A New Trump Thread...

[Lord Jim]

One of the things I find interesting about the nature of the polling on Trump's popularity:

In those polls where "Republican" and "Republican leaning" are both included in the numbers as "Republican voters" Trump always does significantly better than in polls done just among "Republican"...

There are a couple of things we can know about those who identify themselves as "Republican leaning" as opposed to "Republican"...

First, on a percentage basis, they're more likely to support someone like Trump; for the most part they are conservatives who for one reason or another became so dissatisfied with the GOP establishment that they prefer to call themselves "Republican leaning" rather than Republican...(though push come to shove, if they show up to vote in a general election, they will still pull the "R" lever....)

The other thing we can know about them, again on a percentage basis, is that they are also the least likely to vote in a GOP primary, let alone show up for a caucus...

Because pretty much by definition, they have the least level of commitment to the party...

So I've started to ignore those polls that include "Republican leaning" in the "Republican" numbers for the purpose of looking at likely primary vote results...

[Jarlaxle]

I wonder how many are independent/unenrolled simply so they can, if they want, vote in the local Democratic primary.

[MajGenl.Meade]

AFAIK in Ohio if you're recorded as independent or unenrolled, you cannot vote in any primary, Dem or Rep.

At the voting station, you may change your status to declare a party allegiance by filling in certain papers - and you can only vote in the primary of the party that you've just declared. You cannot vote in the other primary.

You are also stuck as a Dem (or Rep) until the next primary, at which time you can fill in another set of forms to change again.

[Econoline]

In Illinois, registering to vote does not involve registering a party membership. To vote in a primary, you simply show up at the polling place and ask for whichever party's ballot you want (obviously, you can only ask for one ballot). If you want to vote in a different party's primary next time, no additional paperwork is required: again, you just show up at the polling place and ask for whichever party's ballot you want.

[Bicycle Bill]

In Wisconsin, when you went to vote in the primary you were given a ballot with all the candidates for all parties listed on it.  Once you were in the privacy of the voting booth you designated your party preference (Dem/Rep/Lib/Socialist/etc) on the ballot itself, and then were allowed to only vote for offices that had candidates from that specific party.  So if you picked, say, the Libertarian party and voted for their candidates for Governor/Lt. Governor, you could not vote for any other office (such as US Senator or Representative, state Senator or Representative, or local political offices such as mayor, sheriff, or judges) unless the Libertarian party had candidates running for those offices too.  If you did try to vote outside the designated party the ballot was void.

At least, that's the way it used to run.  Now that Reichsführer Snottie Wanker and his gang of fellow Koch-suckers in the legislature have committed "election reform" against the State of Wisconsin, who knows how it will work by primary time next spring?

[Guinevere]

Open primary in MA too. You must ask for a particular party ballot when you check in at your polling station.

I'm still not convinced TrumptyDumpty gets actual votes in the privacy of the voting booth, in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Those people are not fools. The Iowa caucus folks are also hard core party faithful, and they aren't voting for him.

Once he loses a state or two, he will drop out. He's only in this for the "uuge" ego boost.

[Lord Jim]

Guess who else is a Trumpanzee?

Putin: Trump 'a very bright and talented man'

The love between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin appears to be mutual, if the Russian president's latest comments Thursday are any indication.

According to an Interfax report of his annual year-end news conference, Putin called the Republican presidential candidate "a very bright and talented man," as well as an "absolute leader" in the race for the presidency. (Another account, from Reuters, translated Putin as saying Trump is "a very flamboyant man.")

"He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it," Putin said, according to Reuters' report.

The Russian president also said that it is none of his business "to assess tricks Donald Trump [is] using to boost his popularity," according to Interfax. [That's probably appropriate, coming from a guy who uses murder to boost his...]

Trump has repeatedly praised the Russian leader's toughness and said he would be able to cut deals with him.

"He does not like Obama at all. He doesn't respect Obama at all. And I'm sure that Obama doesn't like him very much," Trump said of Putin in October. "But I think that I would probably get along with him very well. And I don't think you'd be having the kind of problems that you're having right now."

Trump has also backed Russia's intervention in Syria, which Putin has said is aimed at eradicating the Islamic State. "And as far as him attacking ISIS, I'm all for it," he told CBS News' John Dickerson. "If he wants to be bombing the hell out of ISIS, which he's starting to do, if he wants to be bombing ISIS, let him bomb them, John. Let him bomb them. I think we probably work together much more so than right now."

[He's also said that he believes Putin's claim that his puppets in the Ukraine didn't shoot down the commercial airliner, despite overwhelming evidence]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/t ... z3uaCFLrto

A pair of shamelessly dishonest megalomaniacs with a mutual admiration society...

Quelle surprise...

[dales]

Well, I guess that settles it for me.

[Gob]

I wonder how many are independent/unenrolled simply so they can, if they want, vote in the local Democratic primary.

This "enrol" idea is mad. Why the fuck should someone have to declare their allegiance before being allowed to vote?

[Long Run]

Gob, welcome back to the fight . . .

[oldr_n_wsr]

In NY you must be a member of the party if you want to vote in their primary. As I have no party affiliation, I don't get to vote in any primaries.

Why the fuck should someone have to declare their allegiance before being allowed to vote?

Only in primaries in some (most?) states. The general election, any registered voter can vote.

[Gob]

Mad. In the UK & Aus all citizens can vote.

[Long Run]

In most states, in the primary election (to select party nominees) only those registered to a party can vote for that party's nominee. In the general election, party affiliation does not matter when you vote.

[Lord Jim]

I wonder how many are independent/unenrolled simply so they can, if they want, vote in the local Democratic primary.

This "enrol" idea is mad. Why the fuck should someone have to declare their allegiance before being allowed to vote?

You've got the wrong end of the stick, Old Darling...

We're not talking about general elections to elect office holders...

We're talking about party primaries to select party nominees...

It's like in the UK, and (many other countries with Parliamentary systems) where you can't vote to select the the Party Leader unless you are "enrolled" as a member of that Party...

And btw, in this country, people aren't charged a fee to be registered to vote in a party's nominating process...

Unlike the UK...

ETA:

In the most recent Labour Party leadership election, there was a big controversy about the process being made too easy for people to vote...

The Labourites established a procedure under which rather than being a regular Labour Party member, (which requires monthly membership dues) anyone willing to pony up five pounds could become a "Labour Party Member For A Day" and cast a ballot...

The thinking is that this encouraged a lot of Conservatives, (who wanted the politically weakest possible Labour Leader) and a lot of Greens (who saw this as an opportunity to vote for someone to head a party with a much better chance of winning a national election then they would have, who is as left wing as they are) to cross over and vote for Corbyn...

[Gob]

My bad, thanks for the clarification.

So your parties allow non-members to vote in leadership elections?

[Lord Jim]

So your parties allow non-members to vote in leadership elections?

Depends on the state...

As you can see from the posts, some states require registration by party to vote in that party's primaries, others don't have party registration. On the day of the primary election you declare to your precinct election officials which party primary you want to vote in, and you receive a ballot for that party's primary candidates. (You're only allowed to vote in one.)

So now you can call that process "mad"...

[dales]

In NY you must be a member of the party if you want to vote in their primary. As I have no party affiliation, I don't get to vote in any primaries.

Why the fuck should someone have to declare their allegiance before being allowed to vote?

Only in primaries in some (most?) states. The general election, any registered voter can vote.

Same here in CA.

I've been registered as "independent" for the last 20 years.

I don't give a rat's azz for any of the primaries.

[Big RR]

Do you actually have to be a member, or just declare the party affiliation? In NJ, if you have never voted in a primary you can declare republican or democrats at the polls, and that is the primary you can vote in unless you change it (by filing a form in advance of the election; it used to be 30 or 45 days prior, not sure what it is now), in which case that becomes your designated party unless changed; I've voted in both republican and democratic primaries but have never been a member of either party.

[TPFKA@W]

Every time I see this topic I read it as "another thump tread ".

[Gob]

I've voted in both republican and democratic primaries but have never been a member of either party.

Amazing!! So there I could not be a party member, but I could influence the party leadership choice?

Bonkers...