Posted on 01/30/2014 3:14:12 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Although your point is correct that in California close elections, Republicans were net benefited by the third parties on the general election ballots, I respectfully disagree as to your broader argument that the jungle primary is harmful.
In California there are really three meaningful political movements. Moderate Democrats (for the moment the most powerful) and radical leftist Democrats and Republicans (who are probably evenly balanced). There is FAR MORE ideological and policy difference between the moderate Democrats and the radical leftist Democrats than there is between the moderate Democrats and the Republicans. Demographics assure that Republicans can be elected only in a steadily-shrinking number of inland, majority-white districts. Anyone who has an economic stake in California has a HUGE interest in helping moderate Democrats win and hold office in the coastal and Hispanic-plurality districts.
Kamala Harris won her seat before the jungle primary came in, but I am very confident that in the intervening three years, her temptation to do wildly left-wing things has been held in check knowing that she could end up facing in November a death-penalty-supporting Democrat federal prosecutor turned County Supervisor with a Hispanic surname rather than whatever dolt the California Republican Party is likely to put up.
She is a self centered, self serving moron. I just don’t want her to be able to play the victim card like successfully she did with Rush Limbaugh.
You raise some good points. Athough it seems to me that many of the “moderate” Democrats that I’ve seen aren’t much better than their liberal opponents (Joe Baca comes immediately to mind).
And I misremembered the 2010 AG race— Harris indeed beat Cooley with a narrow plurality in a multi-candidate field, not in a one-on-one runoff (since the jungle primary didn’t start until 2012). I think that it’s unlikely that Cooley would have come within 5% of Harris, much less within less than 1%, in a one-on-one runoff.
Believe me I’m not defending the moderate Democrats.
They are, in many important respects, total dolts. But they believe in capitalism and private property and public order, albeit with lots of taxes, regulations, public employee unions, amnesty, affirmative action to feel less guilty about it. Those things are costly to people like you and me, but but they’re not incompatible with reality and if you like the weather in San Diego or work in media or tech, it’s maybe even worth bearing.
The radical leftists though, believe quite sincerely in things that just have no bearing on Planet Earth. They ever got the reigns it would be Great Leap Forward levels of chaos. But the moderate Democrats will vote for them in general elections until the gangs are actually raping their daughters on the way home from school (see: they are dolts). The jungle primary maybe staves that off...
Calling them moderate is incorrect, they could be called that only in comparison. Rather they are liberal socialists and the worse ones are virulent, insane communists who actively HATE their own country (other than those that view Mexico as their country).
It is true we used to lose a lot of GOP votes to he liartarians and the AIP as well. Though some AIP votes may have gone to morons attracted to the word “independent” not realizing they were voting for a paleo-conservative party. Tom McClintock may have cost victory in races for Controller or whatever he ran for by third parties. But overrall I’d have to check and see if the rats lost more votes or if we did.
But the Greens are growing aren’t they? They could indeed be a big prob for democrats in the future if the regular system was restored.
“Moderate” probably does them more credit, but I stand by the view that Dianne Feinstein and Jerry Brown are closer to your average Republican in the Legislature than either is to Tom Ammiano or Barbara Lee.
The third parties in California undoubtedly benefited Republicans in close races. The Green and Peace & Freedom vote breaks 80% D, 20% not vote, 0% Republican when their lines are missing. Unlike in most places, where the Libertarian vote probably breaks very pro-Republican, in California it breaks more like 40% R (anti-tax), 40% D (pro-marijuana), 20% not vote ... the American Independent Party vote breaks 50%/50% because those are people who have no idea what the AIP is (was?).
It’s basically a trade: give up that small advantage, reduce the ability to nominate and elect fire-breathers in the small and shrinking number of remaining heavily-Republican districts, in exchange for significantly greater ability to keep radical leftists out of office in the large and growing number of heavily Democratic districts, and quite possibly statewide as well.
I think at the end of the day you like that trade if you have an economic or personal interest in California, you dislike it if you are mainly concerned with how many Tea Party Caucus members that California can send to the House of Representatives.
In McClintock’s three statewide losses to a Democrat that got below 50% (1994 Controller, 2002 Controller and 2006 Lt. Gov.), the Democrat winner would have gotten over 50% if he got the Peace and Freedom Party or the Green Party vote.
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.