Ouch, Obama barely won against a man in prison in WV Dem Primary

[woolfe9999]

I don't think Obama will win NC in the general elec, at least not based on the info I've seen.

That 20% of Dems may well vote for him in the general, or at least many of them. I suppose some will still vote "No Preference".

But Obama is running behind in polls of him v. Romney among independent/unaffiliated voters here. That's a bad sign for his chances.

I was surprised Obama came out publicly supporting gay marriage. I think everyone knows he did, but publicly supporting it is an additional step that carries some political risk, I believe.

I think many Dems in the South, life long Dems, Dems whose family has never voted anything other than Dem, are very much social conservatives. A lot of Baptists, who are socially conservative, are Dems. I don't think people elsewhere in the USA realize how socially conservative many Dams down here are. I couldn't give a % breakdown, but I think the recent referendum shows that there are a substantial portion.

Fern

Most of the true southern states aren't swing states, however. NC and Virginia are really the exceptions (Florida kind of is and kind of isn't a southern state). It matters most how the issue polls in the majority of battleground states.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...r-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

An interesting angle to this is that there is one bloc of dems who do solidly oppose gay marriage: african-Americans. I believe Obama's calculus here is that he cannot really lose many of those votes over his gay marriage stance, even if another dem could. The poll I cite is showing 50/45 supporting gay marriage, but African-Americans are 2:1 against. If you remove them from that equation and assume they'll vote for Obama regardless, it looks even better. We'll see.

- wolf

 

[thraashman]

I don't think Obama will win NC in the general elec, at least not based on the info I've seen.

That 20% of Dems may well vote for him in the general, or at least many of them. I suppose some will still vote "No Preference".

But Obama is running behind in polls of him v. Romney among independent/unaffiliated voters here. That's a bad sign for his chances.

I was surprised Obama came out publicly supporting gay marriage. I think everyone knows he did, but publicly supporting it is an additional step that carries some political risk, I believe.

I think many Dems in the South, life long Dems, Dems whose family has never voted anything other than Dem, are very much social conservatives. A lot of Baptists, who are socially conservative, are Dems. I don't think people elsewhere in the USA realize how socially conservative many Dams down here are. I couldn't give a % breakdown, but I think the recent referendum shows that there are a substantial portion.

Fern

There's also a huge amount of Republican voters who are socially liberal. In fact I'd say almost every single republican voter I know (then again I won't associate with social conservatives ie. bigots). An argument can be made for or against the economic views of both liberals and conservatives now and throughout history. But history has shown that socially liberal views have been right almost all of the time if not 100% of the time.

 

[fskimospy]

I support public financing for campaigns as well BTW, and that includes for qualifying third parties. Not only might it make third parties more viable, but more importantly, it would take some of the special interest money out of the system. Look around, however, and see who does and does not support public financing for campaigns.

I'm down with public financing, but I think that money is not what holds people back. Simple strategic voting calculus works against any third party arising under our system. What I believe we should do is institute instant runoff voting. Under this system you name ...say... your top 5 candidates. Once all the votes are in you count all the #1 picks and the guy with the fewest votes is eliminated. Now everyone who picked him as #1 has their #2 vote counted instead. You keep doing this until someone reaches the 50% mark, and that's the winner.

Under such a system people could vote for 3rd parties without fear of inadvertently electing the guy they hate the most. I believe that this would do more to fuel 3rd parties than public financing would and there's no Constitutional amendment required.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm down with public financing, but I think that money is not what holds people back. Simple strategic voting calculus works against any third party arising under our system. What I believe we should do is institute instant runoff voting. Under this system you name ...say... your top 5 candidates. Once all the votes are in you count all the #1 picks and the guy with the fewest votes is eliminated. Now everyone who picked him as #1 has their #2 vote counted instead. You keep doing this until someone reaches the 50% mark, and that's the winner.

Under such a system people could vote for 3rd parties without fear of inadvertently electing the guy they hate the most. I believe that this would do more to fuel 3rd parties than public financing would and there's no Constitutional amendment required.

It's an interesting idea. I assume you read about it in a poly sci journal/article somewhere. Wiki says this system is used in a few countries, and in some US cities. Would be a good idea to study how well it has worked where it has been used in the past.

 

[Craig234]

Without knowing how many votes were non-Democratic crossovers, it's hard to say what this means about Obama's rating with WV Democrats. Need a poll.

 

[Aikouka]

I pondered the idea of public financing a bit ago, but I could never really squash two problems with it.

1) How much do you give to each candidate?

2) What sort of restrictions do you place on who qualifies?

The problem that came to mind is that you could potentially have an excessive number of people running or wasteful entries, and you would most likely end up wasting taxpayer dollars.

Just think... would you really want to pay for Joe the Plumber's ad campaign?

 

[fskimospy]

It's an interesting idea. I assume you read about it in a poly sci journal/article somewhere. Wiki says this system is used in a few countries, and in some US cities. Would be a good idea to study how well it has worked where it has been used in the past.

Well how well it as worked depends on what your goals are of course. Australia has used it for a long time and their elections frequently have a half dozen or so candidates available to be voted on. So I mean if your goal is to give the voters more choice it certainly helps. I have no idea if it actually increases the quality of governance as it's not used widely enough in the world to make an intelligent comparison IMO.

 

[Craig234]

I pondered the idea of public financing a bit ago, but I could never really squash two problems with it.

1) How much do you give to each candidate?

2) What sort of restrictions do you place on who qualifies?

The problem that came to mind is that you could potentially have an excessive number of people running or wasteful entries, and you would most likely end up wasting taxpayer dollars.

Just think... would you really want to pay for Joe the Plumber's ad campaign?

Those are good issues, but they have solutions - even if imperfect much better than the current 'pay to win' model for elections.

'How much' - that one's already in place, as candidates before 2008 often took the public financing, staying in spending limits.

How do they determine it? I don't know the details, but I don't seem much problem finding a reasonable amount.

Qualifying? I suspect we have a ways to go improving that one.

It seems we'd have some sort of 'playoff', where a person has to get some support locally, and then in their state, and then regionally perhaps.

It's a bit messy - but again better than the current system of 'find a billionare and/or corrupt interest', so that the people wanting to massively pollute donate the most.

While your concerns are important, they are not any reason to pick the horribly corrupt system over the public financing.

As a reminder, in 1980, Reagan and Carter not only did not have big corrupt interests donating anonymously - they had no donors at all, reportedly, other than the funding from the tax form checkoff of $3 per taxpayer who wanted to donate to the public financing fund. That was far better - and it worked, elections were fine on financing, even if as I said there's room for improvement on qualifying.

 

[werepossum]

I'm down with public financing, but I think that money is not what holds people back. Simple strategic voting calculus works against any third party arising under our system. What I believe we should do is institute instant runoff voting. Under this system you name ...say... your top 5 candidates. Once all the votes are in you count all the #1 picks and the guy with the fewest votes is eliminated. Now everyone who picked him as #1 has their #2 vote counted instead. You keep doing this until someone reaches the 50% mark, and that's the winner.

Under such a system people could vote for 3rd parties without fear of inadvertently electing the guy they hate the most. I believe that this would do more to fuel 3rd parties than public financing would and there's no Constitutional amendment required.

I like that idea too, especially given that I almost always vote against rather than for in Presidential elections. Although honestly, until this election I can't really recall anyone running that I wanted as POTUS since Reagan. This time around I have two, Romney and Gary Johnson.

 

[cybrsage]

Those are good issues, but they have solutions - even if imperfect much better than the current 'pay to win' model for elections.

'How much' - that one's already in place, as candidates before 2008 often took the public financing, staying in spending limits.

How do they determine it? I don't know the details, but I don't seem much problem finding a reasonable amount.

Qualifying? I suspect we have a ways to go improving that one.

It seems we'd have some sort of 'playoff', where a person has to get some support locally, and then in their state, and then regionally perhaps.

It's a bit messy - but again better than the current system of 'find a billionare and/or corrupt interest', so that the people wanting to massively pollute donate the most.

While your concerns are important, they are not any reason to pick the horribly corrupt system over the public financing.

As a reminder, in 1980, Reagan and Carter not only did not have big corrupt interests donating anonymously - they had no donors at all, reportedly, other than the funding from the tax form checkoff of $3 per taxpayer who wanted to donate to the public financing fund. That was far better - and it worked, elections were fine on financing, even if as I said there's room for improvement on qualifying.

We have been agreeing too much recently. You say good things here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm down with public financing, but I think that money is not what holds people back. Simple strategic voting calculus works against any third party arising under our system. What I believe we should do is institute instant runoff voting. Under this system you name ...say... your top 5 candidates. Once all the votes are in you count all the #1 picks and the guy with the fewest votes is eliminated. Now everyone who picked him as #1 has their #2 vote counted instead. You keep doing this until someone reaches the 50% mark, and that's the winner.

Under such a system people could vote for 3rd parties without fear of inadvertently electing the guy they hate the most. I believe that this would do more to fuel 3rd parties than public financing would and there's no Constitutional amendment required.

The idea has appeal. Certainly this would be a less limiting way to go about choosing representatives.

 

[cybrsage]

There's also a huge amount of Republican voters who are socially liberal. In fact I'd say almost every single republican voter I know (then again I won't associate with social conservatives ie. bigots). An argument can be made for or against the economic views of both liberals and conservatives now and throughout history. But history has shown that socially liberal views have been right almost all of the time if not 100% of the time.

Wow, so you will not associate with anyone who disagrees with your social views...AND they are bigots. You realize that makes YOU a bigot, right?

bigot (ˈbɪɡət) — n
1. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

OOPS! I guess that means you cannot hang out with yourself!

 

[monovillage]

So did the felon in prison that got so many votes running against Obama have public financing?

 

[fskimospy]

The idea has appeal. Certainly this would be a less limiting way to go about choosing representatives.

Now all we need to do is convince the two ruling parties to vote for a law that will decrease their own power! I'm sure that will happen any day now.

I wish I wish I wish we could find a way to get people excited about electoral reform. The only way this will change is by huge agitation for it. I think it's too abstract for most people to care about though, sadly.

 

[kage69]

I've got family in Berkley Springs, when asked about this I was told that Obama's stance on coal has done him no favors in WV. His heritage is also not a popular topic I'm sorry to say.

If a politician spoke out against the use of corn ethanol or high fructose corn syrup and advocated their replacement, I imagine they'd get a frosty welcome in Iowa too.

 

[DrPizza]

So, less than 17% of the number of people eligible to vote in the democratic primary actually turned out to vote? The majority of democrats realize that it's a waste of time and effort, because we already know who is going to be the democratic nomination. And, the OP is surprised to see that a lot of people (potentially Republicans) showed up to vote against Obama, regardless of who the candidate is?

I think that what this goes to show you is that Republican voters in West Virginia, and/or perhaps 40 percent of West Virginian voters aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote since they would vote for someone who they haven't got a clue about.

 

[woolfe9999]

Now all we need to do is convince the two ruling parties to vote for a law that will decrease their own power! I'm sure that will happen any day now.

I wish I wish I wish we could find a way to get people excited about electoral reform. The only way this will change is by huge agitation for it. I think it's too abstract for most people to care about though, sadly.

It would take a movement that is both well funded and "grass roots" (like the tea party.) There's a constituency there: everyone who is unhappy with the two party system, and with both of the parties. I suspect most independents would go for this, and some dems and reps would as well. Sadly, like everything, it takes a lot of money to get this kind of thing started. That probably means one or more billionaires getting involved.

I think the best approach, actually, would be to combine it with campaign finance reform.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, less than 17% of the number of people eligible to vote in the democratic primary actually turned out to vote? The majority of democrats realize that it's a waste of time and effort, because we already know who is going to be the democratic nomination. And, the OP is surprised to see that a lot of people (potentially Republicans) showed up to vote against Obama, regardless of who the candidate is?

Well, yeh, and the OP thinks that a 20 point spread is "barely winning", too.

I think that what this goes to show you is that Republican voters in West Virginia, and/or perhaps 40 percent of West Virginian voters aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote since they would vote for someone who they haven't got a clue about.

Everybody has the right to vote, no matter how smart they are. Cluelessness among the electorate is a standard feature of democracy.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think there's a racial component to it, but for the most part I think Obama pushing more stringent pollution standards for the coal fired electric plants is the main reason. Hell DINO Sen. Manchin says he may not even vote for Obama. That's pretty rare from my experience that the Democratic Sentor would say that publicly. Kind of hard to garner much support in that atmosphere.

 

[werepossum]

So, less than 17% of the number of people eligible to vote in the democratic primary actually turned out to vote? The majority of democrats realize that it's a waste of time and effort, because we already know who is going to be the democratic nomination. And, the OP is surprised to see that a lot of people (potentially Republicans) showed up to vote against Obama, regardless of who the candidate is?

I think that what this goes to show you is that Republican voters in West Virginia, and/or perhaps 40 percent of West Virginian voters aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote since they would vote for someone who they haven't got a clue about.

You see nothing, um, stupid about pointing out that only 17% of eligible Democrats voted and then springing right into claiming that Republican voters in West Virginia aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote? It doesn't occur to you that cross-party voting would lead to increased participation, not low participation?

I think there's a racial component to it, but for the most part I think Obama pushing more stringent pollution standards for the coal fired electric plants is the main reason. Hell DINO Sen. Manchin says he may not even vote for Obama. That's pretty rare from my experience that the Democratic Sentor would say that publicly. Kind of hard to garner much support in that atmosphere.

Nailed it. Obama very publicly declared war on coal, and coal is about all West Virginia has going for it.

 

[DrPizza]

You see nothing, um, stupid about pointing out that only 17% of eligible Democrats voted and then springing right into claiming that Republican voters in West Virginia aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote? It doesn't occur to you that cross-party voting would lead to increased participation, not low participation?


Nailed it. Obama very publicly declared war on coal, and coal is about all West Virginia has going for it.

The total participation was low. 17% includes cross-party voting. The coal issue would increase participation by motivating non-democrats to vote in the democratic primary. It's not 17% of "eligible democrats." Everyone was eligible to vote in that primary by simply checking a box. People who are pro-Obama wouldn't be motivated to make an effort to vote in the primary, because it's a given that Obama is on the democratic ticket. Thus, the proportion of people motivated to go to the primary to vote AGAINST Obama is greatly increased.

 

[hal2kilo]

The total participation was low. 17% includes cross-party voting. The coal issue would increase participation by motivating non-democrats to vote in the democratic primary. It's not 17% of "eligible democrats." Everyone was eligible to vote in that primary by simply checking a box. People who are pro-Obama wouldn't be motivated to make an effort to vote in the primary, because it's a given that Obama is on the democratic ticket. Thus, the proportion of people motivated to go to the primary to vote AGAINST Obama is greatly increased.

I also have to agree that if it was an open primary your theory has alot of merit.

 

[Fern]

The total participation was low. 17% includes cross-party voting. The coal issue would increase participation by motivating non-democrats to vote in the democratic primary. It's not 17% of "eligible democrats." Everyone was eligible to vote in that primary by simply checking a box. People who are pro-Obama wouldn't be motivated to make an effort to vote in the primary, because it's a given that Obama is on the democratic ticket. Thus, the proportion of people motivated to go to the primary to vote AGAINST Obama is greatly increased.

I don't see why anybody would be motivated to go out and vote against Obama. It's a given he's going to win the nomination so it's a waste of time.

Doesn't matter anyway. It's not an open primary. It's semi-closed, meaning Repubs cannot vote in the Dem primary.

http://elections.mytimetovote.com/dates/west_virginia.html

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't see why anybody would be motivated to go out and vote against Obama. It's a given he's going to win the nomination so it's a waste of time.

Doesn't matter anyway. It's not an open primary. It's semi-closed, meaning Repubs cannot vote in the Dem primary.

http://elections.mytimetovote.com/dates/west_virginia.html

Fern

OK, if it wasn't a truely open primary then I'm stick'n to my idea in the previous post.

 

[werepossum]

The total participation was low. 17% includes cross-party voting. The coal issue would increase participation by motivating non-democrats to vote in the democratic primary. It's not 17% of "eligible democrats." Everyone was eligible to vote in that primary by simply checking a box. People who are pro-Obama wouldn't be motivated to make an effort to vote in the primary, because it's a given that Obama is on the democratic ticket. Thus, the proportion of people motivated to go to the primary to vote AGAINST Obama is greatly increased.

I would argue that people motivated to go to the primary to vote AGAINST Obama would be far more likely to vote for the Republican candidate they thought would be most likely to defeat him in November, since even the dimmest bulb knows there was absolutely no chance of defeating him in primaries.

EDIT: Also, Fern points out that registered Republicans are ineligible to vote in the Democrat primary; only people who are registered with the party or registered with no party are eligible to vote in either party's primary. So we know conclusively that it was not Republicans, although it might well be independents considering the large advantage Romney currently enjoys. I suspect though that this was a protest vote by Democrats, for the reason Hal2kilo put forth. Independents against Obama have the option of helping to strengthen the Republican nominee and perhaps throwing the bum out.