More Election Analysis from Stan Barnes & Jay Thorne on KAET’s Horizon

Missed this from last Thursday but that’s why we have YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es1JzCJ2Zow

The bottom line on the Pearce recall was that the election was a very high profile abnormal gaming of the electoral process.


Comments

  1. Mike Triggs says

    Shane – Thank you for posting this thoughtful analysis by Stan Barnes and Jay Thorne. Sonoran Alliance readers may also want to watch the KAET-TV Horizon interview with Senator-elect Jerry Lewis by clicking on this link —-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKLyFfuZLg8&feature=player_embedded.

    Does anyone know when the final vote will be certified. It appears from what I read that Lewis expanded on his 8 point win on Tuesday night to an 11 or 12 percent win as of close of business on Friday. Who would have thought that it would be such a rout or that Lewis would end up getting a MAJORITY of the Republican votes cast.

    It certainly shows what is possible if voters pass the ballot initiative next fall that would provide for Open Primaries. Why not give voters a choice of the best our state has to offer rather than a choice of the lesser of two evils that were selected by the extremes in the Republican and Democrat party primaries?

    • “Why not give voters a choice of the best our state has to offer rather than a choice of the lesser of two evils that were selected by the extremes in the Republican and Democrat party primaries?”

      Because this will take us even FURTHER away from the Republic we were intended to be and closer to a true Democracy which the Founders said we were to never EVER become.

    • MIke,

      I will also post the Jerry Lewis interview as a separate post.

      Thanks!

      Shane

  2. Marty Smith says

    “Why not give voters a choice of the best our state has to offer rather than a choice of the lesser of two evils that were selected by the extremes in the Republican and Democrat party primaries?”

    What a typical Liberal BS argument! Republicans will elect republicans, dems dems. Of course, indies whomever.

    but what it means the MAJORITY of one party in that district will elect who they feel best represents them – whether it is a true conservative, a moderate republican, moderate democrat to communist left democrat

    what the progressives have figured out is where they are in the minority, they can use ‘open elections’ to either elect democrats, or RINO republicans, subverting the will of the majority

    • TrueAmericanConservative says

      If the tables were turned and it were Dems who gamed the primary system instead, you’d be crying foul. One thing you far right-wingers fear is a true non-partisan election.

  3. Allowing Independents to vote in a Dem or Repub primary defeats the purpose and intention of a primary. If the “Independents” have no allegiance/connection with a party, why should they be allowed to vote in a Dem, Repub, Libertarian, or Green Party primary. Independents can vote in the primary. Get your Independent candidates signed up, and add them to the primary process.

    • TrueAmericanConservative says

      Then tell me why the taxpayers of the state should pay for party primaries? If it’s a private affair, it should be paid with private funds.

  4. The Progressives next attack against our freedoms is to eliminate primaries. Already liberals are obtaining signatures to eliminate AZ dprimaries.

    Check out what nutty California just passed and be prepared. The progressives cannot win in the polls so now Soros and crew attack our election processes. The Pearce Recall was only the start.

    From “California Progress Report” (otherwise known as progressive report): “California’s new Top Two election system, which will allow voters of any party or no party to choose any candidate of any party in the primary. It will then pit the top two vote getters against regardless of party, in the general election.

    Thus a Democrat could face another Democrat or a Republican might have to run against another Republican. The hope was that by forcing candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters than the narrow range of partisans in the old primary system, it will produce a more moderate Legislature. ” (ie an unstoppable Democrat Super Majority in California.)

    • TrueAmericanConservative says

      What a shame. Eliminate the primary system and the winner of an election just might be the one who the majority of the electorate favors. How dare a politician have to appeal to a majority!

  5. One might note that that’s how a few years ago, France got their two top candidates chosen, the crook Jacques CHirac and the NAZI Le Pen. CHirac got 17%, Le Pen got 15% and they were the two top runoff winners.

    SO, there was a plain situtation where the MAJORITY of voters OVERWHELMINGLY voted AGAINST BOTH men, but because the votes were so split amongst numerous candidates …no prior vetting .. that the nation got the TWO they DIDN’T WANT.

    The run-off was “Vote for the CROOK NOT THE NAZI” The FRench wanted CHirac OUT, they didn’t want LePen in, but those were the TWO choices, so they said. “We held our noses and voted for CHirac.” Chirac got over 80% of the vote that election and thought he was god.

    ANy fool can run in the primary, no vetting by party. SO the winners win by pluraity not majority.
    Lousiana has the smae French style election system and had their VERY SAME scenario: VOTE FOR THE CROOK, NOT THE KKK.

    Our system of elections is very fair. The Democrats even by the name of their party are against it. They are WRONG. It WORKS.

    • TrueAmericanConservative says

      Define “It WORKS”. I suppose it means that YOU get the candidate YOU want more often than not. There are plenty of flaws in the primary system.

      If this is what the French people voted for, then that’s what they deserve. People vote FOR candidates, not AGAINST them. If the largest single group of voters wanted Chirac, then that’s who they should get.

    • TrueAmericanConservative says

      Explain to me how the primary system is superior. When the majority of primary voters come from the extremes of their respective parties (and turnout is generally low in primaries), how does we really get better quality candidates? We don’t.

  6. OK, so now I get it. You say “ANy fool can run in the primary, no vetting by party”. Wondered how we got some of the lawmakers/lawbreakers we now have in Arizona. No vetting! But guess what, no matter who’s running, there’s always public records the voters can search, if their PC’s have dropped the ball and let some of those “fools” on the ballot.

  7. Mike Triggs says

    Back to my original point- what’s so wrong with letting anyone who wants to run in the primary run? And having the top two run in a runoff (general election)? Yes independents can vote in the Republican or Democrat Primaries but they have to make a choice. If they want to vote in the Republican Primary for US Senate they can’t vote in the Democrat Primary for County Attorney.

    More and more I hear voters say “I vote for the man/woman, not the party. When in fact the are forced to vote for the man or woman the parties choose. And nine times out of ten choice us from the extreme right in the GOP or the extreme left in the Democrat parties. Arizona isn’t Red or Blue…in fact we are more of a shade of purple. We vote McCain when the choice is the Vice-mayor of Tucson but we also vote for Janet Napolitano when the Republicans nominate a far right candidate like President of CAP.

  8. Mike Triggs says

    Why couldn’t I think of Len Muncil’s name…I guess he made as much of an impression on me as he did the rest of Arizona.

    And one other thing … Wouldn’t you think if Russell Pearce truly represented the majority of the voters he would have won. He certainly had the name ID, power of incumbency and the money. Yet he lost by 11 or 12 points. Far more than anyone would have predicted.

    • That sounds great, except Pearce DID WIN last November in the general election by a majority vote,which means the Republican majority put him over the Democrat minority .. so why all these excuses didn’t this play out THEN?
      It’s ONLY been 12 months. Pearce’s signature legislation was already set in place BEFORE the election so he didn’t pull any surprises on anyone AFTER this past general election.

      Lots of justifying, but Lewis is sitting there plain-talking empowering unions and illegals.

  9. Mike Triggs says

    The naysayers on here might want to check out the results of the latest polling on an Independent Primary. Click here —–> http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/media/news-events/mi-poll-arizonans-favor-open-primary-for-state

    It appears 58% of Arizonans polled support an open primary. With those supporting it was supported by 71% of the Independents, 61% Republicans and 59% Democrats.

  10. TAC- you have left them speechless. They know what you’re saying they just believe the a tiny minority should dictate the majority.

    Change is good.

  11. Nordine Crub says

    Wanumba Sweetie- you sound bitter. O think you need a hug!

Leave a Reply