2022 Elections Thread

[SDHornet]

[GannonFan]

Half of Republican voters didn't put the other Republican as their second choice (which would've won Palin the seat).

That's on Palin, not ranked choice voting.

Also, such a vote split is exactly the situation ranked choice is designed to correct. You can have more parties and more than one candidate per party, since the first round winner won't just win on "everyone else split their vote."

First time it was used, shouldn't be a surprise people didn't get it right. Ranked choice and jungle primaries are both equally stupid ideas.

I don't mind that Palin lost, we're all better off with her out of politics. But, as for ranked voting, I'm decidedly against it. I want a chance to ultimately pick between finalists for the job and I don't want my second or third choice, or anyone else's second or third choices, dictating how the election ultimately goes. I know people like that idea that the ultimate winner always gets 50%+ of the vote once you knock out everyone but the winner and runner-up, but that's just window dressing for what was a split election anyway. I don't like the idea of pretending it was something it wasn't and that's there's some kind of mandate that comes out of it as a result.

[UNI88]

First time it was used, shouldn't be a surprise people didn't get it right. Ranked choice and jungle primaries are both equally stupid ideas.

I don't mind that Palin lost, we're all better off with her out of politics. But, as for ranked voting, I'm decidedly against it. I want a chance to ultimately pick between finalists for the job and I don't want my second or third choice, or anyone else's second or third choices, dictating how the election ultimately goes. I know people like that idea that the ultimate winner always gets 50%+ of the vote once you knock out everyone but the winner and runner-up, but that's just window dressing for what was a split election anyway. I don't like the idea of pretending it was something it wasn't and that's there's some kind of mandate that comes out of it as a result.

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

[GannonFan]

I don't mind that Palin lost, we're all better off with her out of politics. But, as for ranked voting, I'm decidedly against it. I want a chance to ultimately pick between finalists for the job and I don't want my second or third choice, or anyone else's second or third choices, dictating how the election ultimately goes. I know people like that idea that the ultimate winner always gets 50%+ of the vote once you knock out everyone but the winner and runner-up, but that's just window dressing for what was a split election anyway. I don't like the idea of pretending it was something it wasn't and that's there's some kind of mandate that comes out of it as a result.

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

Eh, I don't oppose closed primaries. Political parties should be able to put up the candidate they want to represent them. I don't have to like it, but if the Dems or the GOP want a particular candidate, then go ahead and put forward that candidate, for good or ill. Heck, there's no guarantee you'll get the more "moderate" candidate if you allow the opposing party to vote for your party's candidate. Take this current election cycle. Despite Biden declaring the seventh circle of hell has opened and that's where the MAGA GOP got their candidates from, there are plenty of examples of primary elections where Democrats crossed parties in open primaries to vote for the more MAGA GOP candidate rather than the moderate GOP candidate in the hopes that would improve the election chances of the Democrat in the fall.

[UNI88]

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

Eh, I don't oppose closed primaries. Political parties should be able to put up the candidate they want to represent them. I don't have to like it, but if the Dems or the GOP want a particular candidate, then go ahead and put forward that candidate, for good or ill. Heck, there's no guarantee you'll get the more "moderate" candidate if you allow the opposing party to vote for your party's candidate. Take this current election cycle. Despite Biden declaring the seventh circle of hell has opened and that's where the MAGA GOP got their candidates from, there are plenty of examples of primary elections where Democrats crossed parties in open primaries to vote for the more MAGA GOP candidate rather than the moderate GOP candidate in the hopes that would improve the election chances of the Democrat in the fall.

Not just an open primary but an open, non-partisan primary. There is one primary and the top two vote getters face off in the general election. I believe Alaska does this with the top four vote getters.

Maybe someone like MTG or Omar gets the most votes but the second leading vote getter is a more moderate challenger from their party. Opposing party voters who voted for their party's candidate in the primary, might give the moderate enough votes to win the general election. Fewer extremists in Congress hopefully means more respect and civility and Congress actually does its job.

I have mixed feelings about this but it feels like the parties are controlled by the fringes and it is hurting the country.

[houndawg]

I don't mind that Palin lost, we're all better off with her out of politics. But, as for ranked voting, I'm decidedly against it. I want a chance to ultimately pick between finalists for the job and I don't want my second or third choice, or anyone else's second or third choices, dictating how the election ultimately goes. I know people like that idea that the ultimate winner always gets 50%+ of the vote once you knock out everyone but the winner and runner-up, but that's just window dressing for what was a split election anyway. I don't like the idea of pretending it was something it wasn't and that's there's some kind of mandate that comes out of it as a result.

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

Interesting - what I see it doing is diluting the power of the base in primaries and increasing the power of the independent voters. Not a bad thing I don't think...

[houndawg]

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

Eh, I don't oppose closed primaries. Political parties should be able to put up the candidate they want to represent them. I don't have to like it, but if the Dems or the GOP want a particular candidate, then go ahead and put forward that candidate, for good or ill. Heck, there's no guarantee you'll get the more "moderate" candidate if you allow the opposing party to vote for your party's candidate. Take this current election cycle. Despite Biden declaring the seventh circle of hell has opened and that's where the MAGA GOP got their candidates from, there are plenty of examples of primary elections where Democrats crossed parties in open primaries to vote for the more MAGA GOP candidate rather than the moderate GOP candidate in the hopes that would improve the election chances of the Democrat in the fall.

This, because if I recall, the RNC and the DNC are private organizations and under no obligation to nominate the candidate with the most votes.

[JohnStOnge]

I think looking at two pages at 538 really illustrate the structural problem Democrats face every time.

The first is the Generic Congressional Ballot polling summary page at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/ .

Right now it has the Democrats with a slight lead in polling for the overall vote; 44.6% to 43.6%. So you would think maybe Democrats are rated as having something close to a 50:50 shot at winning.

The second is the forecast at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ast/house/ .

it has Republicans at a 76% chance of winning. So, instead of Democrats looking at a 50:50 chance, they are looking at a 24:76 chance.

The situation in my own State illustrates the problem. According to a Louisiana Secretary of State reported dated today, there are 1,190,831 Democrats, 1,002,624 Republicans, and 813,072 others registered in the State. Even if you counted all of the "others" as Republicans, Democrats would be 40% of the voters in the State. Yet they only have a shot at 1 of the State's 6 House seats (17%). Gerrymandering. I think it is a curse on the United States system. Very wrong. But very difficult to do anything about.

[JohnStOnge]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

[GannonFan]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

The both are pretty poor choices. Believe me, I'm in PA, I get to see them both in a fair amount of detail. PA's going to end up with two of the worst Senators of any state (we already have Casey) by the time this thing is done. I'm sure there are a few states out there with worse pairings of Senators, but there can't be that many.

[kalm]

[UNI88]

Did Conks believe that broads would just stay in the kitchen making sammies?

[GannonFan]

Did Conks believe that broads would just stay in the kitchen making sammies?

I think it's a calculated reality. Would the Conks who support Dobbs rather still have Roe v Wade in place and have the better electoral advantage this fall (i.e. able to win the Senate and the House) or would they rather have Roe v Wade struck down and have a lesser advantage in the fall (i.e. win the House, not win the Senate)? Some of those folks who were anti-Roe were at it for a good 50 years. Taken in that view, a 50 year fight versus a midterm election somewhere along the way, I think they would be happy with the anti-Roe win. Now, the politicians wouldn't say that, they love wedge issues and to lose a wedge issue would mean they couldn't keep using it in the future. It's why immigration is never solved - neither side is interested in losing it was a wedge issue. I'm sure the immigrants would like it solved, but they don't vote (potentially) and so it remains a wedge issue.

GOP has other issues holding them back. We've talked quite a bit about many crappy candidates that got through the primary and are just not competitive enough in a general election. That's real and in some cases the biggest issue. You also have to look at the House and realize there's even a smaller number of competitive districts than there was just 2 or 4 years ago. Libs on this board like to denounce the gerrymandering done by the GOP in red states, but the Dems are just as good, if not better, of gerrymandering in the blue states to their advantage. There's like maybe 30-40 races, out of 435, that are potentially even up in the air. That's crazy when you think of it. The other races are just down to whomever the party in control in that region picked to be in that seat. If we're going to talk about democracy being under threat, let's talk about that.

[BDKJMU]

Obvioulsy not well. No wonder he is ducking debating Oz.

[GannonFan]

Obvioulsy not well. No wonder he is ducking debating Oz.

He was never a brain surgeon anyway. Like I said, I think he means well and his heart is in the right place. But I don't Oz is a bad guy either so it's not like any of these guys are awful human beings. But I expect more out of a US Senator. I told my wife the governor's race is easy (I wouldn't vote for Mastrioni on a bet) and my local rep is a Donk and she's been good in office so I'm voting for her again. But I haven't decided in the Senate race yet and I don't vote for party I vote for the person. Fetterman needs to show a little more than just having a campaign team that's good at snarky internet memes and tweets.

[SDHornet]

What about open, non-partisan primaries and then the two highest primary vote getters face off in the general election? In a heavy red or blue district you might get a more moderate candidate from the same party facing off against a more extreme candidate. Supporters of the opposing party will vote for the moderate. The moderate wins if they appeal to more voters and better represent the district than the extremist.

Eh, I don't oppose closed primaries. Political parties should be able to put up the candidate they want to represent them. I don't have to like it, but if the Dems or the GOP want a particular candidate, then go ahead and put forward that candidate, for good or ill. Heck, there's no guarantee you'll get the more "moderate" candidate if you allow the opposing party to vote for your party's candidate. Take this current election cycle. Despite Biden declaring the seventh circle of hell has opened and that's where the MAGA GOP got their candidates from, there are plenty of examples of primary elections where Democrats crossed parties in open primaries to vote for the more MAGA GOP candidate rather than the moderate GOP candidate in the hopes that would improve the election chances of the Democrat in the fall.

Agreed. Also with open primaries, you can get opposing folks voting for the more unlikable/less likely to win candidate in the other party. So in a way you can not have the "better" of the two candidates from each party facing off.

[SDHornet]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

Have you not seen the guy to to put together a coherent sentence? He's worse off mentally than Biden.

[Baldy]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

Since he's dodging the debates, he makes himself an easy target.

[UNI88]

Eh, I don't oppose closed primaries. Political parties should be able to put up the candidate they want to represent them. I don't have to like it, but if the Dems or the GOP want a particular candidate, then go ahead and put forward that candidate, for good or ill. Heck, there's no guarantee you'll get the more "moderate" candidate if you allow the opposing party to vote for your party's candidate. Take this current election cycle. Despite Biden declaring the seventh circle of hell has opened and that's where the MAGA GOP got their candidates from, there are plenty of examples of primary elections where Democrats crossed parties in open primaries to vote for the more MAGA GOP candidate rather than the moderate GOP candidate in the hopes that would improve the election chances of the Democrat in the fall.

Agreed. Also with open primaries, you can get opposing folks voting for the more unlikable/less likely to win candidate in the other party. So in a way you can not have the "better" of the two candidates from each party facing off.

An open, non-partisan primary is a single primary where the 2 (or 4 in Alaska) candidates with the most votes face off in the general election. In a heavy red/blue district the 2nd vote highest vote getter might be another Republican/Democrat. Rather than facing someone from the opposing party in the general election, a candidate like MTG or Omar might face a more moderate representative from their own party in the general election. The moderate could get votes from moderates and the other party and win the general election.

It's far from perfect and there are probably unexpected consequences but it would dampen the control that the extremes have over elections.

I think it's complete BS that my tax dollars are used to fund closed primary elections that facilitate the extremes pushing their partisan agendas. Closed primaries should be paid for by the parties.

[houndawg]

Did Conks believe that broads would just stay in the kitchen making sammies?

Sammy "the Weasel" Alito thought so.

[houndawg]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

Since he's dodging the debates, he makes himself an easy target.

Isn't that normal procedure for the candidate with the lead?





"Dr." Oz...

[Baldy]

Since he's dodging the debates, he makes himself an easy target.

Isn't that normal procedure for the candidate with the lead?

Depends on which party is doing the dodging.
If Oz was in the lead and dodging debates, he would be in the direct cross hairs of the national media.

"Dr." Oz...

He's a quack, but unlike FLOTUS, he's an actual Dr.

[kalm]

Are people seriously making fun of Fetterman when his opponent is Dr. Oz?

Have you not seen the guy to to put together a coherent sentence? He's worse off mentally than Biden.

Well he did have a stroke.

(They take time to recover from…including speech. But they do recover).

[kalm]

Have you not seen the guy to to put together a coherent sentence? He's worse off mentally than Biden.

Well he did have a stroke.

(They take time to recover from…including speech. But they do recover).

((Sadly…Oz’s douchebaggery might be terminal))

[BDKJMU]

Obvioulsy not well. No wonder he is ducking debating Oz.

He was never a brain surgeon anyway. Like I said, I think he means well and his heart is in the right place. But I don't Oz is a bad guy either so it's not like any of these guys are awful human beings. But I expect more out of a US Senator. I told my wife the governor's race is easy (I wouldn't vote for Mastrioni on a bet) and my local rep is a Donk and she's been good in office so I'm voting for her again. But I haven't decided in the Senate race yet and I don't vote for party I vote for the person. Fetterman needs to show a little more than just having a campaign team that's good at snarky internet memes and tweets.

So I take it she's not a CPC (congressional progressive caucus) type left winger?