• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nevada Democrats Chose 'None of These Candidates' in Primary


I also read this:

With 80 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the "none of these candidates option" had received over 20,000 votes (30 percent), putting it over 3,600 votes ahead of the man who will face Sandoval in November, former State Economic Development commissioner Robert Goodman. Goodman received 25 percent of the vote.

So the way I read the above paragraph is even though none of these candidates option won, the second place finisher will still run against Sandoval. So in reality it seems, none of these candidates means absolutely nothing. It seems to be a PR trick of some sorts. It None of these candidates won, then the Democrats should have another primary with none of those candidates running, or so I would think.
 
That is absolutely fantastic.

Read this, none of these candidates is nothing more than a PR gimmick. By state law if none of these candidates win, the second place finisher is the winner and will face off against Sandoval in November. Its useless. It is like the voters have spoken and voted, but what they had to say and the way they voted means nothing and the voters are not listened to.

In Nevada, nobody wins (sort-of) - Steven Shepard - POLITICO.com
 
I agree, with a decent candidate the GOP could have beat him.

A decent candidate would have beaten him easily. All they needed was someone who wasn't bat**** crazy, but they couldn't manage it.
 
I also read this:

With 80 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the "none of these candidates option" had received over 20,000 votes (30 percent), putting it over 3,600 votes ahead of the man who will face Sandoval in November, former State Economic Development commissioner Robert Goodman. Goodman received 25 percent of the vote.

So the way I read the above paragraph is even though none of these candidates option won, the second place finisher will still run against Sandoval. So in reality it seems, none of these candidates means absolutely nothing. It seems to be a PR trick of some sorts. It None of these candidates won, then the Democrats should have another primary with none of those candidates running, or so I would think.

It's not a PR trick. Any state with a write-in option on the ballot theoretically allows exactly this sort of thing, but those votes aren't counted. With a recognized "FU" option on the ballot, such votes are counted and reported, which means voter discontent has a louder voice.

If you don't want any of the candidates, and the office must be filled, the 1st runner up being the winner makes sense.
 
I also read this:

With 80 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the "none of these candidates option" had received over 20,000 votes (30 percent), putting it over 3,600 votes ahead of the man who will face Sandoval in November, former State Economic Development commissioner Robert Goodman. Goodman received 25 percent of the vote.

So the way I read the above paragraph is even though none of these candidates option won, the second place finisher will still run against Sandoval. So in reality it seems, none of these candidates means absolutely nothing. It seems to be a PR trick of some sorts. It None of these candidates won, then the Democrats should have another primary with none of those candidates running, or so I would think.

I read that too. Thanks Captain Buzzkill...:mrgreen:

But yeah, it was symbolic...oh well.
 
It's not a PR trick. Any state with a write-in option on the ballot theoretically allows exactly this sort of thing, but those votes aren't counted. With a recognized "FU" option on the ballot, such votes are counted and reported, which means voter discontent has a louder voice.

If you don't want any of the candidates, and the office must be filled, the 1st runner up being the winner makes sense.

No, it still comes off as a PR trick. If "None of these candidates" was sincere, a serious option besides a PR gimmick, then it would be declared the winner and the Democrats in this case, would have to have another primary without any of those on the ballot when None of these candidates won. It means absolutely nothing. It means the voters have said no to the eight or however many candidates there were, but yet the second place finisher is actually the winner. Not none of these candidates.

It's useless. If None of these candidates actually meant None of these candidates instead of a PR gimmick, then the political parties would have to make sure whomever they ran in their primaries were acceptable to the voters.

It should be illegal as all get out to have names on the ballot if they can't win even if they receive the majority of the votes. Nevada has just told those who voted for None of these candidate to stuff it where the sun don't shine. Your vote does not count.
 
I read that too. Thanks Captain Buzzkill...:mrgreen:

But yeah, it was symbolic...oh well.

It means absolutely nothing. You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.
 
This is quite funny. I wish we had that option where I am for all parties.
 
images
 
Between the Cliven Bundy and now this, there's a lot of "State's Rights" advocates who have a problem with the way Nevada does things. I recommend these loudmouth knuckledraggers move to the state, run for office, and then change things otherwise they should STFU.
 
With all the cross-over talk in Virginia, I'm wondering if Nevada had an open primary and GOPs crossed over to embarrass Dems.
Gov. Sandoval sure doesn't need the help, with Vegas on a mini-boom, jobs taking off, people happy cuz Sandoval took ME--not a TEA .
I also read this:

With 80 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the "none of these candidates option" had received over 20,000 votes (30 percent), putting it over 3,600 votes ahead of the man who will face Sandoval in November, former State Economic Development commissioner Robert Goodman. Goodman received 25 percent of the vote.

So the way I read the above paragraph is even though none of these candidates option won, the second place finisher will still run against Sandoval. So in reality it seems, none of these candidates means absolutely nothing. It seems to be a PR trick of some sorts. It None of these candidates won, then the Democrats should have another primary with none of those candidates running, or so I would think.
 
Last edited:
With all the cross-over talk in Virginia, I'm wondering if Nevada had an open primary and GOPs crossed over to embarrass Dems.
Gov. Sandoval sure doesn't need the help, with Vegas on a mini-boom, jobs taking off, people happy cuz Sandoval took ME--not a TEAt .

No it doesn't, here is the list:

List of States with Open and Closed Primaries | Grassroots Idaho GOP

Then here is a nice article from the 538 guys on Cantor's loss.

The Eric Cantor Upset: What Happened? | FiveThirtyEight
 
Back
Top Bottom