Cochran Camp Estimates 35,000 democrats crossed over to aid them

[AuH20]

So this is how it's going to be?

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014...incumbent.html

[thoughtomator]

So this is how it's going to be?

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014...incumbent.html

The only fair response to these acts is for all the people who supported McDaniel to vote for the opponent most likely to beat Cochran in the general. What's good for the goose...

[specsaregood]

The only fair response to these acts is for all the people who supported McDaniel to vote for the opponent most likely to beat Cochran in the general. What's good for the goose...

That would be illegal.

[thoughtomator]

That would be illegal.

Nay, it is the intent at the time of the primary that matters. All McDaniel's voters originally intended to vote for the Republican in the general, to a person (which can't be said to be true of his opponent's voters).

[William Tell]

That would be illegal.

No, voting in a primary can not legally bind your vote in the General Election. Besides voting is private screw the establishment, let them think you voted for their dumbass.

[William Tell]

Nay, it is the intent at the time of the primary that matters. All McDaniel's voters originally intended to vote for the Republican in the general, to a person (which can't be said to be true of his opponent's voters).

Yes, I always vote 'republican' when I see Republican I use the small r definition.

[AuH20]

This entire McDaniel fiasco reinforced my point about supporting Grimes over McDonnell. Burn it all down.

[specsaregood]

Nay, it is the intent at the time of the primary that matters. All McDaniel's voters originally intended to vote for the Republican in the general, to a person (which can't be said to be true of his opponent's voters).

fair enough.

No, voting in a primary can not legally bind your vote in the General Election. Besides voting is private screw the establishment, let them think you voted for their dumbass.

Well, I coulda sworn I saw a law about that posted yesterday. But I don't want to give em any ideas, next you know they will alter the law so that if you vote in the primary you can't vote in the general and your primary vote automatically converts to the general vote for the same party...

[William Tell]

Well, I coulda sworn I saw a law about that posted yesterday.

You probably did, but it is still not legally binding.

[HOLLYWOOD]

[COpatriot]

That is one of the dirtiest $#@!ing things I've ever seen.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only fair response to these acts is for all the people who supported McDaniel to vote for the opponent most likely to beat Cochran in the general. What's good for the goose...

Yeah, no one should feel obliged to vote for a dirty, corrupt politician like Cochran. What are the options in the General?

[Vanguard101]

Holy fking sht

[AuH20]

Holy fking sht

And this most likely came from the NRSC. Chew on that.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Blog...primaries.html

[Matt Collins]

[AuH20]

BTW if this guy had any balls he would resign from the NRSC after what happened last night!

Sen. Ted Cruz, NRSC Vice Chairman for Grassroots Outreach

[COpatriot]

Beck is throwing a tantrum on his show this morning.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Beck is throwing a tantrum on his show this morning.

Betcha Mark Levine will have an aneurism on his show today. I might actually listen in today.

[Brian4Liberty]

Cochran Camp Estimates 35,000 democrats crossed over to aid them

Actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with voters in Open Primaries and General Elections "crossing over" Party lines.

On the other hand, if it's a closed Primary (or closed run-off), then it might be illegal.

[Shane Harris]

pathetic

[Brian4Liberty]

Mississippi election rules seem to be pretty screwed up and ambiguous.

[asurfaholic]

Just have to make sure all those votes were from people who actually voted properly.

If each of those 35k votes were actual people voting properly then this is just a wake up call for how future elections should be handled, especially in areas that have open primaries.

[thoughtomator]

Just have to make sure all those votes were from people who actually voted properly.

If each of those 35k votes were actual people voting properly then this is just a wake up call for how future elections should be handled, especially in areas that have open primaries.

Even if all those votes are legitimate, resorting to this tactic to gain an decisive advantage over an intraparty opponent is the kind of thing that breaks coalitions. If this is not repudiated, it's game over for the GOP as an institution.

[Brian4Liberty]

It makes no sense to have an open GOP run-off. It's specifically GOP. An Open Primary followed by a General Election with the top 2 makes sense, but not what they did in Mississippi. It seems that this system was set-up with the intent of this type of manipulation.

[mosquitobite]

Even if all those votes are legitimate, resorting to this tactic to gain an decisive advantage over an intraparty opponent is the kind of thing that breaks coalitions. If this is not repudiated, it's game over for the GOP as an institution.

Agreed. This could be the tipping point for a tsunami if the grassroots plays these cards right!


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/i...d-cochran-win/

Keep in mind, though, that the pre-election polls had McDaniel ahead by around 8 points. It seems plausible that the reason they got the race wrong was because they were modeling an electorate that looked a lot more like the first round of the GOP primary instead of the runoff. That certainly makes sense given what I found. The analysis here suggests that Cochran may very well have won because he was able to get traditionally Democratic voters to cast their ballots for him.

[specsaregood]

It makes no sense to have an open GOP run-off. It's specifically GOP. An Open Primary followed by a General Election with the top 2 makes sense, but not what they did in Mississippi. It seems that this system was set-up with the intent of this type of manipulation.

I Disagree. Who is paying for the runoff election? Should not all taxpayers have a say if they are having to pay for it?

One reason I prefer the caucus system where it is paid for by the private organizations.

[mosquitobite]

Even if all those votes are legitimate, resorting to this tactic to gain an decisive advantage over an intraparty opponent is the kind of thing that breaks coalitions. If this is not repudiated, it's game over for the GOP as an institution.

It's one thing for the OTHER party to chide and coerce their followers to wreak havoc in their OPPONENTS primary (ie: Limbaugh in 2008).

It's a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME when the party begs the OTHER PARTY to keep them in power.

[Brian4Liberty]

I Disagree. Who is paying for the runoff election? Should not all taxpayers have a say if they are having to pay for it?

One reason I prefer the caucus system where it is paid for by the private organizations.

You have a point there, especially if it's just for a specific Party to have a run-off. The Party should sponsor (and pay for) their own run-off. But it's a bit of a separate issue. I can think of many other taxpayer funded things I'd like to have a vote on. Authorization of use of military force is just one.

It would be fair if all candidates were included in the run-off. In other words, the GOP, Democrats, Libertarians, etc should all be on the run-off ballot, and the top two can go to the General.

[eduardo89]

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that lying is not illegal.

[tsai3904]

Radio ad targeted to Democrats:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZzXi2PnGJs