Sassenach wrote:So out of interest, do all of those states actually record the registered status of voters ?

what do you mean?

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:So out of interest, do all of those states actually record the registered status of voters ?

what do you mean?

He means are voters registered to a party in those states or not?

Sass - as of this article from 2 years ago, 31 states plus DC recorded registrations. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/state-pa ... 99977.html

However, some have very low rates of registration. But Florida has 78% of voters registered to a party, so I would expect party polling to be more accurate than Michegan which has zero.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:So out of interest, do all of those states actually record the registered status of voters ?

what do you mean?

He means are voters registered to a party in those states or not?

In Mass. you can register for several different parties, or you can register "unenrolled" which is commonly referred to as "Independent". As an unenrolled registree, I get to choose my ballot, which in this year is either Democratic or Republican.

When I went to the poll station, they show each name as either "D", "R", "U", or whatever. As a "U", they asked me which ballot I would like, and I chose Republican. They marked that down for ballot counting purposes, but I retain my unenrolled status.

I think Dr. Fate is right that it is unfair that I get to influence the Republican nomination even though I'm not in the Party. Even without that privilege, I would still choose to be unenrolled since neither party speaks for me.

I was attempting to establish whether the difficulties in accurately polling the primaries in Michigan are greater than in other states, which might explain why the polls were so wildly out there compared with elsewhere. If there's no such thing as a registered party member in Michigan, which apparently there isn't, then it's hard for the pollsters to get an accurate sample because all they have to go on is which primary somebody voted in last time, and if the last time there was no contest for the Dems then a lot of Dems might have chosen to vote in the Republican primary. I'm guessing as well that the sort of people who would choose to do that are going to be the more motivated ones who really wanted to ensure that certain candidates didn't win (Santorum in this case) and these could easily have been the sort who might be more susceptible to voting for Bernie this time round. Just a guess of course, but it's a plausible hypothesis. The polls could have been so wrong because they simply weren't picking up on a lot of Bernie's supporters in their samples.

It sound like the system in Mass differs from Michigan. You do have registered affiliations and it's only open to the extent that unaffiliateds can vote either way, which makes it less open than the Michigan primary.

I think Dr. Fate is right that it is unfair that I get to influence the Republican nomination even though I'm not in the Party.

It's not unfair because this is the choice made by the local Republican party. They could always change the rules if they wanted to.

Sassenach wrote:

I think Dr. Fate is right that it is unfair that I get to influence the Republican nomination even though I'm not in the Party.

It's not unfair because this is the choice made by the local Republican party. They could always change the rules if they wanted to.

My best guess is that it is state law, and not a decision made by the local Parties.

sass

I was attempting to establish whether the difficulties in accurately polling the primaries in Michigan are greater than in other states,

There were 9 reasons.... A lot having to do with weighting assumptions,. turn out and open primaries..
Here's the experts...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... gan-upset/

ray

My best guess is that it is state law, and not a decision made by the local Parties

well, the law enforces the decisions of the parties.Although legislatures pass laws to enforce the decision, the decision is made by the party officials.
The exceptions are on timing, where national officials enforce their will with the force of disqualifying delegates from states that defy their direction.

When it comes to determining when and how primary elections are held, partisan political considerations are often front and center. But politics is only part of the “primary” story. It is up to state legislatures to set the ground rules for selecting candidates to run in general elections, taking federal requirements, voter needs, and costs into account, along with politics, of course.
Those ground rules are always subject to change, and this year, 137 bills proposing changes to state primary elections have been introduced in 41 states. (Presidential Preference Primaries are a different kettle of fish; see page 2.) Before looking at changes, we’ll look at where the states stand now in terms of primary rules.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... spx#Primer

Ray Jay wrote:I think Dr. Fate is right that it is unfair that I get to influence the Republican nomination even though I'm not in the Party. Even without that privilege, I would still choose to be unenrolled since neither party speaks for me.

I suppose that the parties have a choice to make between purity and popular backing. According to the Huff link above only 11% of voters in your state are registered Republicans, 36% Democrats and 53% unregistered. Perhaps because being unregistered you can vote in a primary.

Even where states make the rules it will be on a bipartisan basis in state legislatures so perhaps the Mass GOP had to compromise with the Dems but you can be sure that if the state party were not happy you would have heard about it by now.

The other side to it is that ballot access rules (which vary by state), mean that it is often very hard for "third party" candidates to get to the November election.

I presume the rationale behind open primaries is that if somebody has turned out to vote for a particular candidate in the primary they're more likely to follow that up in the general, so in theory it gives you a greater chance of winning. Whether that actually holds true of course is the question. Still, I'm sure that if the Massachusetts Republicans really wanted the rules to be changed they could get it done. They probably haven't bothered because they know that in their state it's an irrelevance.

Sas:

Still, I'm sure that if the Massachusetts Republicans really wanted the rules to be changed they could get it done.

You are?

Ray Jay wrote:Sas:

Still, I'm sure that if the Massachusetts Republicans really wanted the rules to be changed they could get it done.

You are?

Or they would be openly complaining about it. Are the State GOP saying anything?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Sas:

Still, I'm sure that if the Massachusetts Republicans really wanted the rules to be changed they could get it done.

You are?

Or they would be openly complaining about it. Are the State GOP saying anything?

That's a different issue. Republicans in the Mass. legislature are at about 20% ... I'm not sure they have much say about anything.

So Trump did just fine. If he's won at least 25 delegates in Missouri, and it looks more like 35, then he's on track to win a majority, unless everyone in the North moves to Kasich. And none of the polling shows that as likely.
If he doesn't win a majority, say some pundits, then the convention will be a mess and a bid to forestall Drumpf will mean a fractured party and disaster. . But a Drumpf candidacy, according to others will be a disaster.

The big problem for republicans is that not one of the candidates seem capable of "uniting" the party. Not, Kasich, Cruz or Trump. And I'd bet that Trump supporters would balk if a white knight like Paul Ryan showed up...

According to the ABC Exit polls Cruz is considered untrustworthy by 48% of voters in last nights primaries and Trump by 53%.
29% of non-Cruz voters will not support Cruz in November. 44% of non-Trump voters will NOT support him.
Overall a third would consider a third party candidate...
Usually 95% of republicans vote for the Republican candidate.... This level of abandonment, if it occurs, will only feed Hillary's demographic advantages.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-min ... d=37666149

rickyp wrote:So Trump did just fine. If he's won at least 25 delegates in Missouri, and it looks more like 35, then he's on track to win a majority, unless everyone in the North moves to Kasich. And none of the polling shows that as likely.
If he doesn't win a majority, say some pundits, then the convention will be a mess and a bid to forestall Drumpf will mean a fractured party and disaster. . But a Drumpf candidacy, according to others will be a disaster.

The big problem for republicans is that not one of the candidates seem capable of "uniting" the party. Not, Kasich, Cruz or Trump. And I'd bet that Trump supporters would balk if a white knight like Paul Ryan showed up...

According to the ABC Exit polls Cruz is considered untrustworthy by 48% of voters in last nights primaries and Trump by 53%.
29% of non-Cruz voters will not support Cruz in November. 44% of non-Trump voters will NOT support him.
Overall a third would consider a third party candidate...
Usually 95% of republicans vote for the Republican candidate.... This level of abandonment, if it occurs, will only feed Hillary's demographic advantages.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-min ... d=37666149

Meh, she's got her own problems.

This thread is about Trump. He appeals to what I call the "white trash" voter. Is it enough to win? I don't know. What I do know: "white trash" is a good part of Hillary's voter base too. Additionally, those who despise the TPP and other trade agreements will find a friend in Trump. In other words, some Bernie voters may find themselves voting in a "rage against the Machine."

You think this is going to be a romp. I suggest waiting until after the conventions. You can think whatever you want, but polls at this point are often way, way off.