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?
rimshot.
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!
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.
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.
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.
In times past, Democrats picked their candidate; Republicans, theirs. Independents had no say whatsoever. Shouldn’t it be that way everywhere?
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.
Fox News isn’t worth watching or reading.
That’s about the funniest spin I’ve read all day.
Trust me, almost every conservative I know is registered as Decline to State. Part of it is a privacy issue, and partly because we don’t identify with the local RINOs.
But I don’t know any of us who will pulling the D lever in November.
As a practical matter, our votes may be decisive in the close Democratic race, where we will be voting later today. And I can tell you that I don’t know anyone who will be voting for Hillary. So ironically Obama will be the beneficiary of the Dem’s open primary.