Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
TheCid

2018 Elections

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So more then one candidate per party can be on the ballot in the general election for the governor's race OR are these 'lot of Democrats' running ads for your soon to come primary election?

I ask because here in CA we just had our open primary (truly open since candidates from all parties are on one ballot, and every voter uses this one ballot).     For the general the two candidates with the most votes are on the general.    

 

Honestly, I've been wondering that myself. I would have thought that the primary season would have passed. I'll have to look it up. Not being a registered party member, I don't get mailers from candidates, so I'm not sure, and it's been so long since we've had an open-field governor's race that I don't remember the old ballot layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida will have primary elections on August 28. That's a closed primary, too, so only party members can vote for party candidates. I won't be able to vote until the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Florida will have primary elections on August 28. That's a closed primary, too, so only party members can vote for party candidates. I won't be able to vote until the general election.

Thanks for the info.   The primary winners have a much shorter general election campaign 'window' in FL (around 2 months), then CA (around 4 months).     Don't know if that is a good thing or not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Thanks for the info.   The primary winners have a much shorter general election campaign 'window' in FL (around 2 months), then CA (around 4 months).     Don't know if that is a good thing or not.   

In Kansas we have a closed primary as well-- you can only vote if you're a Democrat or a Republican. But if you're a registered voter and an independent, you can declare yourself a member of one of those parties at the polling place and vote in the primary.

The Kansas primary is the first Tuesday in August.

I have been a poll worker for over 10 years and people still come inpissed off that they cannot vote because they don't belong to one of the two major parties. It does seem a little unfair to me, but that's the way our state law has always been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

In Kansas we have a closed primary as well-- you can only vote if you're a Democrat or a Republican. But if you're a registered voter and an independent, you can declare yourself a member of one of those parties at the polling place and vote in the primary.

The Kansas primary is the first Tuesday in August.

I have been a poll worker for over 10 years and people still come inpissed off that they cannot vote because they don't belong to one of the two major parties. It does seem a little unfair to me, but that's the way our state law has always been.

GOPers in S.C. are pushing hard to have closed primaries as well.  However, can't get enough votes to get it out of the senate, even though they have a large majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

This has happened to me so many times that I have a script.

It goes something like this: Get me somebody who can speak English because I can't understand what you're saying. After I'm on hold for a while I just hang up and call again hoping for someone I can understand.

The funny part is, the customer service rep who cannot speak clear English keeps on repeating their script over and over again so that it starts to sound just like a comedy routine from Shelley Berman or Bob Newhart.

They have a script. It's only fair that we have one too. I just got tired of it and got

voicemail. Saves a lot of time and I'm hoping it will finally discourage them at last.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheCid said:

Actually Warren would be more likely to do that, based on what he is now saying.  He is more Trump than McMaster.

 

I give them two minutes and then ask for a supervisor.  Usually that gets me to someone else, but not always.  I never get a last name no matter how many times I ask.  When I get the supervisor, I also ask for his/her extension.

Have noticed that I speak to people who can communicate in English more often now than in past.  They do have a script and I am sure they are evaluated on whether or not they fully pursue the script before transferring the calls.

Just in my unscientific counting I see a lot more McMaster ads than Warren ads. I guess

Warren saw the (Trump) light. Just saw an ad about Weak John Warren, weak in regards

to Communist China. That's a phrase you don't hear much anymore. I was hoping this woman

could solve the problem, but she couldn't. I just went out an bought a new monitor and bingo,

problem solved. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estimates are that less than 20% of registered voters in S.C. will vote in the primary run-off.  This decides the GOP candidates for governor, atty. gen. and 4th US House seat.  That is one Trey Gowdy is leaving.

So, less than 20% of voters will decide on who the next governor, atty. gen and 4th District rep. are since the Dems stand zero chance of winning. If races are close, it could mean 11% actually decide.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Estimates are that less than 20% of registered voters in S.C. will vote in the primary run-off.  This decides the GOP candidates for governor, atty. gen. and 4th US House seat.  That is one Trey Gowdy is leaving.

So, less than 20% of voters will decide on who the next governor, atty. gen and 4th District rep. are since the Dems stand zero chance of winning. If races are close, it could mean 11% actually decide.

If SC had an open primary like CA (one ballot for ALL voters and one can vote for anyone on the ballot, with only the top 2, regardless of party, getting on the general election ballot),  and voter turnout for this primary was, say around 70%,  do you believe the outcome would be any different?         

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

If SC had an open primary like CA (one ballot for ALL voters and one can vote for anyone on the ballot, with only the top 2, regardless of party, getting on the general election ballot),  and voter turnout for this primary was, say around 70%,  do you believe the outcome would be any different?         

 

We don't even hit 70% for the general elections, so this can't happen.  Based on what has happened for decades, the top two finishers in state wide races and 6 of 7 US House races would almost always be Republicans.  Of course, if there were 10 Republicans in one race and only two Democrats, the Dems might get second place and then lose in Nov.

I am more knowledgeable about the areas north of Columbia (center of state) which are very Republican.  What few Democrats in elective office are in the lower part of the state, but even then it is usually the few minority-majority districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheCid said:

We don't even hit 70% for the general elections, so this can't happen.  Based on what has happened for decades, the top two finishers in state wide races and 6 of 7 US House races would almost always be Republicans.  Of course, if there were 10 Republicans in one race and only two Democrats, the Dems might get second place and then lose in Nov.

I am more knowledgeable about the areas north of Columbia (center of state) which are very Republican.  What few Democrats in elective office are in the lower part of the state, but even then it is usually the few minority-majority districts.

You misunderstood what I was asking;  IF turnout was say around 70% would it make any difference?   I assume NO,  and therefore it really isn't only 11% that are deciding the outcome (since even if turnout was higher it wouldn't change the outcome).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

You misunderstood what I was asking;  IF turnout was say around 70% would it make any difference?   I assume NO,  and therefore it really isn't only 11% that are deciding the outcome (since even if turnout was higher it wouldn't change the outcome).

 

I think I understand you, but since we have never approached over about 30% in the primaries we will never know what 70% would accomplish.  Also depends on who the 70% are.  If the minorities, younger people, working class, etc. that seldom vote turned out, it probably would make a difference.

Only 56% of voting age population voted in US in 2016 election.  So as we know a minority (less than 30%) of Americans voted for Trump.

In 2010 when Nikki Haley won the runoff, only 13% of voters voted in the Republican Primary.  About 7% of voters chose Haley who is now UN Ambassador.

As for the 11% (or less), they are the ones who decide which candidate wins and therefore decide the outcome.  Also, since only about 20% voted in the primary itself, that 11% of that 20% decided who would be in the runoff.  Here again we are talking percentage of voters not people eligible to vote.

May be oversimplifying, but about 11% decides which two are in the runoff and then 11% decide who wins.  So a very small group of eligible voters and registered voters do decide who wins the elections.  It may be a Republican in any case, but which Republican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard W. Painter @RWPUSA 11h11 hours ago

 
 

Winning strategy in November: Ditch the partisan rhetoric;

reject PAC money.

Convince liberal and conservative voters that: Trump is authoritarian and must go;

single payer health insurance is in their economic interest;

we need sensible gun laws

and we must protect the planet.

:unsure: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

Richard W. Painter @RWPUSA 11h11 hours ago

 
 

Winning strategy in November: Ditch the partisan rhetoric;

reject PAC money.

Convince liberal and conservative voters that: Trump is authoritarian and must go;

single payer health insurance is in their economic interest;

we need sensible gun laws

and we must protect the planet.

:unsure: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Uh,  Trump isn't a candidate.    In addition none of those policy positions above is a winning strategy for Dems outside of CA or NY.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.newsweek.com/no-there-wont-be-big-blue-wave-opinion-990715?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

NO, THERE WON'T BE A BIG BLUE WAVE | OPINION

By now a lot of professional Democrats—campaign consultants, party leaders and the like—are probably wishing they’d never heard the term “big, blue wave.” It set expectations so high for the next election that almost any outcome short of a total rout of the GOP will go into the record books as a disappointment.

If the parties fight to a draw—GOP ends up in control on both sides of the Capitol with a diminished majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and better numbers than it currently enjoys in the U.S. Senate, and the number of Republican governors and GOP-led state legislative chambers does not change appreciably (which is how things would probably turn out were the election held today)—then the Democrats will have been seen to have suffered a major defeat.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other leading Democrats had hoped to nationalize the election by making it a referendum on President Donald Trump’s first two years in office. They may still get the opportunity to do that—Trump, as the events on the U.S. border with Mexico reminds us, is often his own worst enemy. Nevertheless, most of the news is good as the economy has roared back to life and created enough jobs that the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.8 percent, the lowest in nearly a decade.

With the nation experiencing a long-overdue economic recovery, the idea that all politics is local, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass. famously said, may be outdone by all politics being of the pocketbook. If people are voting, as Ronald Reagan urged them to in 1980, on whether they’re better off now than they were two years ago, Trump may win that argument hands down.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

http://www.newsweek.com/no-there-wont-be-big-blue-wave-opinion-990715?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

NO, THERE WON'T BE A BIG BLUE WAVE | OPINION

By now a lot of professional Democrats—campaign consultants, party leaders and the like—are probably wishing they’d never heard the term “big, blue wave.” It set expectations so high for the next election that almost any outcome short of a total rout of the GOP will go into the record books as a disappointment.

If the parties fight to a draw—GOP ends up in control on both sides of the Capitol with a diminished majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and better numbers than it currently enjoys in the U.S. Senate, and the number of Republican governors and GOP-led state legislative chambers does not change appreciably (which is how things would probably turn out were the election held today)—then the Democrats will have been seen to have suffered a major defeat.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other leading Democrats had hoped to nationalize the election by making it a referendum on President Donald Trump’s first two years in office. They may still get the opportunity to do that—Trump, as the events on the U.S. border with Mexico reminds us, is often his own worst enemy. Nevertheless, most of the news is good as the economy has roared back to life and created enough jobs that the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.8 percent, the lowest in nearly a decade.

With the nation experiencing a long-overdue economic recovery, the idea that all politics is local, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass. famously said, may be outdone by all politics being of the pocketbook. If people are voting, as Ronald Reagan urged them to in 1980, on whether they’re better off now than they were two years ago, Trump may win that argument hands down.

This is what I have been fearing might happen.  Rather than ginning up their voters, the Dems may actually be encouraging more Trump/GOP type voters to vote.

Saw an interesting article the other day.  Whites have highest percentage of people to actually vote, followed by blacks, followed by Hispanics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted in GOP primary this morning.  Will be interesting to see if Trump and Pence breezing into SC this past week will pull it out for McMaster.  Two GOP candidates in runoff-one backed by Trump and Pence and one that says he is more like Trump than McMaster.

This might be an indication of what the Trump endorsement is really worth.  Spoke with a friend who lives on coast where Trump backed the Sanford opponent in GOP primary.  He says Sanford lost because he really hasn't done much for his district over last four years.  Trump's endorsement for Arrington was in afternoon of the primary vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say no to High Tax Henry. Saw that ad a day or two ago. Fairly

effective, but it may not be enough to beat Trump's mini-me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Just say no to High Tax Henry. Saw that ad a day or two ago. Fairly

effective, but it may not be enough to beat Trump's mini-me.

Actually that was misleading, if not an outright lie.  McMaster vetoed the long overdue increase in the gasoline tax (49th in nation before).  Legislature over rode his veto.

Anyway, McMaster won.  Warren is typical of too many people who do not have a clue as to how S.C. government actually operates.  Being in the military does not necessarily qualify you for a government position.  Nor does becoming a multi-millionaire operating a mortgage company.

Ironically the Dem candidate (James Smith) is a major in the S.C. National Guard.  He had been a JAG officer in the Guard, but resigned his commission and went through infantry basic.  Then went to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Eventually became an infantry officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Actually that was misleading, if not an outright lie.  McMaster vetoed the long overdue increase in the gasoline tax (49th in nation before).  Legislature over rode his veto.

Anyway, McMaster won.  Warren is typical of too many people who do not have a clue as to how S.C. government actually operates.  Being in the military does not necessarily qualify you for a government position.  Nor does becoming a multi-millionaire operating a mortgage company.

Ironically the Dem candidate (James Smith) is a major in the S.C. National Guard.  He had been a JAG officer in the Guard, but resigned his commission and went through infantry basic.  Then went to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Eventually became an infantry officer.

Oops, I got the slogan wrong anyway. It was Tax Hike Henry. Most political ads from both

parties are usually not completely truthful. I agree that being in the military doesn't necessarily

quality one for a government office, but it usually helps, especially in red states. Maybe McMaster

would have won anyway, but sticking so close to Donny was likely a big advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP PoliticsVerified account @AP_Politics 2h2 hours ago

 
 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old liberal activist, ousted Rep. Joe Crowley in New York, a stunning defeat that suddenly forced Democrats to confront their internal divisions.

 

-------------------------------------

Two Very Different Democrats, Joe Crowley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Squared Off....

".... between 31-year elected official Rep. Joseph Crowley and 28-year-old progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a contest between establishment and outsider, old guard and upstart, experience and progress, status quo and change. ...

the difference between lip service and substantive change, between a movement powered by small donors and a politician funded by Wall Street and luxury real estate developers. Whereas Crowley framed issues in terms of what he thinks his constituents want, Ocasio articulated them as goals she could deliver. ....

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/two-very-different-democrats-joe-crowley-and-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-squared-off-in-debate-friday-night/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...