Nine percenters

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0

The nation deserves Trump.  Or Clinton.   Yechhh. 

This fellow seems to have aggregated caucus and primary turnout data for each state, and gives a link to each state's report

http://www.electproject.org/2016P

I only see 3 states below 10%. How did 9% come about?

ETA: I see - that article is taking the total of number of people who actually voted for the candidate. It's not talking about turnout. My bad!

Is this any different from any other year?  The primary system is flawed and needs to be overhauled, but shame on all those who do not vote.  

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

That's called the general election. the primaries are for party selection which is why I am against open primaries

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

SOUNDS FRENCH

My gut says, maybe.

I agree with LL

Hi, Dave,

I've missed your empty, sour-grapes carping for the past, what 36 hours?

My question for you is, at this point, what is the value of Hillary bashing? (actually all-Clinton bashing, as I see you've started on Bill, too.) When will you stop? Who will you vote for?

"The nation deserves Trump," you say above. I don't think we're as stupid as you think, and frankly, I don't appreciate that remark. It would fit perfectly at Trump's RNC convention. 

And what is the point of the 9% presentation? Even if it's true, does that make voting for the right candidate less important? Does it mean that we should all write in BS's name?

In spite of your snide sniping , Smiley  will not be President. Yes, he inspired many voters. Yes, he changed the conversation. (At the convention, he seemed to forget how to smile, why?) Yes, he impacted the platform. And, yes, he was screwed over by the DNC, for sure, and that organization needs to be looked at, no question. (Will Hillary clean it up? Someone should ask her and push her on it. On the other hand, the DNC is a private organization that can decide which candidate it wants to support. It didn't endorse a candidate, per se, but it would have not been out of line if it did. BS wasn't even a Democrat until, what, 20 minutes ago?)  But even without that, [in my opinion] he would not have won the nom nor would he beat Dandy Donny in the general election. There are so many polls, I don't give any of them much credence, but I don't personally see how BS could possibly beat Trump. 

See the NYT article to which I've linked below for an analysis of how unlikely it is that Trump can win the general election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html?_r=0

Now we're in the general election campaign. How can you possibly disagree that HRC is the better of the candidates in the running? What other motivation can you have at this point to bash Hillary, other than pathetic self-aggrandizement and childish rebellion?

Whenever I see the attached cartoon, I think of you. 

Your pal,

Mr T

mikescott said:

Is this any different from any other year?  The primary system is flawed and needs to be overhauled, but shame on all those who do not vote.  

Thank you for understanding the point of my post.

Mr T,

See the above. 

If the point is "shame on all those who do not vote," then I'm with you. 

I remain offended by your statement that "the nation deserves Trump,"

Being offended is something people need to get over. 

dave said:

Being offended is something people need to get over. 

Starting with you, Dave.

It is easy to offend people.  Trump got his idea for a wall on a visit to Israel

Dennis_Seelbach said:

dave said:

Being offended is something people need to get over. 

Starting with you, Dave.

Have you completely forgotten all of your posts on MOL denegrating others with different viewpoints? 

I mean...I can start. No need to argue.

Starting with the caveat that I don't know what the F i'm talking about and as such a simple question is posed -

Is 10% of the population enough of a sample size that the selection of the candidates are valid?  

I don't think its that too few people bothered to vote.   I think its that the parties themselves are to blame for promoting their worst choices.  In terms of the republican side, they promoted 10 crappy candidates and the majority of their voters decided the crappiest among them was their guy.  Apparently the republicans like the lowest common denominator.  

On the democratic side we have the party machine promoting the candidate who had the biggest need to be their candidate, who has the biggest political history and a large ongoing influence.  

I can't explain the Republicans. The Democrats picked the one Democrat that you've actually heard of.

hoops said:

Starting with the caveat that I don't know what the F i'm talking about and as such a simple question is posed -

Is 10% of the population enough of a sample size that the selection of the candidates are valid?  

 

Ten percent is a way bigger sample size than you'd need for a statistically significant result. The problem in this case is that it isn't in any way a random sample, which makes the results totally useless as a snapshot of actual overall opinion. You're getting the people who care the most--highly skewed. But in any event, primaries aren't polls, so this isn't the right way to be thinking about it. 

Dave (or anyone), how do you think we should improve the primary process? 

Just as an aside, perhaps way off topic, at Columbia HS I am known as "Mr T". I am not The Soulful Mr T.

I will stay out of this discussion!!

Carry on!

librarylady said:

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

That's called the general election. the primaries are for party selection which is why I am against open primaries

If the primaries "are for party selection" then why is the general public (instead of the Dem and Repub parties) paying for these primaries (including me, an independent), sample ballots, and other ancillary costs surrounding these Repub/Dem primaries?

imonlysleeping said:

hoops said:

Starting with the caveat that I don't know what the F i'm talking about and as such a simple question is posed -

Is 10% of the population enough of a sample size that the selection of the candidates are valid?  

 

Ten percent is a way bigger sample size than you'd need for a statistically significant result. The problem in this case is that it isn't in any way a random sample, which makes the results totally useless as a snapshot of actual overall opinion. You're getting the people who care the most--highly skewed. But in any event, primaries aren't polls, so this isn't the right way to be thinking about it. 




Dave (or anyone), how do you think we should improve the primary process? 

As I said. You do not improve it. You eliminate it. Open ballot to anyone who meets minimal signature criteria. Runoff round or a one round election with preference voting.

RealityForAll said:

librarylady said:

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

That's called the general election. the primaries are for party selection which is why I am against open primaries

If the primaries "are for party selection" then why is the general public (instead of the Dems/Repubs) paying for these primaries (including me, an independent), sample ballots, and other ancillary costs surrounding these Repub/Dem primaries?

I have said that repeatedly. They are paying because the parties have a stranglehold. Government absolutely should not run party primary election. If parties want a primary they should run and finance them themselves. That is how it happens in most of the rest of the world.

bramzzoinks said:

RealityForAll said:

librarylady said:

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

That's called the general election. the primaries are for party selection which is why I am against open primaries

If the primaries "are for party selection" then why is the general public (instead of the Dems/Repubs) paying for these primaries (including me, an independent), sample ballots, and other ancillary costs surrounding these Repub/Dem primaries?

I have said that repeatedly. They are paying because the parties have a stranglehold. Government absolutely should not run party primary election. If parties want a primary they should run and finance them themselves. That is how it happens in most of the rest of the world.

I agree with you on this.

Jude said:

Just as an aside, perhaps way off topic, at Columbia HS I am known as "Mr T". I am not The Soulful Mr T.

I will stay out of this discussion!!

Carry on!

Oh, yes you are! 

(Are you Mr. T the beloved math and robotics teacher? That I used to call The Brainful Mr T?)

according to the fine print on one of the slide, 9% is the norm:

"The overall shares were about the same in 2008, the last cycle without an incumbent president running."

bramzzoinks said:

imonlysleeping said:

hoops said:

Starting with the caveat that I don't know what the F i'm talking about and as such a simple question is posed -

Is 10% of the population enough of a sample size that the selection of the candidates are valid?  

 

Ten percent is a way bigger sample size than you'd need for a statistically significant result. The problem in this case is that it isn't in any way a random sample, which makes the results totally useless as a snapshot of actual overall opinion. You're getting the people who care the most--highly skewed. But in any event, primaries aren't polls, so this isn't the right way to be thinking about it. 




Dave (or anyone), how do you think we should improve the primary process? 

As I said. You do not improve it. You eliminate it. Open ballot to anyone who meets minimal signature criteria. Runoff round or a one round election with preference voting.

This isn't going to happen. 

bramzzoinks said:

RealityForAll said:

librarylady said:

bramzzoinks said:

Party line ballots need to be eliminated and elections need to be open ballots with either runoffs or some system of ranked voting.

That's called the general election. the primaries are for party selection which is why I am against open primaries

If the primaries "are for party selection" then why is the general public (instead of the Dems/Repubs) paying for these primaries (including me, an independent), sample ballots, and other ancillary costs surrounding these Repub/Dem primaries?

I have said that repeatedly. They are paying because the parties have a stranglehold. Government absolutely should not run party primary election. If parties want a primary they should run and finance them themselves. That is how it happens in most of the rest of the world.

The entire system is a hybrid. It was supposed to make things more democratic. Instead of "smoke filled rooms" we have Primaries. The Parties would probably have preferred the old system but the Progressive Reformers created the Primaries and made them governmental functions.

Mr. Zoinks's system would essentially do away with Political Parties. Everyone would run as an individual with a runoff or weighted voting.

I'd prefer the Israeli System where every opinion on the spectrum has its own Party. No one has to compromise his or her beliefs. The Parties pick their own candidates and then each voter votes for the Party whose platform best matches that voter's views. Seats in Parliament are then allocated to each Party based on the % of the votes it won. 

I prefer the system without 700 plus pre-anointed Super Delegates with the power to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Well, I teach physics, science research, and am the adviser to the robotics club. Students might put adjectives in front of the appellation "Mr T" but it might not be flattering! 

Again, carry on!