General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Many People Decide On Their Primary Vote
For many Democrats, voting in primaries is an important part of their participation in politics. Even though only a small percentage of voters shows up at the polls on primary day, even in a presidential election year, those primary voters are more involved than the bulk of voters who only vote in the general election. They know that primary elections are important, because they select the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot.
Because of that importance, Democratic primary voters tend to think about their vote. In some cases, they vote with their hearts for the candidate who they feel best represent their political views. It's often a fine line, since everyone on the primary ballot is a Democrat, so there's a lot of agreement with the entire slate of candidates. Differences between candidates are often only differences on a few issues.
There's another factor, too, that many primary voters consider. That factor is an assessment of the likelihood of a particular candidate to win in the general election. Not all primary voters think about this, but a great many do. They know that the candidate who wins the primary election will be facing a Republican opponent in the general election. For these primary voters, voting for a candidate who is likely to prevail is an important consideration.
It's not simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved with many people's primary votes. Democratic primary voters are generally thoughtful and intelligent. They weigh many factors into their vote. That's why they participate in primary elections. They may love one candidate's positions, but decided to vote for another candidate, based on an assessment of how that candidate will do in the general election. After all, if the Democrat doesn't win, they end up with a Republican in office. It's a factor in primary voting, and one that should not be ignored.
If you vote in primary elections, you know what I'm talking about. You take politics and elections seriously, so you think carefully about your vote. That's an excellent thing. Vote wisely and thoughtfully. That's my recommendation.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So that's not really a factor this time. As far as electability in a general goes, we've got 3 decent candidates.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)That is always a factor.
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Someone was comparing primary polls between Democrats and Republicans and using those unrelated numbers to say that Sanders, for example was polling better than any of the Republicans. That was incorrect, since there were no comparisons between potential candidates from one party against potential candidates from the other. It was strictly a poll showing current numbers for the primaries.
Any conclusions draw from those results are irrelevant, because that was not the question asked.
On the other hand, there is polling for Hillary Clinton's chances against each of the likely Republican candidates. She's doing well in those polls right now. No such polling has been done using Senator Sanders' name, as far as I know.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to put stock in polls.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Now, next year, the polling will give us a better idea how things are shaping up for the primaries. Where they stand then will influence people's decisions. Many people will choose not to vote for a primary candidate who is not polling well. It's human nature.
Right now, for example, Senator Sanders has gotten a boost in his primary polling since entering the race. If those results continue to rise, that may affect voting. O'Malley, on the other hand, is polling very low so far. We'll see what happens now that he has announced. Eventually, everyone who will run will have announced. At that time, it will be worthwhile paying attention to primary polling results. The closer it is to any state's primary, the more important the polling will be to voters, I'm sure.
merrily
(45,251 posts)occupant of the 2012 clown car, plus Mr. or Ms. Generic Republican.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect that the eventual republican nominee contest will be as much a cake walk as Iraq.
What we DO know is Democrats win when we have large turn-outs and we lose when we don't ... As I see it, this Democratic primary field has the potential to turn-out huge numbers, because of the economic populism message they all are bringing.
But, should the Democratic primary turn into a scorched earth campaign, it will likely hurt the turn-out for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)that candidate has the biggest war chest and and can win the primary and seems to be willing to maintain the status quo. I'm going to vote for the one who I believe will do the most good for the people. I vote in every election, I have never missed one.
merrily
(45,251 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I've stopped keeping up, since I moved to Minnesota. MN moved its precinct caucus date to Super Tuesday, March 1, from its usual February time. I guess people thought it would make a larger impact then. I don't know. We also have primaries, here, anyhow, so the final decisions will be later.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I imagine things will be pretty clear well before then. In fact, I think we'll know who the nominee will be next year on March 2. California would go for Clinton anyhow, I'm sure. I suspect that Minnesota will, too.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)even this far out. I think that's a really good idea. Thinking about things is important. So, you can expect me to think about them in posts here on DU. Everyone else is doing that, it seems.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)That's a good thing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Minimizing the Republican Party's ability to turn out voters is not a good idea, I think.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to win.
i do not feel the same stress i did in 2004. less stress in 2008. pretty confident in 2012. 2016? i am here to work, listen. enjoy, have fun. i think it is dems to win.
merrily
(45,251 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Terms in over 60 years. The American voters is fickle and likes change. I am worried but still hopeful that voters will have our back. I do think we should fight like we are losing though. I do see success if we do that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not something that happens often.
and hey...
some people need to do a race from the position of .... like we are losing. and some of us have to run the race like it is ours to win. lol
taking it to my competitive days. i always had to get out front with a lead, to win. my son likes to start at the back of a race. we all do it our way.
merrily
(45,251 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)And I certainly will not decide now when nobody knows how it all is going to play out, or even who is actually going to be on the ballot.
For Christ sakes. It is months until any primary or caucus and nearly a year and a half until the election. But, the US media insists on perpetual, never-ending presidential campaigns. Too bad so many here are so easily led down that path.
I say, no wonder so few vote. Give it a fucking rest.
Disgusted! If you are worried about 2016 now, you are being played.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)The upcoming primaries are the most discussed thing on DU right now. I'm talking about thinking about the primaries, not deciding. I'm also talking about how many people do think about their voting decisions.
Why should I "give it a rest?" Nobody else is. I think I'll just keep right on posting about this. It's political discussion. That's what DU is for. I won't "give it a rest."
longship
(40,416 posts)My main objection is to those who are making personal attacks against folks supporting specific candidates. And I also find it a bit strange why anybody would want to decide this number of months out, at the beginning of a campaign that will regretfully last interminable months and indeed started here even before the inauguration in 2013.
I understand the importance, MM, but do not understand why there is so much strife at this time. That is what I would like people to give a rest. Not discussion, per se.
For Christ sakes, Bernie's hair and Hillary the Goldwater girl? Who thinks those are valid arguments? Hell, in 1963 I went and saw Goldwater in Detroit.
Again. I meant no offense.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)It's much easier than scolding other people. JMO.
longship
(40,416 posts)But the baiting posts are all over GD.
So I speak out against the bad behavior. Not against reasoned discussion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But ooohh boy the entertainment.
merrily
(45,251 posts)really for another.
I really want Bernie to be President, but.......(fill in the blank)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)my candidate is BIG MONEY, and I am sure he\she\it will win
(Ok not if Bernie or Rand Paul pull this one, and for those who will get their hair on fire, both are running small donor campaigns)
merrily
(45,251 posts)I was just giving an example of the entertaining stuff I've observed. I don't understand the phenomenon, but I have observed it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and to be fair, go read other political sites. It is a hoot.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I barely can read this one.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Take my words on this, I know.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I think it's just human nature on a message board where you can pretty much say anything...within the limits. Still sounds like scolding/judgment to me.
cali
(114,904 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I'm glad you believe that thinking carefully about primary votes is worth talking about. I'm sure you agree that thinking about that is an important thing. You appear to be thinking about it a lot. So am I. I post an average of one OP a day. I don't think that's excessive, do you?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I still think it is early, but it's not unheard of for candidates to declare less than a year out.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)On DU, we're discussing primaries non-stop in GD and in other forums and groups. Whenever someone tells me it's too early for me to post a thread on the primaries, I have to laugh. This thread is about thinking about primaries. Nowhere in it do I suggest who people should vote for. I simply explained how some people decide who to vote for and encouraged thoughtfulness.
Me? I'll be caucusing for Bernie Sanders on March 1 in Minnesota. Our actual primary is rather late in the cycle, so I'm not sure whose names will be on that ballot, but the caucuses are a simple straw poll. It only counts because delegates to district conventions are elected during them. At those district conventions, delegates to the state convention are elected. At the state convention, delegates to the national convention are elected. It all starts on March 1, 2016. I will certainly be a delegate to several district conventions, where I will also caucus for Bernie. I don't know if I'll be able to get elected as a delegate to the state convention, though.
So, I'm certainly thinking about this now. I'll continue to do that right up to our primary elections. At the local level, we're already discussing who candidates will be for a raft of legislative and other offices. The 2016 election process is already underway.
It is not too early to discuss any of this. So, I'll be doing that. So will those who are telling me it's too early for me to bring it up.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)candidates who are not all that well known: Bernie and O'Malley. And at least one of them is already experiencing some media blackout. Those of us who are Bernie supporters are going to need this time to get the word out. I suspect the O'Malley supporters will also need this time. If we had an incumbent candidate that would be another story.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)Then it wouldn't matter which candidate wins the nomination? Unless, of course, we think our choice is the only one that can logically win?