Flake turned out not to be any kind of conservative in the Senate.  Then again, Flake may be in trouble because his son was caught letting two dozen good dogs die of heatstroke in a kennel he operated in Gilbert.

[Carling]

  McCain beat a more conservative opponent because enough Dems, posing as Indies, crossed over to vote for him.  There's one firm example. 

The same election where Sarah Palin held fundraisers and campaign events with McCain in order to beat Hayworth?   Hayworth was a horrific candidate, anyhow, but would have been better than McCain.  Yet, Saint Sarah not only endorsed McCain in that primary, she campaigned with him.

Terrible example, IMO.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your investigation may not have been deep enough.  AZ senatorial election, 2010.  McCain beat a more conservative opponent because enough Dems, posing as Indies, crossed over to vote for him.  There's one firm example.  Same seat, 2004, same thing, so there's another one. 

AZ 2012 is a different case, because Jeff Flake was considered to be the most conservative (his record in the House was pretty good), and since it was an open seat (therefore more competitive), the Dem/Indies voted on the Dem side.  They will go to Flake next election, because Flake turned out not to be any kind of conservative in the Senate.  Then again, Flake may be in trouble because his son was caught letting two dozen good dogs die of heatstroke in a kennel he operated in Gilbert.

Wow!

What a great factoid to have in an arsenal in a nation where secret ballot is the rule of law.

These people, did they walk out of the polling places wearing a button saying "I'm a Democrat disguised as an Independent that just voted for the Republican"?

Maybe a lanyard, or a one of those "Hello!" sticky things?

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The same election where Sarah Palin held fundraisers and campaign events with McCain in order to beat Hayworth?   Hayworth was a horrific candidate, anyhow, but would have been better than McCain.  Yet, Saint Sarah not only endorsed McCain in that primary, she campaigned with him.

Terrible example, IMO.

Is this the same John McCain that's been winning Arizona Senate elections since 1987?

[Cyber Liberty]

The same election where Sarah Palin held fundraisers and campaign events with McCain in order to beat Hayworth?   Hayworth was a horrific candidate, anyhow, but would have been better than McCain.  Yet, Saint Sarah not only endorsed McCain in that primary, she campaigned with him.

Terrible example, IMO.

It takes a true believer of the media to think Sarah Palin had any effect on that election.  She did not.  I live here, so I don't have to get the news filtered through the national outlets.  And yes, there appeared to be issues with Hayworth.  McCain having millions and millions of dollars worth of warchest (left over from the campaign he didn't have in '08) did a pretty good job of making Hayworth look foolish for the national media.  I knew Hayworth personally, so I know better, and I give people a pass for being suckered by the media again.

Great example, IMO.

[Cyber Liberty]

Is this the same John McCain that's been winning Arizona Senate elections since 1987?

And House elections since 1982.  But everybody loves to blame Palin for him.

[Cyber Liberty]

Wow!

What a great factoid to have in an arsenal in a nation where secret ballot is the rule of law.

These people, did they walk out of the polling places wearing a button saying "I'm a Democrat disguised as an Independent that just voted for the Republican"?

Maybe a lanyard, or a one of those "Hello!" sticky things?

 

Good point.  I was going by the general breakdown of the electorate before the Primaries were opened to Indies.  Republican numbers stayed about the same, and Dems went down by about the same amount the Indies went up.  So yes, what I said is just a guess, based on more than the little stickers they give out.

Ballots are secret, but what's not a secret is how many Indies picked up GOP ballots and how many picked up Dem ballots.  The effect of Indy votes on the election is indeed knowable.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Wow!

What a great factoid to have in an arsenal in a nation where secret ballot is the rule of law.

These people, did they walk out of the polling places wearing a button saying "I'm a Democrat disguised as an Independent that just voted for the Republican"?

Maybe a lanyard, or a one of those "Hello!" sticky things?

 

You are truly a gift from above.  You keep posting, and I'll keep laughing with you.

[Cyber Liberty]

You are truly a gift from above.  You keep posting, and I'll keep laughing with you.

You're as funny as they come.  Sorry about your reading comprehension abilities though....

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Sorry about your reading comprehension abilities though....

I accept your apology.

[Carling]

It takes a true believer of the media to think Sarah Palin had any effect on that election.  She did not.

True or false.  Palin appeared at a campaign event with John McCain during primary season. 

[Oceander]

Wow!

What a great factoid to have in an arsenal in a nation where secret ballot is the rule of law.

These people, did they walk out of the polling places wearing a button saying "I'm a Democrat disguised as an Independent that just voted for the Republican"?

Maybe a lanyard, or a one of those "Hello!" sticky things?

 

That's a little uncalled for.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's a little uncalled for.

Noted and dealt with privately. There is a fine line of distinction between funny/sarcastic and snarky/smarmy.

I'd like to see on forum admonitions of inappropriate/uncalled for posts being applied on a consistent basis however. None should be able to brag about their ability to cast insults and ad hominem unchallenged by management. 

[Cyber Liberty]

True or false.  Palin appeared at a campaign event with John McCain during primary season.

True.  Irrelevant.  Didn't get him one vote.  I stand by my original assertion.

[Oceander]

Noted and dealt with privately. There is a fine line of distinction between funny/sarcastic and snarky/smarmy.

Yes, there is.

I'd like to see on forum admonitions of inappropriate/uncalled for posts being applied on a consistent basis however. None should be able to brag about their ability to cast insults and ad hominem unchallenged by management. 

(a) take it up with management, and (b) life isn't fair.