- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA moving toward closed primaries
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:08 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:08 pm to Indefatigable
Last Night, Senate committee made some amendments
1) Push back implementation to 2026
2) Only applies to president, congress, senate, and LA Supreme Court
3) Primary requires 50% plus 1. So would call for a runoff primary election if needed. General still stays a pluarity.
1) Push back implementation to 2026
2) Only applies to president, congress, senate, and LA Supreme Court
3) Primary requires 50% plus 1. So would call for a runoff primary election if needed. General still stays a pluarity.
2
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:43 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
In 2015 and 2019, the Republicans beat each other up in the jungle primary, and the losers refused to support the top Republican in the runoff.
Correct
quote:
would have been different? You would have had all the republicans beat each other up in the closed primary, and the losers still refuse to support the winner in the general election.
They wouldn’t have to run against the Dems and there were more options for more Republicans. The top two would advance if no one got 50%. Republicans could debate the issues and there would be an opportunity for breakout candidates.
quote:
Because the Dems lack candidates, you are often going to have them gather round that one candidate and that puts them into the general.
Dem candidates would step up knowing all they had to do was beat the other Dems. to advance. They would debate their issues. It would make them expend resources.
quote:
Do you think Vitter and Rispone would not have made the general in 2015 / 2019?
Vitter would have but who knows if Rispone even runs. He filled a void because no one to take on JBE.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:01 pm to LSUFanHouston
Gonna take more than that amount to make up for the past administrations that failed to address roads and infrastructure.
I’m good with getting the closed primaries sewed up and kick our current system to the curb. Small steps and growing pains to get back in a path of helping our state to recover from that previous shitbag administration.
I’m good with getting the closed primaries sewed up and kick our current system to the curb. Small steps and growing pains to get back in a path of helping our state to recover from that previous shitbag administration.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:11 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Primary requires 50% plus 1. So would call for a runoff primary election if needed. General still stays a pluarity.
Gross and unnecessary.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:12 pm to doubleb
quote:
To prevent a Dem from coasting to the general while half a dozen Republicans spend resources beating each other up. The current formula really helps the Dems.
I have no idea how you think a closed primary accomplishes that. A Democrat will now always advance to a general and the Republicans will still beat themselves up in a closed primary. Democrats will not have heavily contested closed primaries very often in this state. Not like the GOP does.
And now there’s a primary runoff possibility.
So again, why are we changing to a system that does nothing other than absolutely ensure that a Republican can’t win on the first ballot AND potentially adds a third round of voting to the process for each office.
It’s nonsensical
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:19 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Last Night, Senate committee made some amendments
1) Push back implementation to 2026
2) Only applies to president, congress, senate, and LA Supreme Court
3) Primary requires 50% plus 1. So would call for a runoff primary election if needed. General still stays a pluarity.
And today they say No Party voters (which is different than Independent) could vote in party primaries.
So that's an additional improvement.
They also added BESE and PSC.
Landry is gonna be furious. His bill got gutted...and then gutted some more.
Ouch.
He tried to ram this through, and shockingly, the legislature, particularly the Senate, said nope.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:32 pm to BigJim
quote:
He tried to ram this through, and shockingly, the legislature, particularly the Senate, said nope.
Why ram it through? That wasn’t necessary.
Stupid move.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:37 pm to doubleb
quote:
Why ram it through? That wasn’t necessary.
Stupid move.
Cover reason: They need to pass it as soon as possible to give the Sec of State time to get ready for the fall elections.
Real reason: The governor is at the height of his power. Freshmen legislators are unlikely to stand up to him at this point. He has no public mandate to do this (since he never mentioned it) and frankly the public doesn't want it. So the best chance is to get it done in a special session ASAP.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
So again, why are we changing to a system that does nothing other than absolutely ensure that a Republican can’t win on the first ballot AND potentially adds a third round of voting to the process for each office.
The system elected Dems two out of the last three elections.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:55 pm to kingbob
quote:
Louisiana was a one party state 50 years ago which rarely had actual contested elections. Louisiana was a democracy in name only, fully run by an oligarchy.
Was?
What was the last name of the governor who just left office again?
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:30 pm to BigJim
quote:
and frankly the public doesn't want it
The public or the career politicians? Most “public” want closed primaries.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:34 pm to doubleb
quote:
The system elected Dems two out of the last three elections.
The system didn’t dictate that outcome. Say we had closed primaries each of the last three elections.
Explain to me how those general elections would not have mirrored the jungle runoffs for each of JBE’s victories. The candidates would be unchanged. But somehow, if Vitter and Rispone had won closed primaries instead of beating other Republicans in a jungle primary, you’re arguing that they would have magically won the general election?
How in the world do you reach that conclusion?
Closed primaries do NOTHING to stop what you’re trying to stop. In fact, it only makes electing Democrats to statewide office more likely because they are now guaranteed a spot in the general election. That was not the case before in the jungle system.
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:08 pm to 31TIGERS
quote:
The public or the career politicians? Most “public” want closed primaries.
You are just making stuff up.
No, the public doesn't want closed primaries.
If they did, candidates would run on that issue.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:28 pm to LSUFanHouston
The only thing I wanna know is can we still primary Cuck Cassidy still?
Posted on 1/19/24 at 5:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Closed primaries do NOTHING to stop what you’re trying to stop. In fact, it only makes electing Democrats to statewide office more likely because they are now guaranteed a spot in the general election. That was not the case before in the jungle system.
The last time a Republican beat a white Democrat in the general election was in 1975 when Treen edged out Louis Lambert. Since then every white Dem that made the general election won except David Duke who lost to a fellow Democrat, EWE.
Since the jungle primary was instituted Dems won six elections and Republicans won six elections. Roemer won as a Dem and lost as a Republican. The jungle primary isn’t working like you think. Prominent white Dems are hard to beat.
No one knows what have happened if Rispone had to win a closed primary. Maybe he wouldn’t have won. We will never know will we.
We didn’t have Republican debates. JBE was always on the stage and the Republicans went after him until Rispone broke ranks.
What if it was Republicans only debating? What if the Dems and non Rep, didn’t get to vote? Would Abraham have won? Would he have attacked Rispone? If he had and lost would Rispone been battle hardened? Would Abraham backers gotten their feelings hurt?
This year Landry got the GOP wheels to back him early. Then he went and hid avoiding debates. Could he refuse to debate his fellow Republicans? Could one if them upset the favorite if Landry actually had to campaign to get the Republican nomination instead of cutting deals to get it?
There are a lot of unknowns here, but there are pluses to having closed primaries. Maybe if they did Republican registration could surpass the Dem registration, You could get a more vigorous debate at all levels. The electorate would benefit that way.
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 1/19/24 at 7:17 pm to BigJim
Nah. It’s people like you that are making crap up about nobody wanting closed primaries. There’s other “public” outside of this message board and not a single person that brings this matter up opposes closed primaries. In fact, believe what you will but there’s way more on board with closed primaries vs. those “public” that don’t want closed primaries. The ones that want to keep status quo are typically the ones with ulterior motives.
How many other states have closed primaries? How are they doing with that?
GTFO of here with that bullshite about nobody wanting closed primaries.
How many other states have closed primaries? How are they doing with that?
GTFO of here with that bullshite about nobody wanting closed primaries.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 9:13 pm to doubleb
quote:
The system elected Dems two out of the last three elections.
A closed primary would not have given us less crappy candidates, nor prevented the butthurt losers from staying home.
Revisionist history is not the solution
Posted on 1/19/24 at 9:15 pm to BigJim
quote:
They also added BESE and PSC.
So at this point it’s everyone that was in the original bill, less state house and senate?
Lol. Legislature just pulled the “rules for thee but not for me” card.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 9:17 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Revisionist history is not the solution
Solution? What problem are we solving?
It’s all politics. EWE passed the jungle primary to help the Dems. Republicans need to push a system that helps the Republican Party.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 9:26 pm to doubleb
quote:
Prominent white Dems are hard to beat.
In 2015, no one in their right mind would have called JBE a prominent white Dem. He was a relatively unknown legislator. Most of the Dem party told him not to run. He had ZERO outside money for the primary.
It wasn’t until after the primary when outside money and Dem leaders actually thought he might have a chance at winning.
JBE winning was one of the biggest underdog upset wins in state history. And much of it due to Vitter screwing up so badly.
Even in 2019, if the GOP works together at all, JBE loses. With the GOP in total shambles, he barely won.
The only way your theory makes sense is if you believe there were Dems voting for Rispone and Vitter in the jungle because they thought those were the weakest GOP candidates, a la Project Chaos. But there was never any chatter about that.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News