Skip to comments.California Republicans Limit Their Primary To Those Registered In Party
Posted on 02/04/2008 11:43:32 PM PST by Moral Hazard
About 34 percent of voters in California are registered Republicans, and are the only voters allowed to cast ballots in the Republican presidential race on Tuesday.
Political consultant Hal Dash said the decision to exclude independent voters could play to the Democratic Partys advantage by allowing Democrats to argue that the GOP doesnt want them.Why would you want to shut the door at the beginning when you have the opportunity to be able and welcome some numbers? If I was the California Republican Party, Id want anybody I could get given their shrinking numbers, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at youdecide08.foxnews.com ...
While California may have little say in who wins in the general election, it figures to have a lot to say in whose nominated, between its 173 delegates (roughly 15% of the delegates needed for the nomination) and it's timing on Super Tuesday.
As a result having a closed primary won't have much effect on whether a Republican wins in the general election, but it will give each Republican voter significantly more say in who gets California's delegates and ultimately ends up being the Republican nominee.
This is really bad news for Juan McAztlan.
We’d be having a lot fewer problems if we had a lot more closed caucuses and primaries...
Hal Dash, president of Democratic consulting firm Cerrell and Associates.
What a transparent weasel. Yeah we'll let you damn RATS pick our candidate.
Why would you want to shut the door at the beginning when you have the opportunity to be able and welcome some numbers? “
that’s a pretty silly argument to make. You can go back to the democrats: why are there so many superdelegates to pick the nominee?
What an idiotic statement by this guy, according to his logic why even have political parties at all, wouldn’t partyless be even more inclusive?
The reason you do this is so that people who want to have a say in the Rep nomination would then have to register as a Republican. If you allow non-Republican to select the Republican nominee, then what would be the incentive to register as a Republican at all?
Go Mitt! Don't quit!
No, it’s open for the Democrats and as an ‘independent’ I get to stick it to Billary tomorrow.
LOL, outstanding!! Give them a taste of their own medicine!
Hmmm, I wonder what Hal thinks about the Democratic Party basically blowing off Michigan and Florida during the primary season? Michigan was suffering a massive one-state recession and the Democratic candidates couldn't even be bothered to try and appeal to the desperate voters in that state.
...the way the polls are trending, I might stick it to Obama instead. The enthusiasm he breeds (and the money)scares me in a general, she’s still an unappealing, stone-cold, communist b*tch.
“No, its open for the Democrats and as an independent I get to stick it to Billary tomorrow.”
Then in november what do you have to do..?
The fun part will be if Obama wins a slight majority of the elected delegates, and Clinton takes the nomination from him by using super delegates. Imagine how she will look then.
So, because of the rules, California will be a fair way to judge who Republicans prefer, instead of who Independents and Democrats prefer. I think it will be Romney.
Currently Obama has 63 elected delegates to Clinton’s 48. After adding the pledges of super delegates Clinton leads 190 to 104.
This seems to be a novel idea these days. And here we are in one of the most liberal states in the union, and it has more sense on this subject than a number of midwestern and eastern states.
Leave it to a consultant from a Democratic political firm to whine that Independents can’t choose the Republican nominee.
Them’s eggxactly right, chaos_5!
McCain would have lost every race so far under California’s rules. He wouldn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination if these rules applied in every state.
Florida is a closed primary state.
In times past, Democrats picked their candidate; Republicans, theirs. Independents had no say whatsoever. Shouldn’t it be that way everywhere?
Well that’s the way I see it. One thing about California that I don’t like is that McCain will be able to take delegates in the counties/districts that he wins. That will soften the impact of a loss here, and I suppose could actually allow him to win more delegates, although I am not sure on that count.
One can surely bet 200K-500K, non-illegal, non-documented, non-citizen, non-living, non-human (pets) will vote in for the GOP CFR, UNAS, NWO sponsored McLame in Kalifornika today.
Yes, as a former Californian, when you go in to vote in a primary, you ask for one of the following ballots: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent or Independent/non-Party. Who knows, maybe the Green Party is a recognized party today too. So, you vote in your own party’s primary to nominate candidates for the General Election. You also vote in all the non-partisan elections, say for judges and you vote on all the Propositions and bond issues. (Those usually go quickly, No usually on everything).
This info goes back to 1990, but I don’t think it’s changed in California. It’s a ‘closed Primary’, in that you can only vote in one party’s primary election. Well, you go to the polling place, you request a Party’s primary ballot. I don’t believe you have to be registered in that party to request it. Your party registration is recorded on the list, but I don’t believe you are held to that, when you request a ballot. In 1990, there were 5 qualified political parties and a non-partisan ballot. See my above post for more details.
Well, they apparently let independents “declare” as Republicans on the spot, so that’s not really closed.
Fox News isn’t worth watching or reading.
Tell you what. I’ll be heading into the polling booth around 2:00 p.m. my time. I’ll ask to see if I could obtain another ballot, a democrat one. I believe it is closed, you have to vote in your own party. I’ve never tried to ask for an alternative ballot. I’ll check it out.
I don’t believe you can.
Florida was closed in name only. Exit polling showed 17% of voters were Independents and 3% were Democrats. This is explained by the fact the Democrat primary was meaningless, so many Independents and some Democrats registered as Republicans with the specific intent of voting for McCain.
Romney won the self-identified Republican vote in Florida. Read the exit polling results.
The powers that be in the Republican party screwed everything up royally by making some states winner take all, and others not. There are no winner take all states on the Democrat side. It should be consistently one way or the other,
I am a firm believer in winner take all.
As a rule, so am I, but it makes more sense to do it the way the Democrats are than the crap way the Republicans are stacking the deck to favor certain candidates.
I want a situation that doesn’t allow candidates to ignore certain groups. Anotherwords, don’t go to large cities only and ignore the farm communities. That’s why I prefer winner take all.
I don’t care what the democrats do, but I’m not saying that to tweak you. Their selection process doesn’t interest me.
I just want to make sure conservatives can be nominated from our own party, by our own party members.
If it needs to happen, there will be a media blackout of it.
“The powers that be in the Republican party screwed everything up royally by making some states winner take all, and others not. There are no winner take all states on the Democrat side. It should be consistently one way or the other,”
Could you explain who has the perfect way to do this? Then tell me how you plan to force this to be done, over the objection of your so called “”powers that be in the Republican party?”
At present, states can do what they decide locally to do. That is consistent with federalism, which is a Republican premise. Remember Fred Thompson?
I’m in California, and I like the idea that if my congressional district votes for A candidate, that establishes the casting of that delegate.
There is no reason for Republicans to have to run their primaries like the democrats.
Do you prefer the WTA statewide as opposed to the WTA in each CD and statewide for at large delegates?
As I said, I prefer winner take all. I don’t prefer gerrymandering, however, no matter how it’s done, and that’s what has happened on the Republican side, and not on the Democrat side.
It should not be necessary to force what makes sense. All states should be winner take all, or none should be. I prefer winner take all.
Here in MendoLand, we were informed by the county clerk that we would have no polling place and would have to vote absentee. The ballots that arrived in the mail allowed me to vote only according to my registration. My wife is registered Independent and she can vote for any of the liberal party candidates, such as the Dem P&F or Green candidates, but not the Rep.
I’m for closed primaries. She is not, because she feels that she has the right to defeat McC and will not listen to my arguments. We will both vote our conscience in November.
I’m not sure what the WTA stand for, so let me answer your question like this. I think it will answer your question.
Let’s say I’m a candidate and I only have so much time or finances to spend. This being the case, I start thinking about what my serious downsides will be if I don’t campaign for a certain state. If I go to Missouri and win, I can win 15 electoral (just an example, I don’t know it’s actual delegats / electors) votes and the other candidate won’t win any. That makes Missouri (or any state that does give 15 electoral votes) as important as California. Why waste time in California if a smaller effort can garner the same plus / minus impact?
California has 54 electoral votes. I think you can look at nomination delegates in about the same manner.
What happens if I don’t campaign in California? I may lose a few districts. Is that devistating? I don’t think so. If won districts achieve a portion of the overall electoral votes or delegates, I only stand to lose a portion of them.
If I go campaign in the state and work my arse off, I can only expect to win about two thirds of the districts at best. One third will generally agree with the alternative. If more agree with the alternative, it makes my benefit of working in the state even less.
Without going to California, I could probably expect to win 40%. By going I would probably at best only win 60%. What’s the spread then?
If I win 40% I would get about 21 electoral votes, or a comparative of delegates. If I win 60% I would get about 32 electoral votes, or a compative of delegates.
The spread is on 11 electoral votes. Anotherwords any state that gives out 11 or more electoral votes, suddenly becomes as important as California to me. Why should I go to California and work my butt off, when I can expend the same amount of effort in three states that give me all of their 12 electoral votes. 11 electoral votes or 36? Hmmm, where should I spend my time?
Now, if all of California’s 54 electoral votes or the comparative delegates are mine if I win, suddenly California becomes as important as four plus 12 delegate states. All of a sudden the state becomes a must. I cannot afford to let the other guy make a clean sweep in the state.
That’s why I think it is important to have all the eggs go to the winner.
Okay, then I think we’re in agreement. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
The uninformed and spiteful believe that California is a giant blue state when, in fact much of the state is very conservative. Divying up electoral votes by district would, at the least show the rest of the nation that the blueness is mostly in San Francisco, LA, and some places on the coast. At best, it could deny Osama Obama or the Hildebeast a portion of our electoral votes.
There is a movement to do just that and both the GOP and DemocRAT parties are against it.
That's what the law says. That isn't what happened. Poll workers permitted some people claiming to be "independents" access to Republican ballots.
Thanks for you reply.
WTA = winner take all
Essential that is the process for ‘electoral college’ votes except in ME and NE.
CA varies that somewhat for the Primary delegate selection process in that it is winner take all by congressional district for each districts three delegates and winner take all statewide for the at large and bonus delegatges. So in effect a candidate could come in an work for delegates in selected CDs that he may have a good shot at winning.
I guess it just depends upon how one wants to structure the process and campaign.
Thanks Michael. I know some people do support it. I can’t sign on to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.