Eli - this isn't a pure head to head when there are 4 other candidates in the field eating up votes. How hard is that to understand?
Darcy's new math also works against her, since more than 50% did not vote for her. Kind of bad form to predicate your progess on an arguement that works against you. Also going by the numbers what does it mean that the majority of voters did not vote?
Zander - there is merit in the case against an incumbent if he doesn't get 50%. Look at all the other congressional races where the incumbents are all winning by huge margins.
But none of this is a surprise.
Turnout is likely to be around 41%, which would be 4% less than in 2004. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Sam Reed's "top two" primary experiment.
Daniel you've explained it slightly better.
Why not just say that any incumbent who lacks the confidence of 50% of the voters after two terms needs to call it quits. Especially, in a primary vote.
This is just pure head.
No, that would be the Terry "WASL Or Die" Bergeson campaign, Mr. Poe.
Will, one day...
If you add Darcy to the other candidate who picked a Democratic party preference, you get almost 49% picking a Dem vs. Reichert's 47.5% He could certainly say he won the primary, but he's privately shitting his pants.
I wish Amy Kate was here to get rid of those hideous dashes in "50-percent" and the like.
@7 - don't worry, Mr. Poe, I'll help you study for the WASL.
Clearly, an overwhelming majority of 8th District (primary) voters are in favor of pluralities.
Darcy Burner is hot.
Comments are closed on this post.