|
gaj70 posted:Good point. The only way they could improve on this journalistic C.F. is base the whole story on one anonymous source. see e.g., most of the Trump reporting. VitalSigns posted:Why should a tiny cabal of party leadership be the ones in control of its brand and not the members who actually make up the party. So at first I was just going to give a glib "Pfft, why should anyone expect the Democratic Party to actually behave democratically" response and leave it at that, but the idea of open primaries, ripe for abuse stuck out. It begs a question as to just how much strategic cross-party voting is going on. Here's the states that have "open" primaries, and here's how they voted: quote:Alabama - Trump, Clinton So that breaks down to: quote:Trump (Insurgent) - 18 (78.2%) So the suggestion that open primaries are bad for a "establishment" democratic candidate don't bear up. I can make two general hypotheses about this election. The first is that it wasn't republicans crossing the lines to vote for Bernie, but rather that it may have been Democrats crossing over to try and game the Republican primary on the "lol, Trump will never win in the general, pleasepleaseplease let it be Trump" rationale. Second, that Clinton voters and Trump voters aren't radically different in their ideologies, since most of the "open primaries" that Clinton won, then went on to flip to Trump in the general election. In summation, Bernie would have won, Hail Satan.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The idea that Democratic voters crossing the aisle to vote Trump in the primaries were a significant factor in him winning the Republican nomination is frankly fanciful. I agree. The reason I forwarded that was less to say "this is what happened" than to say "the idea that open primaries are a threat to 'establishment' democrats is silly." As unlikely as it is that people fake-voted for Trump in the primary, that's STILL more realistic than saying that Open Primaries hurt picking a good Democratic Candidate because Republicans are crafty and voted for Bernie. So the latter of those statements is really loving unrealistic, and people need to stop voting for bad-Dems because "they're still better." Of the two hypotheses I put forward, I think the second is much more likely to be the case: that assuming that people would vote for the "lesser Evil" the democrats will always shoot themselves in the foot because about 50% of the people are already going to vote for the greater evil, and it only takes a handful to say "eh, why not" to swing an election. Weltlich fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 18:20
|
|