CA-Sen: California Quake

[smoltchanov]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I am very much in favor of the top-two system because it actually gives third parties and independent candidates a chance.  Also in one-party states or districts where the primary is the real election, the winner shouldn't be determined by a low turn-out primary.

By the way, I think a D vs D general election is far more likely than an R winning the seat IMO.

[Vega]

I am very much in favor of the top-two system because it actually gives third parties and independent candidates a chance.  Also in one-party states or districts where the primary is the real election, the winner shouldn't be determined by a low turn-out primary.

By the way, I think a D vs D general election is far more likely than an R winning the seat IMO.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. How awesome a Newsom-Harris General election fight would be.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I am very much in favor of the top-two system because it actually gives third parties and independent candidates a chance.  Also in one-party states or districts where the primary is the real election, the winner shouldn't be determined by a low turn-out primary.

By the way, I think a D vs D general election is far more likely than an R winning the seat IMO.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. How awesome a Newsom-Harris General election fight would be.

Be interesting to guess a map. Who would become the de facto conservative candidate?

[Vega]

I am very much in favor of the top-two system because it actually gives third parties and independent candidates a chance.  Also in one-party states or districts where the primary is the real election, the winner shouldn't be determined by a low turn-out primary.

By the way, I think a D vs D general election is far more likely than an R winning the seat IMO.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. How awesome a Newsom-Harris General election fight would be.

Be interesting to guess a map. Who would become the de facto conservative candidate?

I imagine Newsom? I don't know, both are pretty liberal.

[smoltchanov]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMaio, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

[smoltchanov]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

Sorry for typo (corrected), but on all other points i stick to my opinion. I gave enough examples where business Democrats and relatively moderate Republicans REALLY won.

[MalaspinaGold]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

Sorry for typo (corrected), but on all other points i stick to my opinion. I gave enough examples where business Democrats and relatively moderate Republicans REALLY won.

Why should Republicans and Independents have any say in who Democrats nominate?  Why should Democrats and Independents have any say in who Republicans nominate?  What you're essentially arguing is that because you prefer "business Democrats" and Rockefeller Republicans, they should be forced upon districts where a more liberal or conservative candidate better represents the area's political views.  I realize you probably don't see it that way, but that is basically what you are supporting.  Actually, top-two is even worse because it can force same-party general elections which can deprive voters of a meaningful ideological choice.  I'd oppose it just as much were it implemented in a state where Democrats would benefited more from it than Republicans.  Top-two elections, changing the rules for how states allocate electoral votes, voter ID, the destruction of campaign finance reform laws, the dismantlement of the VRA, etc are all basically efforts to rig the electoral system for a particular party and/or ideology and it is pretty disgusting.   Trying to rig elections for economically conservative Democrats or socially moderate Republicans is just as bad as trying to rig them for a particular party!

[DrScholl]

It's highly unlikely that Republicans would not have gotten their preferred candidates under the previous primary system, as none of them faced any viable competition from the other Republican candidates that ran. With that said, I agree with the poster above, elections shouldn't be tailored to benefit anyone, moderates included. Moderates aren't entitled.

[smoltchanov]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

[smoltchanov]

Why should Republicans and Independents have any say in who Democrats nominate?  Why should Democrats and Independents have any say in who Republicans nominate?  What you're essentially arguing is that because you prefer "business Democrats" and Rockefeller Republicans, they should be forced upon districts where a more liberal or conservative candidate better represents the area's political views.  I realize you probably don't see it that way, but that is basically what you are supporting.  Actually, top-two is even worse because it can force same-party general elections which can deprive voters of a meaningful ideological choice.  I'd oppose it just as much were it implemented in a state where Democrats would benefited more from it than Republicans.  Top-two elections, changing the rules for how states allocate electoral votes, voter ID, the destruction of campaign finance reform laws, the dismantlement of the VRA, etc are all basically efforts to rig the electoral system for a particular party and/or ideology and it is pretty disgusting.   Trying to rig elections for economically conservative Democrats or socially moderate Republicans is just as bad as trying to rig them for a particular party!

It's exactly because both Democrats and Republicans in California tailored their primaries to benefit candidates of far-left and far-right accordingly that i support "top 2". After all - moderates and Indies (most of whom are moderates btw) are people too and they are entitled too. Too often in California moderates and Indies were forced by both major parties to vote NOT for those they like most (both major parties were mostly hostile to moderate candidates since  at least Reagan as president), but, holding their nose - for those whom they hate less. I consider this situation abnormal. Now they have a say - there are no more Democratic or Republican primaries, there is one - free for all. Everyone can chose who is best for him/her: liberals have full possibility to vote for liberal candidate in that primary, conservatives - for conservative, moderates - for moderate. Who will get into top 2? Those, preferred by most voters. It's more then Democratic, IMHO. Yes, now there is NO guarantee, that, for example, liberal Democrat (or, more frequently, a conservative Republican) will necessary be on ballot in November as was almost guaranteed under previous system. And (IMHO, again) - it's again a good reflection of district mood. For example - it's rather natural to see 2 Democrats (one - very liberal, one - more pragmatic liberal) on ballot from SF. Does it reflects desires of most of the district population? Absolutely! The same in some Republican districts, where it's only natural to see  2 somewhat different Republicans. What about "minority rights", i.e - rights of conservative Republicans in strongly Democratic districts and vice versa? Given that there are not too much of them and that they would NOT elect their preferred candidates in such districts - well, i don't see it as EXTREMELY important. Give me better way to take into account opinions of MOST people and give them a chance - and i will support it! But not an "old-style party primary" which lead to extremely polarized full of hating each other people Legislature!

[MalaspinaGold]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

Didn't quite work in AD-44 though, where McCoy beat out de las Piedras in the primaries, and was the beaten by Irwin.

Of course DeMaio wouldn't have been defeated in a primary, as he unilaterally cleared the field. This only applies to clown car primaries, of which there were decidedly few this year. Ca-52 and CA-31  were the closest we had (and of course if things had gone a bit differently in CA-31, we would have a D+5-8 seat being represented by a Republican, which is NOT representative.

And your comment about Dodd doesn't really make sense Dodd didn't advance because two progressives split the vote. If they had run in a normal primary, the two progressives would have split the vote anyway and Dodd would have won regardless.

Also AD-16 doesn't exactly work either, as Catharine Baker was the only Republican running- if there was a normal primary, she would have been running unopposed, and would have been nominated anyway (and you can't argue that conservatives stepped aside for her because she was the best candidate either, because she would have been the best candidate regardless of the primary type- there is no reason for other Republicans not to run in a jungle primary yet run in a regular primary).

[smoltchanov]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

Didn't quite work in AD-44 though, where McCoy beat out de las Piedras in the primaries, and was the beaten by Irwin.

Of course DeMaio wouldn't have been defeated in a primary, as he unilaterally cleared the field. This only applies to clown car primaries, of which there were decidedly few this year. Ca-52 and CA-31  were the closest we had (and of course if things had gone a bit differently in CA-31, we would have a D+5-8 seat being represented by a Republican, which is NOT representative.

And your comment about Dodd doesn't really make sense Dodd didn't advance because two progressives split the vote. If they had run in a normal primary, the two progressives would have split the vote anyway and Dodd would have won regardless.

Also AD-16 doesn't exactly work either, as Catharine Baker was the only Republican running- if there was a normal primary, she would have been running unopposed, and would have been nominated anyway (and you can't argue that conservatives stepped aside for her because she was the best candidate either, because she would have been the best candidate regardless of the primary type- there is no reason for other Republicans not to run in a jungle primary yet run in a regular primary).

I never stated that it ALWAYS works. But it works in most cases. That's more then enough for me. And i see it as a best system, when, as was the case in AD-16,  "business Democrats" banked on their candidate (Glazer) getting into top 2 and beating anyone (Sbranti with help from Republicans and Indies or Baker - with help from liberal Democrats) there. That didn't happened and they made the only correct thing - put their preferences before party label and moved en masse to Baker, but it could be otherwise. In closed Democratic primary Glazer would stand no chances against Sbranti.

In AD-44 McCoy began his campaign much earlier then his more moderate opponent, who simply didn't had enough time to catch up, and, obviously, moderate Republicans helped Irwin in general

And Demaio got 35% in primary against 18.5% for Jorgensen (conservative Republican) and 4% for Simon. Given DeMaio relative popularity among moderates i wouldn't be so sure that he would easily win closed Republican primary. At least - i am not ready to risk..

Dodd? Yes, if you also ignore facts that in open primary he attracted not only Democratic votes, but also - votes of Indies and even some Republicans, who were attracted to "reasonable former Republican" and understood quite clearly that their present candidate can't win. Would that happen in Democratic primary? Not sure.

P.S. Until you give me better system (and, yes, it must be at least just to moderates and Indies) -  i will stand for "top 2" and - parties be damned!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

Didn't quite work in AD-44 though, where McCoy beat out de las Piedras in the primaries, and was the beaten by Irwin.

Of course DeMaio wouldn't have been defeated in a primary, as he unilaterally cleared the field. This only applies to clown car primaries, of which there were decidedly few this year. Ca-52 and CA-31  were the closest we had (and of course if things had gone a bit differently in CA-31, we would have a D+5-8 seat being represented by a Republican, which is NOT representative.

And your comment about Dodd doesn't really make sense Dodd didn't advance because two progressives split the vote. If they had run in a normal primary, the two progressives would have split the vote anyway and Dodd would have won regardless.

Also AD-16 doesn't exactly work either, as Catharine Baker was the only Republican running- if there was a normal primary, she would have been running unopposed, and would have been nominated anyway (and you can't argue that conservatives stepped aside for her because she was the best candidate either, because she would have been the best candidate regardless of the primary type- there is no reason for other Republicans not to run in a jungle primary yet run in a regular primary).

I never stated that it ALWAYS works. But it works in most cases. That's more then enough for me. And i see it as a best system, when, as was the case in AD-16,  "business Democrats" banked on their candidate (Glazer) getting into top 2 and beating anyone (Sbranti with help from Republicans and Indies or Baker - with help from liberal Democrats) there. That didn't happened and they made the only correct thing - put their preferences before party label and moved en masse to Baker, but it could be otherwise. In closed Democratic primary Glazer would stand no chances against Sbranti.

In AD-44 McCoy began his campaign much earlier then his more moderate opponent, who simply didn't had enough time to catch up, and, obviously, moderate Republicans helped Irwin in general

And Demaio got 35% in primary against 18.5% for Jorgensen (conservative Republican) and 4% for Simon. Given DeMaio relative popularity among moderates i wouldn't be so sure that he would easily win closed Republican primary. At least - i am not ready to risk..

Dodd? Yes, if you also ignore facts that in open primary he attracted not only Democratic votes, but also - votes of Indies and even some Republicans, who were attracted to "reasonable former Republican" and understood quite clearly that their present candidate can't win. Would that happen in Democratic primary? Not sure.

P.S. Until you give me better system (and, yes, it must be at least just to moderates and Indies) -  i will stand for "top 2" and - parties be damned!

Dude, if you want to rig the electoral system in favor of politicians who are closer to you ideologically, you've obviously got a right to support such a system.  But please stop acting like this is some sort of noble quest for a better electoral system or good government.  You have certain political views and want to rig the system to elect more candidates who are closer to you ideologically.  That's pretty gross and no better than the Republican efforts to disenfranchise minorities and college students.  If that's what you want to see implemented then fine, but at least be straightforward about what it is you want; we'll understand your posts just as well without the "I'm a Bold Moderate speaking truth to power" schtick. 

Btw, you're just as much of an ideological partisan as any tea-partier or True Leftist; the only difference is that you want to see more of the people formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans.  This idea that "moderates" are somehow entitled to some sort of structural advantage over more extreme candidates is pretty undemocratic, tbh.  For that matter, what is a moderate anyway?  It's a very subjective term (ex: I'd argue Jon Huntsman, who seems right up your ally, was far more of an extremist on many economic issues than Santorum was).  Furthermore, a moderate can be a bigger party hack than a staunch liberal or conservative (ex: Ron Wyden seems much less of a party hack than Claire McCaskill).

[smoltchanov]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

Didn't quite work in AD-44 though, where McCoy beat out de las Piedras in the primaries, and was the beaten by Irwin.

Of course DeMaio wouldn't have been defeated in a primary, as he unilaterally cleared the field. This only applies to clown car primaries, of which there were decidedly few this year. Ca-52 and CA-31  were the closest we had (and of course if things had gone a bit differently in CA-31, we would have a D+5-8 seat being represented by a Republican, which is NOT representative.

And your comment about Dodd doesn't really make sense Dodd didn't advance because two progressives split the vote. If they had run in a normal primary, the two progressives would have split the vote anyway and Dodd would have won regardless.

Also AD-16 doesn't exactly work either, as Catharine Baker was the only Republican running- if there was a normal primary, she would have been running unopposed, and would have been nominated anyway (and you can't argue that conservatives stepped aside for her because she was the best candidate either, because she would have been the best candidate regardless of the primary type- there is no reason for other Republicans not to run in a jungle primary yet run in a regular primary).

I never stated that it ALWAYS works. But it works in most cases. That's more then enough for me. And i see it as a best system, when, as was the case in AD-16,  "business Democrats" banked on their candidate (Glazer) getting into top 2 and beating anyone (Sbranti with help from Republicans and Indies or Baker - with help from liberal Democrats) there. That didn't happened and they made the only correct thing - put their preferences before party label and moved en masse to Baker, but it could be otherwise. In closed Democratic primary Glazer would stand no chances against Sbranti.

In AD-44 McCoy began his campaign much earlier then his more moderate opponent, who simply didn't had enough time to catch up, and, obviously, moderate Republicans helped Irwin in general

And Demaio got 35% in primary against 18.5% for Jorgensen (conservative Republican) and 4% for Simon. Given DeMaio relative popularity among moderates i wouldn't be so sure that he would easily win closed Republican primary. At least - i am not ready to risk..

Dodd? Yes, if you also ignore facts that in open primary he attracted not only Democratic votes, but also - votes of Indies and even some Republicans, who were attracted to "reasonable former Republican" and understood quite clearly that their present candidate can't win. Would that happen in Democratic primary? Not sure.

P.S. Until you give me better system (and, yes, it must be at least just to moderates and Indies) -  i will stand for "top 2" and - parties be damned!

Dude, if you want to rig the electoral system in favor of politicians who are closer to you ideologically, you've obviously got a right to support such a system.  But please stop acting like this is some sort of noble quest for a better electoral system or good government.  You have certain political views and want to rig the system to elect more candidates who are closer to you ideologically.  That's pretty gross and no better than the Republican efforts to disenfranchise minorities and college students.  If that's what you want to see implemented then fine, but at least be straightforward about what it is you want; we'll understand your posts just as well without the "I'm a Bold Moderate speaking truth to power" schtick.  

Btw, you're just as much of an ideological partisan as any tea-partier or True Leftist; the only difference is that you want to see more of the people formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans.  This idea that "moderates" are somehow entitled to some sort of structural advantage over more extreme candidates is pretty undemocratic, tbh.  For that matter, what is a moderate anyway?  It's a very subjective term (ex: I'd argue Jon Huntsman, who seems right up your ally, was far more of an extremist on many economic issues than Santorum was).  Furthermore, a moderate can be a bigger party hack than a staunch liberal or conservative (ex: Ron Wyden seems much less of a party hack than Claire McCaskill).

Dude, don't try to "lecture me" - i am surely smarter then that, and smarter then you as well. So - i don't need your lectures. I never hid that i have my electioral preferences and what they are. But my preferences are exactly for those, who are denied their rights under 2-party system as it existed before "top 2". Left-wingers have Democratic party at their disposal, right-wingers - Republican, moderates - nothing. Would there be a European-style multiparty system in US - i would absolutely be for each party having it's own primary and then - all parties running their candidates in general. As it is, with about 40% of people essentially having no choice - i am for "top 2".

I explained that from very beginning. And, BTW, i am not accustomed when someone "talks" to me as you tried. So - i am done talking to you. The"ignore" list exist exactly for this purpose...

[Maxwell]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

[smoltchanov]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What is your evidence that they would not have nominated DeMaio?

Close Republican primaries arre always favorable to the most conservative candidate running (and even semi-open - too). They could, but that would be more difficult for him then it was under "top 2". And I am almost sure they would nominate Bierman, not Ose (who had much broader crossover appeal) in their primary.

Didn't quite work in AD-44 though, where McCoy beat out de las Piedras in the primaries, and was the beaten by Irwin.

Of course DeMaio wouldn't have been defeated in a primary, as he unilaterally cleared the field. This only applies to clown car primaries, of which there were decidedly few this year. Ca-52 and CA-31  were the closest we had (and of course if things had gone a bit differently in CA-31, we would have a D+5-8 seat being represented by a Republican, which is NOT representative.

And your comment about Dodd doesn't really make sense Dodd didn't advance because two progressives split the vote. If they had run in a normal primary, the two progressives would have split the vote anyway and Dodd would have won regardless.

Also AD-16 doesn't exactly work either, as Catharine Baker was the only Republican running- if there was a normal primary, she would have been running unopposed, and would have been nominated anyway (and you can't argue that conservatives stepped aside for her because she was the best candidate either, because she would have been the best candidate regardless of the primary type- there is no reason for other Republicans not to run in a jungle primary yet run in a regular primary).

I never stated that it ALWAYS works. But it works in most cases. That's more then enough for me. And i see it as a best system, when, as was the case in AD-16,  "business Democrats" banked on their candidate (Glazer) getting into top 2 and beating anyone (Sbranti with help from Republicans and Indies or Baker - with help from liberal Democrats) there. That didn't happened and they made the only correct thing - put their preferences before party label and moved en masse to Baker, but it could be otherwise. In closed Democratic primary Glazer would stand no chances against Sbranti.

In AD-44 McCoy began his campaign much earlier then his more moderate opponent, who simply didn't had enough time to catch up, and, obviously, moderate Republicans helped Irwin in general

And Demaio got 35% in primary against 18.5% for Jorgensen (conservative Republican) and 4% for Simon. Given DeMaio relative popularity among moderates i wouldn't be so sure that he would easily win closed Republican primary. At least - i am not ready to risk..

Dodd? Yes, if you also ignore facts that in open primary he attracted not only Democratic votes, but also - votes of Indies and even some Republicans, who were attracted to "reasonable former Republican" and understood quite clearly that their present candidate can't win. Would that happen in Democratic primary? Not sure.

P.S. Until you give me better system (and, yes, it must be at least just to moderates and Indies) -  i will stand for "top 2" and - parties be damned!

Dude, if you want to rig the electoral system in favor of politicians who are closer to you ideologically, you've obviously got a right to support such a system.  But please stop acting like this is some sort of noble quest for a better electoral system or good government.  You have certain political views and want to rig the system to elect more candidates who are closer to you ideologically.  That's pretty gross and no better than the Republican efforts to disenfranchise minorities and college students.  If that's what you want to see implemented then fine, but at least be straightforward about what it is you want; we'll understand your posts just as well without the "I'm a Bold Moderate speaking truth to power" schtick.  

Btw, you're just as much of an ideological partisan as any tea-partier or True Leftist; the only difference is that you want to see more of the people formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans.  This idea that "moderates" are somehow entitled to some sort of structural advantage over more extreme candidates is pretty undemocratic, tbh.  For that matter, what is a moderate anyway?  It's a very subjective term (ex: I'd argue Jon Huntsman, who seems right up your ally, was far more of an extremist on many economic issues than Santorum was).  Furthermore, a moderate can be a bigger party hack than a staunch liberal or conservative (ex: Ron Wyden seems much less of a party hack than Claire McCaskill).

Dude, don't try to "lecture me" - i am surely smarter then that, and smarter then you as well. So - i don't need your lectures.

lol

I never hid that i have my electioral preferences and what they are. But my preferences are exactly for those, who are denied their rights under 2-party system as it existed before "top 2". Left-wingers have Democratic party at their disposal, right-wingers - Republican, moderates - nothing. Would there be a European-style multiparty system in US - i would absolutely be for each party having it's own primary and then - all parties running their candidates in general. As it is, with about 40% of people essentially having no choice - i am for "top 2". 

I explained that from very beginning.

I suppose it's partially in the eye of the beholder, but I don't really see how you can possibly argue economic left-wingers dominate the Democratic Party.  If "moderates" are such a big share of the electorate, why don't they just choose more moderate candidates in the primaries?  It seems like you're assuming all so-called independents are moderates (when in fact most are just as partisan, and on many issues as extreme, as most Republicans and Democrats).  I oppose any party or ideology trying to rig the electoral system, moderates and so-called Independents aren't entitled to any more influence than extremists and vice-versa.  If you don't like how other people vote, fair enough, but that doesn't justify rigging the electoral system.

And, BTW, i am not accustomed when someone "talks" to me as you tried. So - i am done talking to you. The"ignore" list exist exactly for this purpose...

I get that you didn't like being called out about what you were advocating and that being called an ideological hack/partisan probably struck a nerve given how you seem to see yourself politically, but if you put people on ignore whenever they bluntly criticize you or your views then you'll have 90% of the forum on ignore soon.  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or whatever, but if you can't take the heat...

[Lief 🗽]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

[smoltchanov]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

Look at myself and absolutely disagree (have absolutely no desire to be neither Democrat, nor Republican as parties are now). Look at my friends and absolutely disagree. Look at left-wing Democratic congressmen - and absolutely disagree.. And so on.. But may be our ideas of who is a moderate are very different..

[Maxwell]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

I'm just asking who would be the strongest, not who could win.

[smoltchanov]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

I'm just asking who would be the strongest, not who could win.

The most non-controversial one. Cooley will not run, probably, so - somebody like Peterson or Swearengin... Both got more or less respectable percentages this year