quote:

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Good Lord, indeed.
Top two is how we do it here in CA now, with an added twist for some positions that 50% +1 vote is enough to take the seat without going onto the ballot in the general election. .

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/McDaniel-Launches-Official-Challenge-Of-Election-Results-Says-Evidence-Shows-He-Won

Good Lord.

quote:

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.

Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

I oppose open primaries for a "representative" reason. Laws should have been enacted after Rush's "Operation Whateverthefuckitwascalled" to prevent this sort of thing. In primaries, you're asking voters to elect the person that is going to represent them, from their party. It shouldn't be legal for people outside that party to vote on that representative, since they are messing with the representation of those who are truly in that party. A better way would be to either have closed primaries, or to have the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, win the opportunity to run against each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.

Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election

No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

What if they intended to support him going into the primary, but then thought about it, and changed their minds afterward? How can anyone prove otherwise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.

Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election

No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.

Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election

No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

K.

Nobody seemed eager to enforce those laws when Rush was telling conservatives to vote for Hilary back in 2008. Strange.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/McDaniel-Launches-Official-Challenge-Of-Election-Results-Says-Evidence-Shows-He-Won
Good Lord.

quote:

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.
I oppose open primaries for a "representative" reason. Laws should have been enacted after Rush's "Operation Whateverthefuckitwascalled" to prevent this sort of thing. In primaries, you're asking voters to elect the person that is going to represent them, from their party. It shouldn't be legal for people outside that party to vote on that representative, since they are messing with the representation of those who are truly in that party. A better way would be to either have closed primaries, or to have the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, win the opportunity to run against each other.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about open primaries, although I can see that choosing a candidate should really be an internal party matter. However, if it was a legally open primary and they had crossover voters, what good is it to go to court? As long as the voters had the right to vote and their votes were legal, then their votes count, don't they? In any case, it doesn't bode well for "party unity" if one candidate is tearing down the other candidate from his own party. He's so worried that his party will lose the general election, but this will not work in his party's favor.

quote:

I think what they should do is not have primaries at all. Instead, all the candidates of a given party would be required to refrain from announcing their candidacy or doing any campaigning until one month before the election. Then, they can campaign like mad for one month, and each candidate from all parties will have their names on the ballot, so voters can choose from any of the candidates offered by either party (or third parties where applicable). So, in this case, both Republican candidates would be on the ballot for the general election along with whatever Democratic candidates there would be. Let the people decide who they want.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election
No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
K.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/McDaniel-Launches-Official-Challenge-Of-Election-Results-Says-Evidence-Shows-He-Won
Good Lord.

quote:

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.
I oppose open primaries for a "representative" reason. Laws should have been enacted after Rush's "Operation Whateverthefuckitwascalled" to prevent this sort of thing. In primaries, you're asking voters to elect the person that is going to represent them, from their party. It shouldn't be legal for people outside that party to vote on that representative, since they are messing with the representation of those who are truly in that party. A better way would be to either have closed primaries, or to have the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, win the opportunity to run against each other.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about open primaries, although I can see that choosing a candidate should really be an internal party matter. However, if it was a legally open primary and they had crossover voters, what good is it to go to court? As long as the voters had the right to vote and their votes were legal, then their votes count, don't they? In any case, it doesn't bode well for "party unity" if one candidate is tearing down the other candidate from his own party. He's so worried that his party will lose the general election, but this will not work in his party's favor.

Yes. It's a low move to literally lure opposing party members to vote for you, but it's not necessarily illegal. It becomes illegal when a Democrat (only using these party labels for clarity and because this is the way it went in this primary/runoff) voter votes in the Democrat primary, and then votes in the Republican runoff. A Democrat voter can vote in a Republican primary without any issue, but can't vote in a Republican runoff, if they voted in the Democrat primary.

If McDaniels can't prove there were enough illegally cast (and counted) votes for Cochran, his lawsuit carries no weight, at least that's my opinion.

quote:

I think what they should do is not have primaries at all. Instead, all the candidates of a given party would be required to refrain from announcing their candidacy or doing any campaigning until one month before the election. Then, they can campaign like mad for one month, and each candidate from all parties will have their names on the ballot, so voters can choose from any of the candidates offered by either party (or third parties where applicable). So, in this case, both Republican candidates would be on the ballot for the general election along with whatever Democratic candidates there would be. Let the people decide who they want.

Good Lord. I can't even imagine how much we'd be slammed by ads, if that were the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election
No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
K.

The only thing here, though, is that this was a runoff and not the actual primary. That might make a difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/McDaniel-Launches-Official-Challenge-Of-Election-Results-Says-Evidence-Shows-He-Won
Good Lord.

quote:

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.
I oppose open primaries for a "representative" reason. Laws should have been enacted after Rush's "Operation Whateverthefuckitwascalled" to prevent this sort of thing. In primaries, you're asking voters to elect the person that is going to represent them, from their party. It shouldn't be legal for people outside that party to vote on that representative, since they are messing with the representation of those who are truly in that party. A better way would be to either have closed primaries, or to have the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, win the opportunity to run against each other.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about open primaries, although I can see that choosing a candidate should really be an internal party matter. However, if it was a legally open primary and they had crossover voters, what good is it to go to court? As long as the voters had the right to vote and their votes were legal, then their votes count, don't they? In any case, it doesn't bode well for "party unity" if one candidate is tearing down the other candidate from his own party. He's so worried that his party will lose the general election, but this will not work in his party's favor.

Yes. It's a low move to literally lure opposing party members to vote for you, but it's not necessarily illegal. It becomes illegal when a Democrat (only using these party labels for clarity and because this is the way it went in this primary/runoff) voter votes in the Democrat primary, and then votes in the Republican runoff. A Democrat voter can vote in a Republican primary without any issue, but can't vote in a Republican runoff, if they voted in the Democrat primary.

If McDaniels can't prove there were enough illegally cast (and counted) votes for Cochran, his lawsuit carries no weight, at least that's my opinion.

quote:

quote:

I think what they should do is not have primaries at all. Instead, all the candidates of a given party would be required to refrain from announcing their candidacy or doing any campaigning until one month before the election. Then, they can campaign like mad for one month, and each candidate from all parties will have their names on the ballot, so voters can choose from any of the candidates offered by either party (or third parties where applicable). So, in this case, both Republican candidates would be on the ballot for the general election along with whatever Democratic candidates there would be. Let the people decide who they want.

Good Lord. I can't even imagine how much we'd be slammed by ads, if that were the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

First of all, there is no requirement that you vote in a general election if you voted in a primary.
Second of all, there is no requirement that you vote in the general election for person who won the primary, even if you supported that person in the primary.

§ 23-15-575. Participation in primary election
No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
K.

The only thing here, though, is that this was a runoff and not the actual primary. That might make a difference.

Again, as people have pointed out: maybe their intention was to vote for the person. Six months full of events changes that person's mind to vote for someone else. Its up to the accusers to 'Prove Beyond a Shadow of Doubt' those that voted in the primary/runoff had no intention of voting for the person in the election, when they actually voted in secrecy. It would be a fair question (with the FBI asking the accusers): "So how did you find this information out"?

quote:

“After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election..."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)