Jumping ship

[Salty]

Heard about an interesting situation for the upcoming election.

An individual wants to run against the executive in the primary. (The jurisdiction could be county, city, town or a village )
The current executive (we will call George) is a member of Party A as his opponent. The opponent (we will call Henry) has stated that if he looses the primary he may ask to run on the Party B line. ( For right now, I will not mention which is the "D" or the "R")

Here are the facts. Party A is in full control of the jurisdiction. Party B has absolutely no one (especially with name recognition) that would run.
Under State/Commonwealth law,Henry would have to have the permission of Party B to run on their line. It would be too late for him to change political party affiliation (must be done before election - but is not effective until after the election)

Henry does have some major differences with George on a number of issues.

Henry has stated if he runs on Party B, he may get some others to run with him for the legislative seats (there would be 6 seats open)

So here are the questions :
1) Would Henry be wrong for asking Party B to be their candidate
2) If you were Party B Chairman, would you consider allowing Henry (and his slate) to be your candidate?

Other thoughts?

Would it make a difference if you knew which party was the "D" and "R"?

 

[Don]

Wouldn't make a difference to me if he was D or R.

Me personally, I'd need to know what "George" is like, and what policies he has in place; and what makes "Henry" different, and what his viewpoints are on topics important to me.

I don't think it would be wrong, especially if "Henry" is in line with Party B's stands on topics important to the jurisdiction; but those stands, and the points I mentioned above, are the things I'd have to consider before agreeing to allow "Henry" to change party affiliations.

 

[poncho]

I like to know who is holding their leash. In this past national election Goldman Sachs and Monsanto were holding Obama and Romney's leash.

 

[church mouse guy]

Salty, what you describe is what Lieberman did when he lost the Democrat primary and then ran as an independent in the general election. Specter just jumped ship on the basis of polling and still lost.

Personally, I don't care for primary losers switching parties. I don't mind people jumping ship because I think that we need to get liberal Republicans into the Democrat Party, but a backroom deal to switch parties after a loss doesn't pass the smell test in my mind. Losing an election is not the end of the world and there is always the next election. Harold Stassen ran for President twelve times they say.

 

[Arbo]

Is this about a potential Chris Christie reelection bid?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/chris-christie-frank-lautenberg-replacement/65826/

 

[saturneptune]

I would be totally against B getting permission running if he lost the primary by another party. This has nothing to do with the side any of them are on.

If an elected official, for example, wants to switch parties (any party, any side) during his tenure of office, that person should be required to resign, then switch parties, and run under the new banner in the next election. The point is, the person was originally elected under the label, and probably with the help of, his original party. The votes and victory he received was based on the original condition.

Your senario and the one I presented are nothing more than political opportunism, exactly what we do not need.

If this is Christie, and I was on a ship with him, I would hope he would jump ship so it would not sink.

 

[Salty]

Me personally, I'd need to know what "George" is like, and what policies he has in place; and what makes "Henry" different, and what his viewpoints are on topics important to me.

Excellent observation - what are the views. I do not live in that jurisdiction - so I am not up to date on all the issues - but George has brought up one financial issue that Henry has recommended - (which a good number of the public is opposed to )
this is why I think that George may get a good bit of support.

I like to know who is holding their leash. In this past national election Goldman Sachs and Monsanto were holding Obama and Romney's leash.

Poncho - this is why you have very little credibility - this is a LOCAL (non-federal) election - not a national conspiracy

Personally, I don't care for primary losers switching parties. I don't mind people jumping ship because I think that we need to get liberal Republicans into the Democrat Party, but a backroom deal to switch parties after a loss doesn't pass the smell test in my mind..

would the same hold true to get a conservative Dem into the Rep Party
(not saying which is the case)

Is this about a potential Chris Christie reelection bid?

NO, As I stated before - this is a local election

I would be totally against B getting permission running if he lost the primary by another party. This has nothing to do with the side any of them are on.

If an elected official, for example, wants to switch parties (any party, any side) during his tenure of office, that person should be required to resign, then switch parties, and run under the new banner in the next election. The point is, the person was originally elected under the label, and probably with the help of, his original party. The votes and victory he received was based on the original condition.

Your senario and the one I presented are nothing more than political opportunism, exactly what we do not need.

Excellent point - Sat ( you know you worry me - sometimes we think too much alike:smilewinkgrin

IMHO - the big question is would the "gaining party" want a win so bad that they would accept Henry? So far, the chairman has not said NO. Hmmmmm
(I know its a double negative)

There is one item that I did not mention, that could be a factor.
Since NY is a fusion State - Two major "minor parties - the Working Families and Conservative - Normally they endorse on the ballot the Democrat and Republican candidate - respectively. However, would they endorse Henry?
If not, they could be a spoiler.

Sounds like an interesting election.

Will give all the details sometime after this Saturday - just want all to think about this without party line being a factor.

(Note: when I ran - I showed where most people do vote party line)

Thanks for your patience and some good input.

 

[poncho]

Poncho - this is why you have very little credibility - this is a LOCAL (non-federal) election - not a national conspiracy.

That's your opinion Salty. You keep saying it as if you and your three amigos make up the majority here.

It's my opinion that you are losing credibility everyday as more and more truth comes out. You're still stuck in an outdated false paradigm while the rest of the world is waking up. You and your false paradigm are going the way of the Dinosaurs ; )

 

[Salty]

The Chairman of Party "B" seems to be more accepeting of Henry of possibly accepting their nomination -

Pettions for the primiary must be in by about the end of July.

Was just looking at the page of Peter Peyser - former Congressman in NY.
He also switched political parties.
Interesting story of why he did.

Poncho - this is why you have very little credibility...

There he goes talking to himself again.... I wonder if he enjoys Art Bell

 

[Salty]

...If an elected official, for example, wants to switch parties (any party, any side) during his tenure of office, that person should be required to resign, then switch parties, and run under the new banner in the next election. ...

I would make an "exception". If he or his campaign was wiling to pay for the special election - then he could run on his new party.
Would have been interesting if this was the policy back in the 90's (?) when many D's became "R's"

 

[poncho]

I would make an "exception". If he or his campaign was wiling to pay for the special election - then he could run on his new party.
Would have been interesting if this was the policy back in the 90's (?) when many D's became "R's"

Would have been more interesting if this thread was about something important like oh I don't know we're broke and the system is rigged to steal from the poor and give to the super duper rich.

But hey if getting lost in worthless minutia turns ya on . . .

Don't be surprised when you get completely tuned out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salty]

Would have been more interesting if this thread was about something important like oh I don't know we're broke and the system is rigged to steal from the poor and give to the super duper rich. ...

Actually that was part of the OP - Current executive says jurisdiction is broke and cuts must be made. Critics state that a service the current exec wants to be cut would be bad for citizens in that part of jurisdiction.
and since 50% of jurisdiction is tax exempt - churches, schools non-profits -
and then add in a super rich guy - who tries every which way to avoid taxes and in addition - take tax money....
- yes money is a big problem.
No, this is not a worthless discussion.
First, what will a party do to have the winning candidate. Will they comprimise thier issues? Will the 3rd party endorse the major party candidate (fusion state) lots of issues.


Stay tune till Saturday

Any more thoughts

Salty


Oh my goodness - what is happening - I am agreeing wit the Poncher

 

[poncho]

Actually that was part of the OP - Current executive says jurisdiction is broke and cuts must be made. Critics state that a service the current exec wants to be cut would be bad for citizens in that part of jurisdiction.
and since 50% of jurisdiction is tax exempt - churches, schools non-profits -
and then add in a super rich guy - who tries every which way to avoid taxes and in addition - take tax money....
- yes money is a big problem.
No, this is not a worthless discussion.
First, what will a party do to have the winning candidate. Will they comprimise thier issues? Will the 3rd party endorse the major party candidate (fusion state) lots of issues.


Stay tune till Saturday

Any more thoughts

Salty


Oh my goodness - what is happening - I am agreeing wit the Poncher

I guess this kind of "filler" would be interesting to someone with a campaign manager's mind what with all the numbers and trying to figure out which angle would work best in this or that situation. Yeah fun. Like a crossword puzzle.

It's a great way to waste time and energy but that's about it. Imho of course.

In the meantime the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that there are people above government pulling all the strings. But here in the false left vs right world we can't be bothered by that huge revelation we just want to keep comparing all the puppets to each other. Oh and calling anyone that doesn't want to play "let's all compare the puppets" anymore crazy.