Let's hope the "Jungle Primary" is not an idea that catches on.

[redstateblues]

It’s a shoot ourselves in the foot idea and it is surprising that our most progressive state has voted it into existence. It might keep us from getting rid of Rohrabacher and keep us from picking up Issa’s seat. I don’t get it. Sometimes it’s hard enough for us Democrats to coalesce around one candidate. It’s been coming down the road for a while. Talk about unintended consequences.

[MichMan]

1. Guessing it was pretty popular when two Democratic candidates were on the ballot

[Demsrule86]

2. It hurts more than helps...if the GOP makes a comeback in California, it will be due

Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2018, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

to this sort of primary...and way to many Dems running too...I have looked carefully who is in the primaries...and I don't live in California so I can't vote but if any of these folks make it out of California to a national primary ( I always vote for the Dem in a presidential general) or to a state I live in...they will never get my vote.

[JCanete]

7. I'm sure you mean unless they ended up getting the nomiation of course rather than

never....


but I'm also not big on the jungle primary system myself, though for entirely different reasons. I don't actually see it as a negative for more centrist democrats though. I'm not really sure what the freaak-out there is, since this seems to mitigate the likelihood of more left wing or right wing candidates having a chance. I'm all for us playing politics, so I don't mind shutting out republicans, but as a far left progressive, I don't see how this does anything but to tank very liberal candidates.

Doom and gloom scenarios will start having to happen for me to see where people are coming from, since the odds of 2 republicans getting into the GE are incredibly low. Assuming its a dem vs a republican, usually that's a democratic victory.

The odds of two democrats on the other hand is much more possible. Unfortunately, in such a case, more fiscally conservative voters who identify as R's or I's (not the religious wacka-doodles per se) will almost certainly vote for the centrist over the further left option..

[Demsrule86]

8. I meant primaries of course not the general...if we look at Maine...we see a state where

Democratic vote was split by a Democratic and independent candidate which allowed theat idiot LePage to win two terms. I know this is a small state but it shows what happens with multiple Democrats running and splitting the vote... this could happen in California. Maybe not this year but going forward...

[redstateblues]

3. Sounds like they didn't need it to win then

[marybourg]

4. The same instinct-to press for a change

in longstanding law in response to one unsatisfactory set of circumstances-is alive and well, and frequently on exhibit here on DU.

[grantcart]

5. its obvious you don't get it but it is a big advantage where Democrats dominate

1) the most important advantage is that it eliminates October surprised where the Republicans launch a last minute attack that allows a swing district to go to Republicans. Don't think it happens? It happens a lot, that is how Joe Biden got elected when NOBODY thought he would when he was in his thirties. More recently, think of NY AG, John Edwards, Al Franken and so on. The jungle primary prevents that from happening.

2) Much more importantly eliminating Republicans from the GE in numerous districts and almost all state wide seats has been a huge blow to Republicans in California. Ever since they went to the jungle primary the numbers of Democrats in the state legislature has climbed until now the Democrats have super majorities and the Republicans have no power what so ever at the state level.

If you go back to the old system then every statewide race (Governor, Attorney General, Senator, and so on) gives a HUGE platform for a Republican to get up, build credibility, establish donor networks and so on. Even if they lose they still have gotten exposure for the next run. A Republican loses in the GE for Governor but performs well becomes an instant candidate for a Senate position.

3) Three outcomes are possible: 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans or 1 of each. In most cases we will win some or all of the first and last option and the last option is the old system anyway.

So far Democratic voters have been very smart to drop anybody below number 2 and ensure that a Democrat is on the ticket. Much of the alarm that you see in the press is simply the party educating voters on the current status of the race is. I believe that there are 5 congressional districts represented by Republicans that Democrats think are flappable. If the Dems get one candidate in each of those five then it proceeds to the general as per normal. If they get two Dems in then the Democrats have won the GE, we just don't know which person will win. Only in the very rare case where two Republicans get to the GE because too many Democrats were on the ballot would that be a loss for the Democrats, but that has never happened.

On the other hand it is very possible that ALL of the Statewide races will have ALL Democrats and the Republicans not only will not have any chance of winning, they won't even be on the ballot and that loss of PR and exposure is worth the risk of losing a seat here and there because the reality is that the Democrats have had a huge net increase in seats by Democrats since the jungle primary came to play.

We not only will win more seats outright AND have twice as many candidates getting exposure in the general election but we don't have to spend tens of millions on general election races because in almost all state wide positions and the large majority of congressional districts the Dems will have secured both positions tomorrow.

We should get some good news tomorrow in the districts held by Republicans but it is possible that we might lose one or two that we would have gotten in the old system, that is not worth the risk of putting 30 Republicans on the GE ballot where Dems have to fight like hell and then lose because of an "October" surprise.

The jungle primary isn't going to work every where but in California it has been very effective in solidifying party gains.

[Midwestern Democrat]

6. Well said - I can't believe so many DUers don't understand how big an advantage this has given

to the Democrats in CA. Why do they think the parties bother to run sacrificial lambs for the top statewide offices - Governor or Senator - spend all that money when they know they are going to lose 55-45? Because they know if they don't have a candidate on the November ballot for one of those two top offices, their party turnout is going to take a hit and they're going to lose a lot of lower ticket races (like state legislative seats) that they otherwise wouldn't - there are lots of casual voters who will turn out to vote for Governor or Senator but aren't going to turn out just to vote for lesser offices.

That said, I don't see the jungle primary being implemented in most states - for obvious reasons, if the minority party in a state has any strength at all, they would fight such a proposal tooth and nail.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, look at California closely.

It is the bluest state in the US. It is totally dominated by Democrats. That's due, in large part to that "Jungle Primary" method. It has worked very well in the past, and likely will work well today.

Wait and see what the results are before calling for the end of that primary practice.