[RunItUpTheGut]

What is everyones opinion on write in candidates?

Here in the local area, ive noticed on just about every election, someone who loses in the primary will start campaigning again to be a write in candidate in the fall because they believe since the republican fields are so heavy, they would actually have a chance in November because of a two horse race.

Its happening in two local races this year for Whitley County alone.

Whats some of your thoughts? One would think why even have a primary. Others would think why not just wait until November to vote and write in whoever you want? If im not mistaken, a couple of years ago, a Mccreary County election sheriff one in the fall by write in after losing in the primary.

Should there be laws disqualifying you if you run in the primary and lose or is it fair game?

[Smokey Hayes]

I have no problem with write-in candidates. I have a big problem with primary elections and the way that the two major parties make it difficult for candidates to get on the ballot.

In most cases, I would not consider voting for a write-in candidate who lost in a primary but if I believed that the GOP rigged the primary election by flooding a moderate candidate's campaign with money, as the GOP often does, then I would definitely consider voting for a write-in candidate as a protest.

It takes some effort to write in a candidate's name, so write-in candidates rarely impact the results, IMO.

If the national GOP's meddling results in the nomination of Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, then I will write in another name in 2016. I will not vote for another loser RINO in the general election. It does not make much difference to me if Hillary or Hillary-lite wins in 2016.

[ronald reagan]

While I think its disgusting that someone would run as a write in after losing a primary, I believe it should be allowed. When Leiberman lost his democratic ticket primary in Connecticut a few years ago, he ran as an independent in the general election and won. I believe that Smokey Hayes hit the nail on the head when they said that the primary system is rigged for the two parties.

I moved from Kentucky about 7 years ago, and was recently visiting the area and noticed that the Coroner race in Pike County was political. Why is that? Seems like a pretty cut and dry position, and probably shouldn't even be an elected one. Appointment by the judge-executive might be the better route.

Also, most states have elected Sec. State, Attorney Generals, Treasurers, Agriculture commissioners, etc. It seems to me that states would be much better suited if they allowed the governor to assemble a team much like the president is afforded. In Kentucky, attorney general's aspire to become governor, and inevitiably they investigate the current governor. I mean, wallace wilkinson, breraton jones, Paul Patton, Ernie Flecther.... they all were investigated by their attorney generals. Seems like it'd make it tough to work with them.

Could you imagine if we elected the attorney general of the united states? No president would last more than a year or so without being charged with some felony for political purposes.

Just some ramblings.

[ronald reagan]

I will say this much though about Smokey's post.... I'd vote for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie ANY day over Hillary. The reason: Supreme Court and appellate court nominations. As well as the NLRB posts. While Jeb may support immigration reform, or be an environmentalist, supporter of common core, and weak on debt reduction --- I'd fully expect him to appoint constructionist and constitutional conservatives to those important positions. We could expect Bush-43 like appointments: Roberts, Alito. Hillary would likely appoint Ginsburg and Stevens style position. While I agree that Jeb and Christie are not ideal candidates... I think in the grand scheme of things, it'd be important to block Hillary from pushing us further left. I'll take the middle any day over that.