Chuck Schumer: What say we have fully open primaries from now on?

posted at 8:41 pm on July 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

He doesn’t mean a traditional open primary, where voters can vote in either party’s primary regardless of their own party registration. He doesn’t mean an open primary a la Mississippi either, where Democrats who hadn’t voted in their own party’s primary were eligible to vote in the runoff between Cochran and McDaniel. He means fully open: One primary that includes the candidates from both primaries, with all voters voting. The top two finishers move on to the general election, even if they both happen to belong to the same party. I.e. the Mississippi primary would have included Cochran, McDaniel, and Democrat Travis Childers; assuming Cochran and McDaniel had finished in the top two, as is likely in a state as red as that one, the November ballot would have been a de facto runoff between them with no Democrats on the ballot.

You trust Chuck Schumer to do what’s best for America, don’t you?

But primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the “third of the third” most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote — the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents — who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate — from voting in primaries at all…

We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff. This would prevent a hard-right or hard-left candidate from gaining office with the support of just a sliver of the voters of the vastly diminished primary electorate; to finish in the top two, candidates from either party would have to reach out to the broad middle

While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism. It would remove the incentive that pushes our politicians to kowtow to the factions of their party that are most driven by fear and anger. For those of us who are in despair over partisanship and polarization in Congress, reform of the primary system is a start.

This is a solution to a problem posed by ideologues in both parties, he solemnly insists, at a moment when the right has knocked off a couple of senators and the House majority leader and the left is picking its nose, writing folk songs about a presidential non-candidate whom no one seriously believes would threaten Hillary Clinton. But never mind that. Would his plan actually work? If you stick Democrats and Republicans in the same electoral pool in the primaries, would the moderates somehow magically float to the top? According to Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight, the available evidence from California (which adopted top-two primaries in 2010) suggests … it wouldn’t:

Moreover, it doesn’t look like there has been a trend toward moderation in California. The state’s legislature has been quite as polarized as anywhere else. Political scientists Douglas Ahler, Jack Citrin and Gabriel Lenz of the University of California, Berkeley, studied the 2012 top-two primary results and found that moderate candidates didn’t do any better than they would have in a closed, intra-party primary vote. These results held for the U.S. House and state Senate races.

Ahler, Citrin and Lenz found that voters didn’t differentiate between extreme and moderate candidates. Voters may be willing to cast votes for moderate candidates, but they didn’t know who those candidates were. Instead, they relied on a candidate’s party identification. And because most voters (including independents) lean toward one party or another, their votes are reliably partisan.

Another study found that, if anything, California lawmakers having taken more extreme positions since 2012. None of which is surprising, really. For starters, why would a top-two primary necessarily increase turnout? If I believed, as Schumer claims to, that moderates are more likely to win in primaries like that, I’d be *less* likely to vote because I’d assume that the general election would essentially just be a re-run of the primary. Why bother to vote in the latter when I’ll face the same basic choice in the former? Also, what exactly is the strategic argument for voting for a moderate in a top-two primary? If you’re worried about “electability,” that worry will affect your choice of candidate regardless of whether the primary is open or closed. Frankly, if I were voting in a top-two primary in a state where I knew the tea party had a presence, I might be more inclined to support a conservative in the primary than a moderate for fear of a strategic nightmare unfolding if I didn’t. What I mean is, if I knew that the tea-party candidate was likely to get 30 percent of the overall primary vote thanks to solid conservative support, I might be inclined to throw in with them even if I preferred a RINO purely for the sake of ensuring that a Republican ended up in the final two and was on the ballot in November. In a closed primary, which ensures that the GOP will be represented in November, I wouldn’t have that fear. I could vote for the RINO and, if he lost, feel secure knowing that I could still vote for a Republican in the general election anyway.

I don’t see how this helps Democrats much either. Assume a traditional election posture nowadays where there’s a Democrat with solid party support, an establishment Republican with shaky party support, and a tea partier with decent but passionate support. Schumer, I guess, wants some Democrats to abandon their own party’s nominee and vote for the establishment Republican instead, thus ensuring that the choice in November is between a liberal and a centrist. But there’s a gamble involved there: If the Democrat starts off with 40 percent, the establishment Republican starts off with 32 percent, and the tea partier starts off with 28 percent, a 15 percent shift from the Democrat to the establishment Republican results in a top-two of … the establishment Republican and the tea partier, a mighty poor outcome for Dems who are trying to exploit the primary system. And people would realize that, which would mean few Democratic crossovers and a de facto closed primary between the establishment Republican and the tea partier. Which is basically what we have now. I don’t get it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So Democrats can pick our candidates? Oh why not!!!

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Anything Chuckie Schumer says is for the good of Chuckie Schumer.

BTW, what’s so bad about closed primaries?

formwiz on July 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM

CHUCK YOU, Schumer..gotta love Rush

jaywemm on July 22, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I actually like CA’s fusion primary system. Top two go on to the general. Eliminates all the freaking “libertarian” spoilers.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM

They’re worried. The last thing they want are honest elections.

Mimzey on July 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Why not open up voting to anybody on the planet, Chucky!

After all, it’s not really fair that only those who can get here illegally aren’t prevented from voting …

ShainS on July 22, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I think it was Michael Savage who said that every time Schumer speaks, it makes him want to take a bath…I couldn’t agree more. The man personifies sleaze.

Doc Holliday on July 22, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Didn’t the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a song about this?

Dream of Californication.

Steve Eggleston on July 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM

The fact that he sees “Moderates” as preferable says everything that needs to be said about “Moderates.”

Axe on July 22, 2014 at 8:49 PM

He is here. Tilde

SpongePuppy on July 22, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Must be a full moon, because I actually agree with Chuck U Schumer, this would eliminate all the spoilers. In MT, a freaking spoiler threw the race to the Dem in 2012, same in ND, and same in quite a few congressional elections in 2010 and 2012.

This way, no more SPOILERS

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 8:51 PM

I don’t see how this helps Democrats much either. Assume a traditional election posture nowadays where there’s a Democrat with solid party support, an establishment Republican with shaky party support, and a tea partier with decent but passionate support. Schumer, I guess, wants some Democrats to abandon their own party’s nominee and vote for the establishment Republican instead, thus ensuring that the choice in November is between a liberal and a centrist. But there’s a gamble involved there: If the Democrat starts off with 40 percent, the establishment Republican starts off with 32 percent, and the tea partier starts off with 28 percent, a 15 percent shift from the Democrat to the establishment Republican results in a top-two of … the establishment Republican and the tea partier, a mighty poor outcome for Dems who are trying to exploit the primary system. And people would realize that, which would mean few Democratic crossovers and a de facto closed primary between the establishment Republican and the tea partier. Which is basically what we have now. I don’t get it.

That’s why there won’t be a 15-point shift from the DemocRAT to the RepublicRAT. Said shift will only be large enough to ensure the conservative is the jettisoned third wheel, even in the 40% D/32% C/28% R scenario.

Speaking of that, that is the reason why Schumer is floating it, and why El PRL will leap at it.

Steve Eggleston on July 22, 2014 at 8:54 PM

It’s bad enough that the GOP misses out on some really good candidates because of poor primary voter turnout- I can’t imagine our national elections being driven by the one district with the most DNC-rented buses and the free bottles of Ripple.

BKeyser on July 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Anyone trust Chuckles? Yeah me neither.

Make all primaries closed, and do away with same day registrations too, they reek of coruption.

D-fusit on July 22, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Azzhole.

As much as I respect and admire Rush Limbaugh, I think that back in 2008 that Hillary thing went way haywire.

I think we need to push for closed primaries. For the benefit of BOTH parties.

Now’s the time to do it

/Elizabeth Warren.

Key West Reader on July 22, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Oh, and ACORN.

Which is an arm to the Oministration. You thought they were defeated? If so, you’re stupid.

Key West Reader on July 22, 2014 at 9:02 PM

You trust Chuck Schumer to do what’s best for America, don’t you?

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

GarandFan on July 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Well, Chuck U, you have a little problema here. The states, each of them and not the congress, would have to buy your crap, to change the system.

STFU!

TXUS on July 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Key West Reader on July 22, 2014 at 9:00 PM

100% Correct.

Close the damn primaries. Make people pay attention earlier.

budfox on July 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM

You trust Chuck Schumer to do what’s best for America, don’t you?

If Chuckie is for it, I gotta be against it, because Chuckie is going to do what’s best for Democratics and not America.

slickwillie2001 on July 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM

It’s simple math: anything Schumer has to offer equals zero interest on my part.

HiJack on July 22, 2014 at 9:05 PM

…gawd he’s a dipshit!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 22, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Hate the system in California. It shuts out third parties and independents.

El_Terrible on July 22, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Hate the system in California. It shuts out third parties and independents.

El_Terrible on July 22, 2014 at 9:06 PM

That’s the POINT!! We lost at least 4 CA congressional seats in 2010, because of 3rd party spoilers.

Enough of the “libertarian” bs.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Cleveland, Ohio has such a system for their mayoral election in place since 1976. Since then, the only Republican to have even been ON THE BALLOT has been George Voinovich.

Myron Falwell on July 22, 2014 at 9:11 PM

We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff.

There it is! That’s what all this illegal immigration from Central America is all about. If This would be adopted, there could possibly never be another GOP candidate for president.

F@CK YOU SCHUMER! Take your primary idea and shove it!

Patriot Vet on July 22, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Close the damn primaries. Make people pay attention earlier.

budfox on July 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM

The primaries should not only be closed, but the only people allowed to vote in a primary are registered voters and, if a party or parties chooses to do it, those who own property/pay property taxes within the boundaries of the applicable district or within the state in the case of statewide races.

As for the general election, you must be a registered voter and the property ownership/tax payment criteria doesn’t apply.

The primaries are meant to decide who will represent that party in each given race and, as such, they and only they should be able decide who can vote for their candidates in the primaries.

TXUS on July 22, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Hate the system in California. It shuts out third parties and independents.
El_Terrible on July 22, 2014 at 9:06 PM

That’s the POINT!! We lost at least 4 CA congressional seats in 2010, because of 3rd party spoilers.
Enough of the “libertarian” bs.
Raquel Pinkbullet at 9:09 PM

Then perhaps the problem should rest with the GOPe for failing to put up candidates that people would vote for, instead of giving them just cause to go third party.

It’s not rocket surgery.

Myron Falwell on July 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM

The dude is pure evil. I’ve been convinced for years he’s the one behind the curtain. With Soros.
It’s all a god-damned power grab. Nothing less.

It’s pathetic.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2014 at 9:16 PM

You’re assuming TEA Party folks stay on the right’s side. Various TP’s have expressed a desire to affect change on the left too. They would be able to parlay their positions as a wedge. To move the left rightwards…

peter the bellhop on July 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Let’s have national parties stop buying senators and repeal the 17th amendment.

crrr6 on July 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Then perhaps the problem should rest with the GOPe for failing to put up candidates that people would vote for, instead of giving them just cause to go third party.

It’s not rocket surgery.

Myron Falwell on July 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Obama thanks you, for your support!

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I keep screaming AMERICA WAKE UP. These two parties have the same names they had years ago, but they have nothing to do with the VALUES they had years ago. They both are sticking it to us the US Citizen. This kind of reasoning is dangerous and we better wake up.

Nat George on July 22, 2014 at 9:21 PM

You’re assuming TEA Party folks stay on the right’s side. Various TP’s have expressed a desire to affect change on the left too. They would be able to parlay their positions as a wedge. To move the left rightwards…

peter the bellhop on July 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! That’s why the modern day DEM-Rat party is outright communist.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 9:22 PM

You trust Chuck Schumer to do what’s best for America, don’t you?

Every time I see this man’s picture, I want to take a long, hot shower with plenty of disinfectant soap.

bw222 on July 22, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Take Poland for example.. The Left has been completely destroyed. In the Polish Senate, it’s two right wing parties that control 100% of the seats, presidency…etc…

Establishment Right (Civic Platform)
Tea Party Right (Justice Party)

And Poland was a communist country not even 25 years ago!

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM

schumer (shoo’ mer) noun: crap that sticks to the bottom of your shoes that you can’t seem to scrape off.

LilyBart on July 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM

I actually like CA’s fusion primary system. Top two go on to the general. Eliminates all the freaking “libertarian” spoilers.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM

In solid Republican districts it would hurt conservatives as RINOs would join with Democrats to elect the most liberal Republican (much like the way Lisa Murkowski was elected in Alaska).

bw222 on July 22, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Take Poland for example.. The Left has been completely destroyed. In the Polish Senate, it’s two right wing parties that control 100% of the seats, presidency…etc…

Establishment Right (Civic Platform)
Tea Party Right (Justice Party)

And Poland was a communist country not even 25 years ago!

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM

So what you’re saying is that we need to be enslaved by communism before we excise the left? I might be on board with that.

nobar on July 22, 2014 at 9:42 PM

I love Chuck U Schumer. Really. How many other Democrats go out of their way to help the other side? I mean the guy is always looking out for our best interests. As a matter of fact, I think he is more concerned about us than our own side. I mean how much has McConnell or Boehner done for us? Chuck U has that warm fuzzy, God fearing charitable way of always helping us. Look, here’s a super guy who goes out of his way to help newly elected Pub. Senators. Marco Rubio? Right? Took him under his wing and helped him get into the exclusive club of the gang of eight. And Chuck U is always helping McCain and Graham.

So, yes, Chuck U gets kudos from me. If he says open primaries are good, then you can bet it will help Republicans win more seats. After all,if Boehner and McConnell love having Chuck U help them by following his advice on attracting more Latino voters by opening up the border to gazillions of illegal immigrants(undocumented democratic voters) and granting them amnesty, then why should we not support his helping us win even more seats.

they lie on July 22, 2014 at 9:46 PM

I’m in California, where the top 2 candidates are on the ballot.

In 2012, I had the option of voting for either of 2 Democrats for Congress. This year, the Democrat is running unopposed.

There are some benefits for a fully open primary system… since I know that my vote here doesn’t count, I should be able to vote against Schumer.

malclave on July 22, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Screw him

blatantblue on July 22, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Mississippi #MSsen times 50, good luck with that

mathewsjw on July 22, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Didn’t the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a song about this?
Dream of Californication.
Steve Eggleston on July 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Ha! Clever.

anuts on July 22, 2014 at 10:22 PM

It would mean he would lock in the blue states forever, with DEM versus DEM, especially factoring in the illegal voters they are shipping to tipover states. Most of the group being bussed in by Obama are teens and older who will be illegal voting age for the next Presidential

This is the strategy being used in the Republican primaries to block out conservative candidates. They stack the field with phoney candidates, like Newt Gingrich who had basically one donor – Sheldon Adelson. The phoney candidates are tailored to capture specific voting blocs, and siphon votes from the competition

DEMs could cut out the rural voters. Cities would rule

Saturday night surprises are even more useful in a crowded primary field. Since votes are spread, even a little phoney doubt can cause an opponent to be pushed out of the running

The primaries would would reduce the time voters have to get to know the candidates, since a political party could be punk’d out of the general election. For that reason, it would be a lot dirtier.

We would end up with even more Bidens

entagor on July 22, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Cleveland, Ohio has such a system for their mayoral election in place since 1976. Since then, the only Republican to have even been ON THE BALLOT has been George Voinovich.

Myron Falwell on July 22, 2014 at 9:11 PM

And he cried in senate testimony just like fellow buckeye boehner. Im almost ashamed to say i live in ohio

jaywemm on July 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM

There’s a reason “Schmuck Schumer” has been employed toward this man (?) that predates Mark Levin…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 22, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Despicable human being.

wepeople on July 22, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Schut up, Senator.

listens2glenn on July 22, 2014 at 11:32 PM

If Chuck Schumer suggested we fire Biden, appoint Ted Cruz as Vice President, and then impeach Obama, I’d be at best extremely wary of the possibility. In fact, when Schumer ever suggests an idea that I consider “good” then it will be a hopeful possibility that the creep is finally going senile… but most likely he’ll just be lying as usual.

Hey Chuckie, remember that “providing competition for power providers” crap you’ve been going on about. We’re still getting it in the mouth from National Greed here in upstate. Harder than ever in fact. But at least they’re nice enough to regularly funnel some of that money your way, aren’t they?

Gingotts on July 22, 2014 at 11:40 PM

Schmucky Schumer reeks that sleazeball smell.

MCGIRV on July 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM

For once in his life, Schumer is right. This effort to smear “fully open primaries” by the simple fact Schumer is for it is just childish. There are serious arguments one way or another, but the fact that a stupid jerk like Schumer is for it does not matter one way or another.

thuja on July 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM

Chuck Schumer makes it easy.

If he’s for it, it is almost certainly a bad idea.

Adjoran on July 22, 2014 at 11:47 PM

California is not the only state that does this. So does Washington.

And in Louisiana, I don’t think they have a traditional primary. When they vote in November, the top challenger must pass 50%, otherwise the top two go into a run off.

cat_owner on July 23, 2014 at 12:36 AM

Why don’t you blow it out your ear, Chuckie.

rplat on July 23, 2014 at 5:00 AM

Chuck is dead on right, because in reality, we only have one governing party in power, even though it pretends to be two opposition parties. That’s just a game like two cops playing “good cop, bad cop, in order to control a s suspect they’re interrogating. One half of the ruling party manipulates and controls liberal impulse people and the other half takes care of the less liberal types.
I didn’t say “conservative” because both parties try to destroy, or neuter, them.
That’s what open primaries are really about.

Don L on July 23, 2014 at 5:11 AM

Rand Paul wants the same thing!

KBird on July 23, 2014 at 6:49 AM

We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff.

This is a throw-back to the original Constitutional method for selecting President and Vice-President: made sense in theory, failed in practice, eventually replaced by the current “ticket” system.

The problem then was having 2 top executives of radically different ideologies.
The problem now will be having 2 top candidates of essentially equivalent ideologies.

I’m of the opinion that parties (all of them) are like manufacturers of different “brands” of goods. Let the “owners” (official party members, willing to own up to their preferences) decide what they want to put on the market, and let the public choose.

How many businesses would put a competitor’s partisan on their product development team?

AesopFan on July 23, 2014 at 7:11 AM

In Illinois you could vote in either primary as there is no voter registration. In one election, where the GOP candidate had no opposition, the Republicans voted in the Dem primary for the worst Dem candidate, Dan Walker, in order to get a patsy against Ogilvie the Republican. The result was that Walker won the general election and was the worst Governor Illinois ever had until Mr. Long-Hair-seat-for-sale. Walker also went to prison like so many other Illinois governors. Closed primaries avoid this kind of mischief.

KW64 on July 23, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Up-Chuck always has some tricks up his sleeve.

Viator on July 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM

CHUCK YOU, Schumer

jaywemm on July 22, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Exactly.

I actually like CA’s fusion primary system. Top two go on to the general. Eliminates all the freaking “libertarian” spoilers.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Except it arguably violates Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, guaranteeing a republican form of government to the states. The CA method doesn’t prevent one-party rule.

No one should be allowed to vote in the election to choose a party’s nominee except people who are actually members of the party. Period. It violates freedom of association to do so.

GWB on July 23, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Up-Chuck always has some tricks up his sleeve.

Viator on July 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM

I don’t think his sleeve is whence he pulled this idea.

GWB on July 23, 2014 at 10:00 AM

I like this idea because I am an independent voter that is shut out of the primaries in my state. I am tired of nutjobs from either party being elected in many races I had little say in. truthfully, I don’t think either of the two big parties want this since they have it pretty good now. I don’t necessarily think it would result in moderates coming to power, but if the outcomes require people from other parties crossing over, they would have to at least not be repugnant to the other side. Just saying.

geezerintraining on July 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM

This would prevent a hard-right or hard-left candidate from gaining office with the support of just a sliver of the voters of the vastly diminished primary electorate…

I’m sorry, did I miss something? Is that not what the general election is actually for?

He makes it sound as though you get an extremist who panders to the party base, they win the primary, and voila they are in office. But that’s the point of the general election, where they have to face ALL of the voters, not just their party’s base.

Of course, when he says “extreme,” what he really means is conservatives. And since they can’t defeat conservatives under the system we have now, of course we need to change the system.

Shump on July 23, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I like this idea because I am an independent voter that is shut out of the primaries in my state. I am tired of nutjobs from either party being elected in many races I had little say in. truthfully, I don’t think either of the two big parties want this since they have it pretty good now. I don’t necessarily think it would result in moderates coming to power, but if the outcomes require people from other parties crossing over, they would have to at least not be repugnant to the other side. Just saying.

geezerintraining on July 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM

I would support the idea of allowing registered independents to vote in the primary of their choice more than I would support the idea of throwing all the primary candidates into one big pool and going with the top two.

Even that, though, I think is questionable. The whole purpose of a primary is the party getting to choose who it wants to run in the general election. There’s nothing that says a party has to even use a primary election as the method of choosing a nominee. They could just have a party convention and nominate someone if they so chose. But the point is, primaries are, by definition, supposed to be internal to each party. That’s what they’re for.

The general election is the “real” election that everyone gets to vote in. You have just as much say in that election as anyone else, and there’s nothing stopping an independent or third party candidate from getting on the general election ballot and challenging the party nominees. The trick is getting the support they need to win.

Shump on July 23, 2014 at 11:00 AM

For once in his life, Schumer is right. This effort to smear “fully open primaries” by the simple fact Schumer is for it is just childish. There are serious arguments one way or another, but the fact that a stupid jerk like Schumer is for it does not matter one way or another.

thuja on July 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM

There you go posters, if this sub-human thing is in favor of it too, I am even more against it.

slickwillie2001 on July 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Howzabout Smug Chuckie SDSTFU and let the states keep deciding how primaries are handled, based on the will of their people. There has been no greater evil in the USA than the creeping/now careening encroachment of authoritarian federal imperialism into state and local government affairs and private and individual responsibilities.

Ay Uaxe on July 23, 2014 at 1:24 PM

A suggestion from Schumer is like a sales pitch from Madoff.

PersonFromPorlock on July 23, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Upchuck’s a derangaed lawless fascist who only does what’s good for himself or his party so be very careful or stay away from whatever he even suggests as potentially fatal for you and this Republic!

russedav on July 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Schumer is a scumbag through-and-through.

Conservchik on July 23, 2014 at 9:36 PM