Nine percenters

I thought the NYTimes graph-article was foreboding.

If 9% of the electorate votes for the winning primary candidate and the two parties have polarized, we are going to see wider and wider swings from left to right and back again every time the presidency changes hands.

It's bad enough to have inconsistent policy making, but the out-party is going to feel even more alienated and furious than before.  

Obama has had a huge change-making presidency and his legacy is going to be preserved by Clinton, but Clinton is going to win because she is running against someone who is mentally unbalanced.  Had the Republicans nominated anyone else, he would have won, would have had Congress, and could have undone Obamacare.  

Is this any different than other election years?  

Is the concern about voter suppression or apathy or ????

We New Jerseyans should be especially concerned about low-turnout primaries because the 2017 Democratic gubernatorial primary is going to be tantamount to the general election.

In 2009, Christie won the Republican primary with 184,000 votes.  In 2005 Jon Corzine won the Democrat primary with 207,000 votes.

Since NJ has about 6.2 million adults (I don't know what percentage are citizens), that means that the eventual gubernatorial winner got 3% of the state's voting-age population.  

If 200,000 votes is all it takes to win the governorship next year, that means that certain special interests can really have undue influence.  This worries me A LOT.

Jude said:

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!

And you tutored my daughter in 2009, yes?