2024 USA Election: Wishin' and Hopin'

[filghy2]

Heather Cox Richardson is a historian who offers non-hysterical political commentary. Here's her latest:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substac...anuary-24-2024

Your balanced commentator completely missed the rather important point that most of Nikki Haley's votes came from non-Republicans.
"I fall into the category of observers who see bad news: more than 45% of Republican primary voters—those most fervent about the party—chose someone other than Trump."

According to this article, 70% of Trump's voters were registered Republicans, but only 27% of Haley's. That implies Trump won around 75% of registered Republicans.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ll/ar-BB1hcmF3

On the Democrat side, the Biden write-in won 65% of the vote. I haven't seen any numbers on the share of non-registered Democrats, but it's not clear on the face of it that his was a more impressive result than Trump's, especially given Dean Phillips is a lower-profile candidate than Nikki Haley.

[Fitzcarraldo]

On the Democrat side, the Biden write-in won 65% of the vote. I haven't seen any numbers on the share of non-registered Democrats, but it's not clear on the face of it that his was a more impressive result than Trump's, especially given Dean Phillips is a lower-profile candidate than Nikki Haley.

It's not impressive that someone who wasn't on the ballot won 65% of the vote? And there were even fake robocalls using his voice urging people not to vote?

OK.

Sorry, but Heather Cox Richardson has much better credentials regarding American politics than you do. I realize you feel compelled to argue about everything, but sometimes you're just silly.

[filghy2]

It's not impressive that someone who wasn't on the ballot won 65% of the vote?

How would anyone know whether 65% was impressive or not without a benchmark for comparison? Has there been any previous case of a write-in for an incumbent?

Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 both received 89% of the vote in the Democrat primaries. That seems like a benchmark for the future official primaries. If Biden can't get close to this it's probably not a good sign.

[Stavros]

Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 both received 89% of the vote in the Democrat primaries. That seems like a benchmark for the future official primaries. If Biden can't get close to this it's probably not a good sign.

So why isn't Trump getting 80% of the vote so far?

[filghy2]

So why isn't Trump getting 80% of the vote so far?

Trump is not the incumbent President. There's an element of truth in saying he effectively is to most Republicans, but it's an over-simplification to take it 100% literally.

100% of Democrat voters think Biden is the legitimately-elected President. It seems reasonable to think he should be getting over 80%, especially when his opponents are relative nobodies.

Around two-thirds of Republican voters apparently believe Trump really won the 2020 election. That still leaves one-third who don't see him as the incumbent. Hence, it's not an equivalent situation.

[Fitzcarraldo]

TIt seems reasonable to think he should be getting over 80%, especially when his opponents are relative nobodies.

Not in a primary. Not in a general election. Eighty percent is an insanely high margin in any type of election. Have you ever witnessed a landslide of that magnitude in your country?

[filghy2]

Not in a primary. Not in a general election. Eighty percent is an insanely high margin in any type of election. Have you ever witnessed a landslide of that magnitude in your country?

Obviously, I was talking about primaries where there's an incumbent President, not general elections.

Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 both received 89% of the vote in the Democrat primaries. That seems like a benchmark for the future official primaries. If Biden can't get close to this it's probably not a good sign.

FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_D...tial_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_D...tial_primaries

[Stavros]

A more general point, and I have probably made it before, is that the party system in the US lends itself to these expensive campaigns, and doesn't even make sense when, as in New Hampshire, people who don't vote for one party can take part in choosing the candidate of another. They are going to have that choice in a formal election.

What strikes me then is that this process is a staggering waste of money, and is a form of duplication of the General Election before it takes place, and I think the time has come for Americans to ask if there is no other way for parties to choose their candidates.

[filghy2]

The modern US primary system only started after 1968, prompted by anti-war activists who were angry about the selection of Hubert Humphrey. Up to that time there were primaries in some states, but mostly the candidate was decided by party officials.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...cowan-00135381

Party democracy is good in theory, but the problem in practice is that few people join political parties these days and those who do are more likely to be zealous in their views. This often results in candidates who are too extreme.

A good system might be something like that used by the Australian Labour Party. They give a 50:50 weighting to votes of both the party MPs and party membership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader...an_Labor_Party

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link. I think that in the end the question is -do people get the politicians they want, or get the politicians they deserve? I am not sure the answer is positive in either case! Politicians for the most part are people who want to be in public life, for whatever reason. I can see why a caucus or primary is one means of finding out if the people are interested, but why go through the process in effect, twice over? Whatever. Maybe the deeper question is whether or not more people not qualified for public office are seeking it, because they are corrupt, because they have extreme views, or maybe just lack the intelligence.

There have been statements of staggering unintelligence from British politicians -Dominic Raab when he was 'Brexit Secretary' expressed surprise at the importance of the Dover-Calais route for trade. When Theresa May appointed Karen Bradley (who?) as Northern Ireland Secretary Bradley admitted before going there she did not know the place was so sectarian that Unionists did not vote for Nationalists and Nationalists did not vote for Unionists. And she had responsibility for Government policy in the province!