All Tea Party politicians do is sit on their asses and do jack ****. That sounds like welfare for a select well-to-do dumbasses to me.
The 1% use the Tea party to move the Center to the right, The People of Mississippi used their votes to move it back to the Right Center.
Cochran is the 1%, he's a decades long member of the DC ruling class, bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. Haley "boss hog" Barbour just recruited Dems to vote in the GOP primary, who have no intention of voting for Cochran in the general. Cochran is barely lucid, he won't serve out his term and one of Barbour's family will be appointed in his place. Parties need to implement closed primaries or they are going to have their political opponents choosing their candidates.
Taking a picture of a man's bed ridden wife in her nursing home? That is despicable. Some "family values" his supporters have.
Amazing! You posted something I completely agree with. IIRC, Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk tried to slow down Obama in 2008 by encouraging supporters to vote for Hillary in the Texas Dem primary in 2008.
good for the goose, good for the gander Mississippi is supposed to have closed primaries but the law is unenforceable. Do you want the government monitoring what you do behind the voting booth curtain? The concept sort of precludes the idea of a voter's free choice since he might vote for his favorite candidate in his party primary but oppose the primary winner. In this case you might have a solid republican voter who, if only presented with a Tea Party option from his party in the general election, might vote for a Center Right democrat. Also there are issues with the two party system not being addressed by the Constitution. There really shouldn't be any state involvement in "party" primaries. The State should just run the General Election for any and all qualified candidates.
Personally, I like the top 2 primary system that they have in California and Louisiana. All candidates, Democrats and Republicans get thrown into the same pool and the top 2 winners move on. As a result, you can get 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans. Or you can get a Republican and an Independent. People like Commodore would probably hate this system since it is as open as a primary can get. And it rigs the system towards moderates since if you two Republicans make it out of the open primary, the moderate one will always win because of crossover voting from Democrats. But I like it. It would also make safe districts competitive since the general election wouldn't be some lopsided one-sided race. Instead you can get two candidates from the same party on the ballot so you'll get an actual race in safe districts. I personally think tea party candidates would have a better chance in safe districts because they would just have to get 2nd place in a primary which wouldn't be that hard in a safe district. Same for Democratic challengers.
Yes, General Elections should be: The state republican party, through their own process elects to supports this guy, but anybody with enough signatures can be on the ballot.
They didnt need a close primary law. They just needed the same law that is in Texas. In Texas, you can't vote in a runoff if you don't vote in the earlier primary. Basically you can't vote in the Republican primary runoff without voting in the Republican Primary. That basically kills the ability of candidates to do what Cochran did. I dont know if I actually support that but that would be the solution for what happened in Mississippi. Either that or you introduce party registration and closed primaries based on that registration but I think that's much worse.
Closed primary means you need to be a registered member of the party you are voting for. Quite enforceable and many states have them. MS has a law that if you vote for someone in a primary you must support them in the general. That is definitely unenforceable. Two things you need to avoid game theory shenanigans in primaries: 1) a runoff system, otherwise candidates will encourage/bankroll others to jump in to split their opponents' support 2) closed primaries, so only party members decide who will represent their party This was a GOP primary where the outcome did not reflect the will of GOP voters. That's a broken system.
Again, party primaries should be privately run, since they are not official state entities, then you can do whatever you want. (like the Country Club they are)
There was a pretty big supreme court case on this. In Texas, the Democratic primary was run exactly like you described it. Unfortunately, as a result, the Democratic Party banned African Americans from participating in the primary under the grounds that state law allowed the Democratic Party to set its own rules for the primary. This was struck down by the Court which argued that the state can't just delegate its authority to the primary. The state ultimately has a burden to set rules for the primary and those rules are governed by the laws of the state where the primary is located. Additionally the term "private club" in particular is dangerous because "private clubs" are more or less exempt from the protections in the civil rights act of 1964. The Voting Rights Act also doesn't really apply to primaries either. The burden of the state to manage primaries is critical to allowing for fair voting rules. You'd see outright discrimination in some parts of the South if primaries were solely managed by political parties.
That's not actually what the law says. It says you have to vote for someone in the primary that you intend to vote for in the general. I agree that it is unenforceable, but it does allow someone to change their mind. That may make it even more unenforceable.
So your saying that minorities (democrats in Mississippi) don't have a right to influence who will represent them? But have to let others determine their political fate? I think you have a right to vote against anyone you want as well as for. That's an equal choice. I think if "private" parties wanting to alienate any segment of voters should be able to and deal with the consequences. However if elected, any discriminatory laws they enact would be subject to Constitutional challenges. Institutionalizing a two party system is a formula for stagnation. It causes a duality of thinking, 'fer us or agin us', that limits fee thought, nuance and compromise. And, if money controls both parties, voter's have no choice.
No, he's saying democrats don't have the right to influence who will run as a republican. It's not about minorities vs whites. Even though I don't support the tea party, I do think it's a flawed outcome when a party goes to the other side to nominate someone. As for institutionalizing a two party system, friend, you are WAY too late on that. That happened pretty quickly.
