New CNN Poll: Romney Beats Obama 53% to 44%

Barack will never get re-elected now! I do wonder if this poll might make Mitt give it another shot. It took Reagan three times to finally become President. It would be interesting to see a current poll comparing Mitt versus Hilary.

And in 2006 Kerry beat Bush by about 6%, though neither of them garnered over 50%.
www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_Presiden...ld_lose_to_0809.html

Elections, like polls, are simply a snapshot in time.

Though it does raise a point regarding being compelled to choose between the lessor of who cares on election day by the current system which artificially limits the choices via party primaries. I'm personally not thrilled with the prospect of voting for Beauprez this November, but I'm even less thrilled with the thought of having Hickenlooper retained for another term. Since one of these two men is going to be our next governor, and since I refuse to sit on the sidelines to make an empty statement, the person who I am less less thrilled with is going to be who I vote for.

For presidential elections, I'd like to see the 12th Amendment repealed and get back to having multiple candidates from all major parties appear on the ballot. Sure, we might have a few, or even a majority of, elections decided by the House of Representatives by returning to the original text of the Constitution, but I truly believe we'd get better presidents out of the process by doing so.

California has open, gorilla primaries. So the top two vote getters go onto a runoff so you could have two Republicans, two Dems, one of each or even any combination of third parties. In this way, the more radical pol's would probably lose the runoff.

ScienceChic wrote: As an unaffiliated voter, I'm starting to lean more that direction as well. Too many elections are being decided during the primaries and an increasing number of eligible voters left out of the process. Since you can't open primaries to anyone, or there would be deliberate attempts to vote in the weaker candidate by the opposing party, then let's make it as wide open and fair as possible.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/0...te-in-primaries.html

If you make the decision not to be a member of a group, you haven't been left out, you have chosen to remain away. You may register with any party you wish or choose not to register with any of them. That is your choice. To then say that you are being left out of the process as a result of the choice you have made for yourself makes no sense to me.

Heck in this State you can register with a party during the primary season and then change your party affiliation for the general election. How that system prevents the deliberate attempt to vote in the weaker candidate escapes me, especially in a year, like this one, where there is but a single candidate for an office from the party. Obama ran unopposed in the 2012 primary and Hickenlooper was not opposed in the primary this year. That frees up an awful lot of Democrats to temporarily join the rival party to try and run their guy against the weakest challenger, doesn't it?

Those who champion themselves as "unaffiliated" have that same option. You can temporarily join the party which shares more of your worldview for the primary elections and then go back to being "unaffiliated" for the general election if you wish. Thus, anyone who is "left out" more properly is described as someone who has chosen not to participate at that level.

FredHayek wrote: California has open, gorilla primaries. So the top two vote getters go onto a runoff so you could have two Republicans, two Dems, one of each or even any combination of third parties. In this way, the more radical pol's would probably lose the runoff.

I don't think there should even be a runoff. Most votes on election day wins. Does it really matter if you have a less than 50% share of a majority of voters or an over 50% share of a minority of registered voters? In either instance you are looking at the winner of the election being decided by a minority of the people who are eligible to cast a vote, aren't you?

And totally off topic, what the heck happened to all of my "smites"? I took particular pride in being viewed as a contrary curmudgeon.

Thou art truly a paunchy misbegotten, hasty-witted, flap-mouthed contrary curmudgeon PS.
Cheers!
LOL