I doubt this will be reviewed as precedent. This is not a high profile race.

It's a low profile race in an extremely red area that no one expects to flip.

Obviously the strategists in California would take a much higher priority than running 40 different R candidates

It's a sense of consistency, my argument is it is generally, a bad idea to split your votes

Across the board,. this stupid and lets avoid it in the future if possible.

It is dependent

It's not always bad, only in the spots where it's a risk

Tell me a time when it is good to split votes

It's always a bad idea to split votes.

Here???

no

It just doesn't pose a risk here.

it is still a stupid idea.

Do you see my point?

How, they both get sent to the general and no one on the left gets the seat

In this scenario that is the case, but there are many scenarios in which the democrat gets the seat at the start.

This is actually how we're gonna win Issa's old seat if that happens

All I am saying!

2 Rs, and a bunch of dems, that's a difference

Is let's not do this

That only works because it's in the primary.

We shouldn't just run purely 1 R everywhere

that wasn't my point.

And this is a primary, with a runoff election should no one hit 50% (which they won't)

I don't think it's a primary, I think it's a full blown runoff election.

And we're just trying to treat it as a primary

right?

No, because there's a bunch of candidates

It's not a runoff

it's technically a general election?

It's a "special election" but it's a sort of jungle type of deal

When they vote Democrats and Republicans will all be on one ballot?

And if someone gets 50% they win the seat?

If someone gets 50% they get the seat

So it's a general election.

If no one does, the top 2 candidates get to a runoff election

yes

by technicality

So it's not a primary

Thus my point being.

This across the board, is a bad idea, we shouldn't ram as many candidates into the general election as possible.