4 ms·

I don't agree- Begich wins with 61.4% against Palin, as mentioned above? It seems clear that he would've prevailed in a primary

lalaithion 4y ago
The argument is that he wins against Palin due to Democrats, who wouldn't have voted in the primary, preferring Begich over Palin.
- hash872 4y ago
  Well Alaska had open primaries before (only 9 states have truly closed primaries). So it's not necessarily the case that Dems wouldn't be voting in the Republican primary- or more likely, independent voters who lean left on some issues. That independent point is key, because you don't know that everyone who voted for the Dem candidate is necessarily a Dem
  - lalaithion 4y ago
    "It seems clear" -> "it's not necessarily the case" is the exact shift in certainty I was trying to argue for. I agree with this comment.
  - bena 4y ago
    Alaska did not have open primaries before. Except if you mean way before. In which case, if they ran this election like the elections back then, then Pelota and Palin would be running in the general as they were the top two vote recipients. Now I'm not sure if Alaska was semi-closed, but that's not moving the needle as hard as you want it to. Because if you're already registered for a party, you cannot vote in the other party's primary. Only unregistered voters may, and only in one. And typically, independent voters don't do that. As reflected in the low vote totals in the various primaries in previous elections.
    - hash872 4y ago
      I was simply responding to OP's assertion that anyone who voted for Peltola as their 1st choice was necessarily a Democrat, and so would not have voted in a theoretical Republican primary. This is not the case. I don't agree that 'typically, independent voters don't' vote in party primaries
      - pmyteh 4y ago
        The suggestion was that they weren't likely to be Republicans, given that they've chosen a D over two different Rs, and presumptively wouldn't be voting in a Republican primary. I agree than with (semi-)open primaries that's not guaranteed, but it seems valid as a first approximation at least.
- theptip 4y ago
  Extremely important observation. The two-tier primary/general election system produces more extreme-position winners, exactly by this mechanism. And consider another common outcome - shift the odds very slightly here and the Palin-esque candidate wins the primary, and the general, even though the eliminated primary candidate (Begich in this case) would have been more acceptable to the electorate at large.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Palin got more 1st votes than Begich. That tells me republican voters generally prefered Palin and she would've won the primary. Dem voters preferring begich over palin tells us nothing about how a primary would go.

lalaithion 4y ago

The argument is that he wins against Palin due to Democrats, who wouldn't have voted in the primary, preferring Begich over Palin.

hash872 4y ago
Well Alaska had open primaries before (only 9 states have truly closed primaries). So it's not necessarily the case that Dems wouldn't be voting in the Republican primary- or more likely, independent voters who lean left on some issues. That independent point is key, because you don't know that everyone who voted for the Dem candidate is necessarily a Dem
- lalaithion 4y ago
  "It seems clear" -> "it's not necessarily the case" is the exact shift in certainty I was trying to argue for. I agree with this comment.
- bena 4y ago
  Alaska did not have open primaries before. Except if you mean way before. In which case, if they ran this election like the elections back then, then Pelota and Palin would be running in the general as they were the top two vote recipients. Now I'm not sure if Alaska was semi-closed, but that's not moving the needle as hard as you want it to. Because if you're already registered for a party, you cannot vote in the other party's primary. Only unregistered voters may, and only in one. And typically, independent voters don't do that. As reflected in the low vote totals in the various primaries in previous elections.
  - hash872 4y ago
    I was simply responding to OP's assertion that anyone who voted for Peltola as their 1st choice was necessarily a Democrat, and so would not have voted in a theoretical Republican primary. This is not the case. I don't agree that 'typically, independent voters don't' vote in party primaries
    - pmyteh 4y ago
      The suggestion was that they weren't likely to be Republicans, given that they've chosen a D over two different Rs, and presumptively wouldn't be voting in a Republican primary. I agree than with (semi-)open primaries that's not guaranteed, but it seems valid as a first approximation at least.
theptip 4y ago
Extremely important observation. The two-tier primary/general election system produces more extreme-position winners, exactly by this mechanism. And consider another common outcome - shift the odds very slightly here and the Palin-esque candidate wins the primary, and the general, even though the eliminated primary candidate (Begich in this case) would have been more acceptable to the electorate at large.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Palin got more 1st votes than Begich. That tells me republican voters generally prefered Palin and she would've won the primary. Dem voters preferring begich over palin tells us nothing about how a primary would go.