2016 Republican Primary

[dbackjon]

That's one thing I don't understand/agree with in terms of reporting. The clock will strike 8pm, with 1% of precincts reporting and they'll call a state only to have it overturned by the numbers.

And imagine you've been standing in line at the polling place already for a long time when you finally see on your cell phone that CNN has called the election for Clinton 61%-36%. Are you going to stay in line? Hell no.

Yes, because Arizona is not a winner-take-all state, and the people standing in line did affect the total delegate apportionment.

Should it have been called? How are you going to stop a free press from making a prediction? They are not certifying anything. Just a prediction based on exit polling, early ballots, etc.

[Ivytalk]

And imagine you've been standing in line at the polling place already for a long time when you finally see on your cell phone that CNN has called the election for Clinton 61%-36%. Are you going to stay in line? Hell no.

Yes, because Arizona is not a winner-take-all state, and the people standing in line did affect the total delegate apportionment.

Should it have been called? How are you going to stop a free press from making a prediction? They are not certifying anything. Just a prediction based on exit polling, early ballots, etc.

True enough. Better that ABC trips over its own dyck than have an unlawful prior restraint.

[Ibanez]

And imagine you've been standing in line at the polling place already for a long time when you finally see on your cell phone that CNN has called the election for Clinton 61%-36%. Are you going to stay in line? Hell no.

Yes, because Arizona is not a winner-take-all state, and the people standing in line did affect the total delegate apportionment.

Should it have been called? How are you going to stop a free press from making a prediction? They are not certifying anything. Just a prediction based on exit polling, early ballots, etc.

Is there no obligation to not interfere with an election? The media should report the news, but be careful making predictions on elections when voters are still standing in line waiting to vote. Republican or Democrat, it matters.

[dbackjon]

Yes, because Arizona is not a winner-take-all state, and the people standing in line did affect the total delegate apportionment.

Should it have been called? How are you going to stop a free press from making a prediction? They are not certifying anything. Just a prediction based on exit polling, early ballots, etc.

Is there no obligation to not interfere with an election? The media should report the news, but be careful making predictions on elections when voters are still standing in line waiting to vote. Republican or Democrat, it matters.

How are they interfering? Should a press not report anything? Does an article prior to an election predicting a blow out discourage voting? Probably. Should those be banned as well.


Should the Secretary of State release any results before the last voter has voted - no. That is completely different, and a legitimate concern.

[Ibanez]

Is there no obligation to not interfere with an election? The media should report the news, but be careful making predictions on elections when voters are still standing in line waiting to vote. Republican or Democrat, it matters.

How are they interfering? Should a press not report anything? Does an article prior to an election predicting a blow out discourage voting? Probably. Should those be banned as well.


Should the Secretary of State release any results before the last voter has voted - no. That is completely different, and a legitimate concern.

I didn't say they interfered. I asked a question.

Read my second sentence.

It's akin to poisoning the well. All i'm saying, is you have to be careful.

[Ibanez]

[Ivytalk]

[SDHornet]

Is there no obligation to not interfere with an election? The media should report the news, but be careful making predictions on elections when voters are still standing in line waiting to vote. Republican or Democrat, it matters.

How are they interfering? Should a press not report anything? Does an article prior to an election predicting a blow out discourage voting? Probably. Should those be banned as well.


Should the Secretary of State release any results before the last voter has voted - no. That is completely different, and a legitimate concern.

This is both rich and entertaining coming from a lock-step donk establishment voter like you. I seem to recall leftist outrage when the 2000 FL Nov race was called in favor in Bush long before the polls in the panhandle closed and how people/pundits claimed that impacted the outcome. Oh the irony.

[SDHornet]

[dbackjon]

How are they interfering? Should a press not report anything? Does an article prior to an election predicting a blow out discourage voting? Probably. Should those be banned as well.


Should the Secretary of State release any results before the last voter has voted - no. That is completely different, and a legitimate concern.

This is both rich and entertaining coming from a lock-step donk establishment voter like you. I seem to recall leftist outrage when the 2000 FL Nov race was called in favor in Bush long before the polls in the panhandle closed and how people/pundits claimed that impacted the outcome. Oh the irony.

Nothing ironic about it. If people are going to give up, they are morons.

The Press can do what they want - it is when the state government starts releasing voters totals before everyone has voted that is an issue for me.

[kalm]

And imagine you've been standing in line at the polling place already for a long time when you finally see on your cell phone that CNN has called the election for Clinton 61%-36%. Are you going to stay in line? Hell no.

Yes, because Arizona is not a winner-take-all state, and the people standing in line did affect the total delegate apportionment.

Should it have been called? How are you going to stop a free press from making a prediction? They are not certifying anything. Just a prediction based on exit polling, early ballots, etc.

Good point, but I'm not sure the voters are that savvy.

[bluehenbillk]

Cruz & Kasich should head out, or just stay in California. All of the upcoming primaries this month, which are all in the Northeast are ranging anywhere from Trump decent size wins, to Trump outright routs.

Cali could be the GOP establishments last stand.

[SDHornet]

Cruz & Kasich should head out, or just stay in California. All of the upcoming primaries this month, which are all in the Northeast are ranging anywhere from Trump decent size wins, to Trump outright routs.

Cali could be the GOP establishments last stand.

Cruz doesn't know enough Spanish to stay here. Texas and/or canada (montanada maybe?) can keep that puto.

[bluehenbillk]

The primary system needs a complete overhaul. Pennsylvania is a prime example. Only just under 1/4 of the delegates get awarded to the winner. The rest is complicated. Not only do voters need to vote for a candidate, they also need to vote for delegates. For example in my district, one delegate candidate will only vote for Trump, two only for Cruz, and the rest just say they'll either go with the winner of the district or the state.

Guaranteed there will be tens of thousands of voters statewide who won't research this & will vote for the candidate they want, and then vote for a delegate that is going to stand with the opposite candidate....

[GannonFan]

The primary system needs a complete overhaul. Pennsylvania is a prime example. Only just under 1/4 of the delegates get awarded to the winner. The rest is complicated. Not only do voters need to vote for a candidate, they also need to vote for delegates. For example in my district, one delegate candidate will only vote for Trump, two only for Cruz, and the rest just say they'll either go with the winner of the district or the state.

Guaranteed there will be tens of thousands of voters statewide who won't research this & will vote for the candidate they want, and then vote for a delegate that is going to stand with the opposite candidate....

Since primaries are basically private affairs of the political parties, it's hard to really change them. Each party can put up for the Presidential election whomever they want to by whatever means they choose. The fall election itself is what can be changed, the primaries, eh, not a lot that really can be done that isn't done through the parties. If we want to change these, people will need to get into the parties and change them, not just leave them to the JSO fanatics that currently pull the strings inside the parties.

[YoUDeeMan]

The primary system needs a complete overhaul. Pennsylvania is a prime example. Only just under 1/4 of the delegates get awarded to the winner. The rest is complicated. Not only do voters need to vote for a candidate, they also need to vote for delegates. For example in my district, one delegate candidate will only vote for Trump, two only for Cruz, and the rest just say they'll either go with the winner of the district or the state.

Guaranteed there will be tens of thousands of voters statewide who won't research this & will vote for the candidate they want, and then vote for a delegate that is going to stand with the opposite candidate....

Since primaries are basically private affairs of the political parties, it's hard to really change them. Each party can put up for the Presidential election whomever they want to by whatever means they choose. The fall election itself is what can be changed, the primaries, eh, not a lot that really can be done that isn't done through the parties. If we want to change these, people will need to get into the parties and change them, not just leave them to the JSO fanatics that currently pull the strings inside the parties.

Are the primaries funded by taxpayer money?

If so, then we should be able to have a say in how they are run...or get federal and state tax money out of the primaries.

[kalm]

Since primaries are basically private affairs of the political parties, it's hard to really change them. Each party can put up for the Presidential election whomever they want to by whatever means they choose. The fall election itself is what can be changed, the primaries, eh, not a lot that really can be done that isn't done through the parties. If we want to change these, people will need to get into the parties and change them, not just leave them to the JSO fanatics that currently pull the strings inside the parties.

Are the primaries funded by taxpayer money?

If so, then we should be able to have a say in how they are run...or get federal and state tax money out of the primaries.

That's the problem. The parties have too much influence over the entire election process and the media is complicit.

[bluehenbillk]

I would put the # at 20% as a maximum for the percentage of voters that will have any clue whatsoever what delegate(s) they are voting for & for whom those delegates will be aligned with.

It's great that the November election is straight forward but these insane processes determine who makes it there. I'm shocked the media doesn't make more of this.

[bluehenbillk]

I would put the # at 20% as a maximum for the percentage of voters that will have any clue whatsoever what delegate(s) they are voting for & for whom those delegates will be aligned with.

It's great that the November election is straight forward but these insane processes determine who makes it there. I'm shocked the media doesn't make more of this.

Here's the bigger question, does the GOP WANT its voters to KNOW?

[93henfan]

Way to quote yourself three hours later JSO.

[93henfan]

Primaries are dumb though. The rules are apparently arbitrary. Delegates can change hands after results are certified and before the convention. You might have thought you won two months ago, but once Ted Cruz greases the right hands, maybe not!

[GannonFan]

Since primaries are basically private affairs of the political parties, it's hard to really change them. Each party can put up for the Presidential election whomever they want to by whatever means they choose. The fall election itself is what can be changed, the primaries, eh, not a lot that really can be done that isn't done through the parties. If we want to change these, people will need to get into the parties and change them, not just leave them to the JSO fanatics that currently pull the strings inside the parties.

Are the primaries funded by taxpayer money?

If so, then we should be able to have a say in how they are run...or get federal and state tax money out of the primaries.

How much money is going into them? And parties can certainly pack up their bags and go and instead run a caucus or a state convention, or other means, and get the same result. Considering that the process use to be even less impacted by everyday voters, I still pick this less than optimal way of doing it versus going backwards. Listen, I'm not a big fan of political parties, but they are voluntary groups of people that get together to decide who they want to run to represent their party in the fall elections. If people really wanted to change that they can get enough likeminded people together and have their candidate picked in a different manner. Or the partisans of either party could recognize the sleezieness of their own parties (because both the Dem and the GOP nominating processes are anti-voter) and find another way to do it.

[GannonFan]

Are the primaries funded by taxpayer money?

If so, then we should be able to have a say in how they are run...or get federal and state tax money out of the primaries.

That's the problem. The parties have too much influence over the entire election process and the media is complicit.

Why do you hate voters so much? I'm not a fan of political parties either, but there is a freedom in this country for groups of likeminded people to get together and decide on a single person they want to represent them in the general elections in the fall. The media covers whatever stories are out there to cover. There's no deception here, the public has gravitated to the current two political parties (and other parties have come and gone over time so it's not like it's always been this way) and there hasn't been a groundswell for a third party for some time now. The voters have chosen to operate the system this way.

[kalm]

That's the problem. The parties have too much influence over the entire election process and the media is complicit.

Why do you hate voters so much? I'm not a fan of political parties either, but there is a freedom in this country for groups of likeminded people to get together and decide on a single person they want to represent them in the general elections in the fall. The media covers whatever stories are out there to cover. There's no deception here, the public has gravitated to the current two political parties (and other parties have come and gone over time so it's not like it's always been this way) and there hasn't been a groundswell for a third party for some time now. The voters have chosen to operate the system this way.

Why do you love monopolies and propaganda?

[GannonFan]

Why do you hate voters so much? I'm not a fan of political parties either, but there is a freedom in this country for groups of likeminded people to get together and decide on a single person they want to represent them in the general elections in the fall. The media covers whatever stories are out there to cover. There's no deception here, the public has gravitated to the current two political parties (and other parties have come and gone over time so it's not like it's always been this way) and there hasn't been a groundswell for a third party for some time now. The voters have chosen to operate the system this way.

Why do you love monopolies and propaganda?

Uh, it's a duopoly. Seriously, it's not like the prefix is that complicated.