The Fiscal Cliff

[VirginiaCougar]

It is simply not true that Lee avoided a primary. Lee finished 2nd at the convention and Bennett finished 3rd. Lee won a state-wide primary against Bridgewater.

The convention system gave Utah the following list of some-what moderate republican state-wide office-holders:
John Huntsman - 2 terms
Herbtert - 2 terms
Mike Leavitt - 3 terms
Orrin Hatch - Unlimited terms
Bob Bennett - 3 terms (18 years)

So one single time, an outsider defeats a more moderate incumbent who had already been in office for 18 freaking years, and you guys are all up in arms about a system created by bastards. Bennett and Hatch have been challenged by more conservative opponents every singe lime, as have the governors, and won every time, except this once.

Down with Count my Vote! It is pretty absurd, in my view, to believe that the low information voters in the primary will do a better job than the caucus system.

If Lee is as unpopular as you all think, then he will lose in the caucus or he will lose in a primary because he won't get 60% at convention.

It is amusing that people like Leavitt are all up in arms trying to destroy the very system that got him elected 3 times. The only tea party-like successes have been Lee and Chaffets, but Chaffets was elected before the tea party came bout. His election is entirely unrelated.

Yes and no. He avoided (purposefully so) the primary he knew he would lose, and likely lose badly. That is why those Tea Party groups hijacked the Convention process. The close primary is further proof of what a weak candidate he was (but he certainly had the tea party astroturf funding). That weakness has been more than apparent in DC, where he has been a real embarrassment and is considered a joke.

The changes are necessary, particularly these days. Leavitt came in second in the Convention the first time (almost third), with very radical conservatives finishing ahead of him. I was there, working for Leavitt at the time. It was amazing what the convention process was doing, even back then. It was fascinating to watch the caucus process happen and how unrepresentative it often was. Then in the primary, he smoked Eyre. Which was where the majority of Utahns were at.

In today's campaign financial environment, with all those "astroturf" orgs out there it is so much easier to steal a convention. No way Leavitt gets out of Convention in today's environment even though he would easily win a primary. Another absurd case in point - Jason Chaffetz. He has no business being a US Congressman. The Convention process in Utah and the power of the extremes has also skewed even the moderate folks (like Hatch) far away their positions and what the majority of Utah wants.

Usually is it those on the fringes (extremes) that are the "low information voters." I wonder if they understand the irony of using a term like that, as they often do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Except greater participation is exactly what you are calling for. Unless I just don't understand it, the Count My Vote system tries to fix the problem simply by getting greater participation, largely of low information voters in a typical primary. The primary system and the general election system are malfunctioning due to lazy voters. Always have and always will. I don't see away around that. But I also don't see a good case for including even more lazy voters in the initial process.

If you don't understand the difference between a primary and a small meeting run by amateurs who often disregard rules and manipulate the process then you clearly haven't attended many Utah caucus meetings. They are a joke.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It is amusing that people like Leavitt are all up in arms trying to destroy the very system that got him elected 3 times. The only tea party-like successes have been Lee and Chaffets, but Chaffets was elected before the tea party came bout. His election is entirely unrelated.

Really dumb logic. First of all, of course Leavitt was elected under that system. That was the only system available at the time.

Second, the problem is the system, not the Tea Party. They are manipulating a flawed process. Chaffetz also would likely have lost in a primary.

[Jacob]

My bad on the details. But the Tea Party was out to torpedo Bob Bennett. Polls show that he would have defeated both Bridgewater or Lee.

Prior to the election I got an e-mail from the Utah Tea Party (Dave Kirkham is a friend of mine) that laid out the plans to manipulate the caucus system to get their candidates through the convention. They specifically said that the objective was to avoid primaries when possible and they were conducting training sessions on how to dominate the caucus process. I expressed my shock to Dave and was subsequently removed from the mailing list.

Both sides (establishment and grass roots) have always tried to manipulate the system. They have and will regardless of whether it is a caucus or a primary. You don't think Hatch was trying to manipulate the system in 2012? He did so pretty successfully. But the primary gives even greater advantage to the established politicians because money and name recognition makes the biggest difference in dealing with potentially millions of low-information voters. Before the tea party, it was other grass roots organizations who tried to oust the incumbents. I recognize that the caucus system has its flaws. There are a lot of crazies. You have to be really into politics to become a delegate. Most of those people have strong views, even though they are mostly mistaken views (that's in my view). But any system that gives a greater chance of defeating an incumbent is a better system for a low of reasons. A primary system might work if we could term-limit these fools. But we can't. Once they are in, the are in for life, except once in a generation when a Bob Bennett comes in 3rd at the caucus. Let's not make big changes just because one guy we don't like won one election.

I have some much more radical ideas that would allow for a better and more representative Congress, but can see no point in protecting the Bob Bennetts of the world by going to an open primary.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Both sides (establishment and grass roots) have always tried to manipulate the system. They have and will regardless of whether it is a caucus or a primary. You don't think Hatch was trying to manipulate the system in 2012? He did so pretty successfully. But the primary gives even greater advantage to the established politicians because money and name recognition makes the biggest difference in dealing with potentially millions of low-information voters. Before the tea party, it was other grass roots organizations who tried to oust the incumbents. I recognize that the caucus system has its flaws. There are a lot of crazies. You have to be really into politics to become a delegate. Most of those people have strong views, even though they are mostly mistaken views (that's in my view). But any system that gives a greater chance of defeating an incumbent is a better system for a low of reasons. A primary system might work if we could term-limit these fools. But we can't. Once they are in, the are in for life, except once in a generation when a Bob Bennett comes in 3rd at the caucus. Let's not make big changes just because one guy we don't like won one election.

I have some much more radical ideas that would allow for a better and more representative Congress, but can see no point in protecting the Bob Bennetts of the world by going to an open primary.

And thus the tail wags the dog. Bob Bennett is ten times better than Mike Lee.

[Jacob]

So myself, my kids, my siblings and a large number of my friends you are accusing of being low information voters because they don't go to the caucus. Shame on you. I know you don't mean it or I would call you a dumb ass.

I didn't say that. But if that's what you got out of what I wrote, maybe you are. I didn't say everybody who doesn't caucus is a low-information voter. But most people who vote in primaries (and even more-so in general elections) are low-information voters. That's a fact, my friend. Oh, and they are irrational too. But I'm sure most caucus participants are too.

If you don't understand the difference between a primary and a small meeting run by amateurs who often disregard rules and manipulate the process then you clearly haven't attended many Utah caucus meetings. They are a joke.

Really dumb logic. First of all, of course Leavitt was elected under that system. That was the only system available at the time.

It wasn't a logical argument. I just said it was amusing. But whatever.

All election processes are flawed, and as I've described, I think the primary system is even more flawed for the reasons stated.

[byu71]

That weakness has been more than apparent in DC, where is has been a real embarrassment and is considered joke.

You guys and your hyperbole actually is part of the problem. I could respond with, if Lee is a joke, so is Obama. For a fact the context with which Lee is thought of as a joke so is President Obama.

George Will is a respected conservative. He is pretty reasonable and not a radical like Hannity or Beck. He basically said Cruz is out there and may in his lingo a "joke". He said Lee isn't. He said Lee can work within the system.

I fault Lee for hanging out with Cruz. That doesn't make him a joke unless you are using it in the same context where you can call President Obama a joke.

[VirginiaCougar]

And thus the tail wags the dog. Bob Bennett is ten times better than Mike Lee.

101 times better...

[byu71]

And thus the tail wags the dog. Bob Bennett is ten times better than Mike Lee.

You overstated it by 8. Twice as good is plenty. Bennett like Hatch was a big part of the republicans acting like democrats and spending their asses off. Too bad we don't have a Governor Casic (Ohio) or the guy from Wisconsin, Walker I think, type running for the Senate in Utah.

And VC's comment about Bennett being 101 times better proves my point Bennett was not someone we needed either.

[Jacob]

And thus the tail wags the dog. Bob Bennett is ten times better than Mike Lee.

In YOUR opinion! In YOUR opinion! </Larry David voice>

Mike Lee is eleventy billion times better than Bob Bennett. But as I've said several times, one guy you liked losing one time is not a very good argument for dramatic change to a voting system.

[Jacob]

You overstated it by 8. Twice as good is plenty. Bennett like Hatch was a big part of the republicans acting like democrats and spending their asses off.

If you really believe that, then I don't follow. If people like Bennett are acting like democrats (they don't, they act like Senate Republicans) then why would you complain about one of the 4-5 guys in the Senate who will not actually agree to increase spending? You must not think all the additional spending is that big of a deal. What is the downside of what Lee has done so far, in your opinion?

[VirginiaCougar]

You guys and your hyperbole actually is part of the problem. I could respond with, if Lee is a joke, so is Obama. For a fact the context with which Lee is thought of as a joke so is President Obama.

George Will is a respected conservative. He is pretty reasonable and not a radical like Hannity or Beck. He basically said Cruz is out there and may in his lingo a "joke". He said Lee isn't. He said Lee can work within the system.

I fault Lee for hanging out with Cruz. That doesn't make him a joke unless you are using it in the same context where you can call President Obama a joke.

You sure you want to go the hyperbole route? I find that kind of funny. As far as Lee goes, it is more than apparent. It is well known, even in GOP circles.

[VirginiaCougar]

You overstated it by 8. Twice as good is plenty. Bennett like Hatch was a big part of the republicans acting like democrats and spending their asses off. Too bad we don't have a Governor Casic (Ohio) or the guy from Wisconsin, Walker I think, type running for the Senate in Utah.

And VC's comment about Bennett being 101 times better proves my point Bennett was not someone we needed either.

Now that number was a bit of hyperbole, I admit. However, it was less a compliment of Bennett, although I do believe he was an exceptional Senator, than an indictment of Lee who has been that bad, that embarrassing. It's Lee's actions and statements in Committee hearings, in discussions private and public, almost all his actions in his tenure as Senator. People smirk when he even begins to talk in those settings because he has said/done so many stupid things. Go sit in on a Committee hearing and watch what happens when Lee actively participates.

[Jeff Lebowski]

... one guy you liked preferred by the majority of Utah voters losing one time multiple times is not a very good a great argument for dramatic change to a voting system.

FIFY

[Jacob]

FIFY

Haha. Talk about logical fail.