TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

jester wrote:I thought it said something about Castle but then again, these are the voters that kept reelecting Joe Biden.

I am unable to make for-doggoned-sure unambiguous statements of fact like that, Jester, because I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not know who voted for her. I do know, however, that her win was in the Republican primary, not a general election, and unless it is shown to the contrary to my satisfaction, and not by unproven assumptions, I would think that I am safe in concluding that she was elected by Republicans, not Democrats.

Elmo

Not necessarily. Lots of Republicans voted for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary hoping to have her run against McCain, thinking she had a greater chance of losing than Obama did.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

b322da wrote:

jester wrote:I thought it said something about Castle but then again, these are the voters that kept reelecting Joe Biden.

I am unable to make for-doggoned-sure unambiguous statements of fact like that, Jester, because I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not know who voted for her. I do know, however, that her win was in the Republican primary, not a general election, and unless it is shown to the contrary to my satisfaction, and not by unproven assumptions, I would think that I am safe in concluding that she was elected by Republicans, not Democrats.

Elmo

Not necessarily. Lots of Republicans voted for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary hoping to have her run against McCain, thinking she had a greater chance of losing than Obama did.

Is that right?

Delaware has a closed primary system. I don't know exactly what that means other than its supposedly more difficult to cross party lines to vote in the opposition's primary.

jester wrote:Like I mentioned, it could say more about Castle than it does about her. See for example TAM's and HankB's comments above.

Very possible, if not likely, Jester. It is not unlikely, either, that in the coming election certain elements of both major parties commit ritual suicide by doing dumb things. Can you imagine that these dumb guys and gals are running our country, be they red or blue? Ugh.

Elmo

Liberty wrote:Delaware has a closed primary system. I don't know exactly what that means other than its supposedly more difficult to cross party lines to vote in the opposition's primary.

Texas has a closed primary also. It basically means that in the primary election, you have to choose a single party's ballot (effectively you are declaring a party affiliation) and vote only for the candidates from that party, e.g. either Republican OR Democratic OR Libertarian OR Green Or whateverotherpartythereis.

In Texas, when you declare a party affiliation and choose that party's ballot in the primary, you can then attend that party's convention after the polls close. If you wish to attend the convention, you have to either get your voter registration card stamped by the election clerk with the name of your party, or get a separate card from the clerk that says you voted that party's ballot.

In an open primary, all the primary candidates from all the parties appear on a single ballot, and you vote for whichever one you want -- and you don't have to declare a party affiliation.

WRT to crossing party lines: Indiana also has a closed primary, and years ago when I was there it was possible to challenge another voter's choice of party ballot if he seemed to be crossing over. For example if he voted Republican for the last few primaries, but choses Democratic for this one, a Democratic party official could object, and try to convince the elecdtion officials to not give him the Democratic ballot. It was not something I ever saw happen in my small town -- I had a feeling this was more a big city, machine politics kind of maneuver. I have never heard of it being possible or done since I started working Texas elections.

I don't know if this makes it any clearer or not.

ELB wrote:

Liberty wrote:Delaware has a closed primary system. I don't know exactly what that means other than its supposedly more difficult to cross party lines to vote in the opposition's primary.

Texas has a closed primary also. It basically means that in the primary election, you have to choose a single party's ballot (effectively you are declaring a party affiliation) and vote only for the candidates from that party, e.g. either Republican OR Democratic OR Libertarian OR Green Or whateverotherpartythereis.

In Texas, when you declare a party affiliation and choose that party's ballot in the primary, you can then attend that party's convention after the polls close. If you wish to attend the convention, you have to either get your voter registration card stamped by the election clerk with the name of your party, or get a separate card from the clerk that says you voted that party's ballot.

The other thing about the closed primary system is that, if you vote in the R primary, you can only vote in the R run-off, should there be one. This also keeps you from switching over and voting in the D run-off, if there was one of those, also.

<any years ago I lived in Massachusetts, Once you voted in a primary, you were registered in that party. You had to go to the town hall to change the party affiliation. You could register as independent. But once you voted in a primary your affiliation was changed.

I know a few Republicans who voted for Hillary in the DEmocrat Primary. I don't think it would be as easy in some states. Don't know about Delaware.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

b322da wrote:

jester wrote:I thought it said something about Castle but then again, these are the voters that kept reelecting Joe Biden.

I am unable to make for-doggoned-sure unambiguous statements of fact like that, Jester, because I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not know who voted for her. I do know, however, that her win was in the Republican primary, not a general election, and unless it is shown to the contrary to my satisfaction, and not by unproven assumptions, I would think that I am safe in concluding that she was elected by Republicans, not Democrats.

Elmo

Not necessarily. Lots of Republicans voted for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary hoping to have her run against McCain, thinking she had a greater chance of losing than Obama did.

Sorry, Hoi, but it is necessarily so. I try to choose my words with care, although I do not always succeed. For example you will note that I said "..unless it is shown to the contrary to my satisfaction, and not by unproven assumptions...." I used those words for but one reason alone, to hopefully forestall replies suggesting that Democrats may have crossed party lines in this Republican primary. "Speculation" is not "proving it to my satisfaction."

I suspect that behind the scenes after this primary vote the rebuffed Republican campaign structure desperately and very carefully looked at the possibility, and that they would have been heard from somewhere between their initial despair and their later lining up and saluting to support O'Donnell's candidacy in hopes of achieving a majority in the Senate, no matter how it was accomplished. If one looks, for example, at Karl Rove's initial reaction, wouldn't you think he would have been ranting about voter fraud if there were the slightest evidence of Dems crossing party lines?

I will say this, however. If it were not a closed primary it would have been a brilliant move for the Dems to make. At least in my opinion, since I am one of those who thinks her win in the primary improves the Dems' chances in the general election, which I realize is reasonably debatable.

Elmo

b322da wrote:If one looks, for example, at Karl Rove's initial reaction, wouldn't you think he would have been ranting about voter fraud if there were the slightest evidence of Dems crossing party lines?

That assumes there are rules against changing parties for a primary election.

boba wrote:

b322da wrote:If one looks, for example, at Karl Rove's initial reaction, wouldn't you think he would have been ranting about voter fraud if there were the slightest evidence of Dems crossing party lines?

That assumes there are rules against changing parties for a primary election.

With respect, that is not an inevitable conclusion where New Hampshire is concerned. My information is, and please correct me if I am out-of-date, that New Hampshire has what might be called a "modified" closed primary, or perhaps a "modified" open primary. That is, while one may switch parties for the primary vote, he is then unable to vote for his real party in the general election.

There is switching parties, and there is switching parties. We may be assured that the Republican "regulars" and poll watchers know the difference, and that if there was a blatant conspiracy of Dems. voting in the Rep. primary it would have been public knowledge quickly.

That would be quite a gamble, wouldn't it? More than one person has noted here that most likely many Reps. voted in the Dem. primary for Hilary, in order to prevent Obama's nomination, for one reason or another. I am personally convinced beyond any doubt that I saw that done in my own precinct. It was a very small one, and I knew many, if not most of these voters. If they had done this in New Hampshire they would have been estopped from voting for McCain-Palin, and hoist by their own petard.

Again, I have no dog in this hunt, but have tried to honestly answer some good questions and, perhaps, clarify some misapprehension.

Elmo

Elmo,
Am I understanding you correctly that in NH, if you voted in the Democratic primary to decide which candidate that party would put forward for nomination that when it came time for the general election that you would be restricted from voting for a non-Democrat? If I'm understanding correctly, I don't see how that could be legal.

b322da wrote:With respect, that is not an inevitable conclusion where New Hampshire is concerned. My information is, and please correct me if I am out-of-date, that New Hampshire has what might be called a "modified" closed primary, or perhaps a "modified" open primary.

Maybe so but O'Donnell is running 400 miles away, in Delaware.

b322da wrote:That is, while one may switch parties for the primary vote, he is then unable to vote for his real party in the general election.

Voting in the Republican primary does not force you to vote a straight party Republican ticket in the general election. Some party stalwarts may argue there is an ethical obligation to vote a straight party ticket in the general election if one votes in a party's primary (or takes part in a caucus) but I don't know of any laws that pierce the secrecy of the ballot box and override the voter's choice on election day.

I surrender Hoi, Tacticool, and all the rest. Don't shoot me. Very serious senior moment. Forgive me. Somehow I mentally managed to put the O'Donnell primary in New Hampshire. Shows how much I know. Mea culpa.

It is time to turn the car keys over to DW for good, as I near 80.

All I will venture to say about Delaware is that Wikipedia, that unchallengable source, says it has a closed primary. I venture nothing further.

Elmo

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

b322da wrote:

jester wrote:I thought it said something about Castle but then again, these are the voters that kept reelecting Joe Biden.

I am unable to make for-doggoned-sure unambiguous statements of fact like that, Jester, because I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not know who voted for her. I do know, however, that her win was in the Republican primary, not a general election, and unless it is shown to the contrary to my satisfaction, and not by unproven assumptions, I would think that I am safe in concluding that she was elected by Republicans, not Democrats.

Elmo

Not necessarily. Lots of Republicans voted for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary hoping to have her run against McCain, thinking she had a greater chance of losing than Obama did.

Is that right?

Yep. Wikipedia's article on Tactical Voting* has some interesting things to say on the matter.

*No relation to Tactically hunting Tactical squirrels with your Tactical .22.

I hope the GOP is proud of themselves.