How is it that a party comprised of a conservative/small-government majority keeps giving us presidential candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney? If there were run-offs in GOP primaries, would things work out differently?
Consider 2012.... What I mean is, take a conservative whose first choice was Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Perry. Assume his first choice didn't make the cut; and, one of the other 3 is facing Romney in a primary run-off. You can't be sure, but I don't think anyone who voted for a conservative the first go around would have voted for Romney in a run-off.
For example, take the 13 pre-Super-Tuesday 2012 state primaries (after which, the fat lady isn't quite singing but you can hear her warming up). In every state but Nevada, there would have been a run-off since no candidate garnered at least 50% of the vote. It is interesting to look at it state-by-state, but long story short, Romney emerged as the winner with only 41% of the popular vote; while conservatives lost with 59%. How's that grab you?
Problem is, we're tee'd up to do it all over again in 2016. Even worse this time (because there are so may very good candidates to split the conservative vote... which will of course benefit Jeb).
I don't imagine that anything can be done in time to fix things before the 2016 primaries. Even so, I think the least we can do it attempt to put the subject on the table. So, if the above makes any sense to you, I would much appreciate if you would consider signing my petition to RNC leadership. Here's a link if you are so inclined: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/031/236/america-needs-conservative-leadership-reform-the-gop-presidential-primary-process-now/?taf_id=13804140&cid=fb_na
I think Jeb has cooked his goose by dancing around the question of the invasion of Iraq. First he would, then maybe not, then definitely not. I would vote for Hitler before I'd vote for Jeb Bush. Well, that's too strong. I would not ever vote for a Democrat. Anyhow, this is not a Monarchy.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 10:31:54 AM
How is it that a party comprised of a conservative/small-government majority keeps giving us presidential candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney? If there were run-offs in GOP primaries, would things work out differently?
Consider 2012.... What I mean is, take a conservative whose first choice was Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Perry. Assume his first choice didn't make the cut; and, one of the other 3 is facing Romney in a primary run-off. You can't be sure, but I don't think anyone who voted for a conservative the first go around would have voted for Romney in a run-off.
For example, take the 13 pre-Super-Tuesday 2012 state primaries (after which, the fat lady isn't quite singing but you can hear her warming up). In every state but Nevada, there would have been a run-off since no candidate garnered at least 50% of the vote. It is interesting to look at it state-by-state, but long story short, Romney emerged as the winner with only 41% of the popular vote; while conservatives lost with 59%. How's that grab you?
Problem is, we're tee'd up to do it all over again in 2016. Even worse this time (because there are so may very good candidates to split the conservative vote... which will of course benefit Jeb).
I don't imagine that anything can be done in time to fix things before the 2016 primaries. Even so, I think the least we can do it attempt to put the subject on the table. So, if the above makes any sense to you, I would much appreciate if you would consider signing my petition to RNC leadership. Here's a link if you are so inclined: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/031/236/america-needs-conservative-leadership-reform-the-gop-presidential-primary-process-now/?taf_id=13804140&cid=fb_na
Not to worry. There are plenty of RINOS's in the race as well. Jeb is the leader by name recognition right now. I am confident a conservative will emerge and be victorious in 2016. The TEA movement is real and maturing.
If it helps, Agnlaw, try to think of it as something along the order of a country club. Not really perfect, but the alternative is to do the bidding of what's called "the public." As we all know, the public, by definition, lacks leadership ability, though don't try to tell it that.
We just heard of a recent FOX poll. It listed all the leaders, but Rand Paul was not on the list, even though he has been consistently in the top four. La Cosa Nostra puts a black rose by the dinner plate. We won't go that far.
The GOP needs to take winning elections 101. (in grammar school)
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 10:31:54 AM
How is it that a party comprised of a conservative/small-government majority keeps giving us presidential candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney? If there were run-offs in GOP primaries, would things work out differently?
Consider 2012.... What I mean is, take a conservative whose first choice was Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Perry. Assume his first choice didn't make the cut; and, one of the other 3 is facing Romney in a primary run-off. You can't be sure, but I don't think anyone who voted for a conservative the first go around would have voted for Romney in a run-off.
For example, take the 13 pre-Super-Tuesday 2012 state primaries (after which, the fat lady isn't quite singing but you can hear her warming up). In every state but Nevada, there would have been a run-off since no candidate garnered at least 50% of the vote. It is interesting to look at it state-by-state, but long story short, Romney emerged as the winner with only 41% of the popular vote; while conservatives lost with 59%. How's that grab you?
Problem is, we're tee'd up to do it all over again in 2016. Even worse this time (because there are so may very good candidates to split the conservative vote... which will of course benefit Jeb).
I don't imagine that anything can be done in time to fix things before the 2016 primaries. Even so, I think the least we can do it attempt to put the subject on the table. So, if the above makes any sense to you, I would much appreciate if you would consider signing my petition to RNC leadership. Here's a link if you are so inclined: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/031/236/america-needs-conservative-leadership-reform-the-gop-presidential-primary-process-now/?taf_id=13804140&cid=fb_na
some of the powerful people in the GOP are cowards. The stakes are high and they know it. SO DO WE! While conservatives want to take big chances for big changes, many in our party think they can change things incrementally without risking everything by presenting a (too) conservative candidate. This is the real bone of contention; It is an arguable strategy that our candidate will appeal to a broader group of people if he/she appears to be "a moderate conservative". (The results of the vote in the Electoral College show a Democrat advantage and that makes many nervous and open to the propaganda that we all are bombarded with everyday about what the American people want.)
I would rather throw caution to the wind having seen the American voters twice have gone with a much less than moderate, mainstream candidate. Obama didn't win by playing it safe. Granted, he did lie and pretend to be something that he's not, but everyone knew he was an extreme Liberal.
I BELIEVE that just as the American people were sick to death of Liberalism and voted against Jimmy Carter...to CHANGE direction, a Conserative candidate can be elected this time and there is no good reason to run someone who appears to be more of a moderate! The winning strategy is to present a stark contrast to Obama's abysmal record. Having created Romneycare, Romney could present this contrast very effectively, when Obamacare was the biggest issue of the last election! We need the AntiObama who will articulate that the problem isn't Obama per say, it is his ideas and his polcies which are Liberalism and whoever the Dems run, we can then contrast our opposing positions!!!! :cool: :cool:
I don't think it matters. None of the RINOS have a chance.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2015, 11:40:02 AM
I don't think it matters. None of the RINOS have a chance.
I disagree. The GOP back-room boys will broker a convention before daring to put in a true conservative. Obama's positives are still above 40 and in their view it's potential suicide to give already-liberal voters that clear a distinction between candidates. They'll woo independents by staying left ("moderate").
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2015, 11:40:02 AM
I don't think it matters. None of the RINOS have a chance.
I disagree and I believe the fix is in for a RINO. Remember...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE
Quote from: quiller on May 18, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
I disagree. The GOP back-room boys will broker a convention before daring to put in a true conservative. Obama's positives are still above 40 and in their view it's potential suicide to give already-liberal voters that clear a distinction between candidates. They'll woo independents by staying left ("moderate").
They're going to get stomped like a slug on a sidewalk. The RINO have no chance.
It is good to hear the optimism from so many of you. Even so, I was POSITIVE that we would put a conservative in the Whitehouse back around Q4 of 2011 (remember... BHO had lost his shine by then).
Then I saw the math... The party is 20-30% progressive (aka moderate, aka rino, aka establishment). Run enough good conservatives (and it looks like there will be plenty of them this time around) to split up the majority and, presto... Romney is the candidate.
I pinched my nose and voted for Dole. The same for McCain. Didn't vote for president in 2012 and if Bush wins the primary, I'll skip it again. "He's better than Hillary" isn't enough for me anymore. Sick and tired of being taken for granted by the GOP.
I won't bore everyone with all of the numbers, but if you want to make yourself as sick as I am, have a look at the 2012 results state-by-state then ask yourself, how is it that we have allowed 20-30% of the party to choose our candidates, election after election? http://www.ask.com/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
I am NY on one side of the family, MA on the other. Contrary to what is projected in the media, both states are home to a majority of honest, decent people. Especially, when you get out of the big city.
Now, I am coming to view Bloomberg, Del Blasio, and Warren as silent pleas for help, on the parts of the citizens of the states. They know how repulsive these candidates are. They also know the states cannot continue down the road they have been on. But, they are stuck. They are locked in, and they cry out for help, relief.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 01:43:41 PM
It is good to hear the optimism from so many of you. Even so, I was POSITIVE that we would put a conservative in the Whitehouse back around Q4 of 2011 (remember... BHO had lost his shine by then).
Then I saw the math... The party is 20-30% progressive (aka moderate, aka rino, aka establishment). Run enough good conservatives (and it looks like there will be plenty of them this time around) to split up the majority and, presto... Romney is the candidate.
I pinched my nose and voted for Dole. The same for McCain. Didn't vote for president in 2012 and if Bush wins the primary, I'll skip it again. "He's better than Hillary" isn't enough for me anymore. Sick and tired of being taken for granted by the GOP.
I won't bore everyone with all of the numbers, but if you want to make yourself as sick as I am, have a look at the 2012 results state-by-state then ask yourself, how is it that we have allowed 20-30% of the party to choose our candidates, election after election? http://www.ask.com/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
That's because they left you with no other options.
This time is completely different.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 01:43:41 PM
It is good to hear the optimism from so many of you. Even so, I was POSITIVE that we would put a conservative in the Whitehouse back around Q4 of 2011 (remember... BHO had lost his shine by then).
Then I saw the math... The party is 20-30% progressive (aka moderate, aka rino, aka establishment). Run enough good conservatives (and it looks like there will be plenty of them this time around) to split up the majority and, presto... Romney is the candidate.
I pinched my nose and voted for Dole. The same for McCain. Didn't vote for president in 2012 and if Bush wins the primary, I'll skip it again. "He's better than Hillary" isn't enough for me anymore. Sick and tired of being taken for granted by the GOP.
I won't bore everyone with all of the numbers, but if you want to make yourself as sick as I am, have a look at the 2012 results state-by-state then ask yourself, how is it that we have allowed 20-30% of the party to choose our candidates, election after election? http://www.ask.com/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
I think most people feel that way. A lot of things are different this cycle.
Quote from: quiller on May 18, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
I disagree. The GOP back-room boys will broker a convention before daring to put in a true conservative. Obama's positives are still above 40 and in their view it's potential suicide to give already-liberal voters that clear a distinction between candidates. They'll woo independents by staying left ("moderate").
I prefer a liberal to a moderate. You can see the liberal's teeth.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 02:37:46 PM
I prefer a liberal to a moderate. You can see the liberal's teeth.
What's the difference?
Quote from: taxed on May 18, 2015, 02:38:30 PM
What's the difference?
None. There won't be a RINO in sight by election-day, 2016.
The election will be about fixing the current president's disasters. Gods, what a
generational mess.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 02:37:46 PM
I prefer a liberal to a moderate. You can see the liberal's teeth.
Within the party, it's the voting record and show of comity over any surface trappings. Outside it, I tend to agree at least the bared teeth help the score-keeping.
It's still way early in this, but the signs are not good that GOP party bulls can knock off the sheer mass of candidates in time for their convention. Every fiber of their being will be to resist the same sort of public tidal wave that put Obama into office. They will veer away from the true conservative because voters may WANT the firebreathers but the so-called adult GOP voters will want stability and reason and...compromise.
The Party of Surrender won't let them down. It will be a brokered convention.
Quote from: darroll on May 18, 2015, 11:23:04 AM
The GOP needs to take winning elections 101. (in grammar school)
Well, that's my point, in a way. The voters appear only capable of making decisions based upon the immediate gratification of their personal bodily needs, kind of like livestock if you think about it, hoping there are no horses around here who can read, it then falls upon the adults to periodically intervene and make the decisions necessary for the survival, even prosperity, of the greater assemblage. I think eight years of the Democrats is more than enough to ask.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 10:31:54 AM
How is it that a party comprised of a conservative/small-government majority keeps giving us presidential candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney? If there were run-offs in GOP primaries, would things work out differently?
Consider 2012.... What I mean is, take a conservative whose first choice was Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Perry. Assume his first choice didn't make the cut; and, one of the other 3 is facing Romney in a primary run-off. You can't be sure, but I don't think anyone who voted for a conservative the first go around would have voted for Romney in a run-off.
For example, take the 13 pre-Super-Tuesday 2012 state primaries (after which, the fat lady isn't quite singing but you can hear her warming up). In every state but Nevada, there would have been a run-off since no candidate garnered at least 50% of the vote. It is interesting to look at it state-by-state, but long story short, Romney emerged as the winner with only 41% of the popular vote; while conservatives lost with 59%. How's that grab you?
Problem is, we're tee'd up to do it all over again in 2016. Even worse this time (because there are so may very good candidates to split the conservative vote... which will of course benefit Jeb).
I don't imagine that anything can be done in time to fix things before the 2016 primaries. Even so, I think the least we can do it attempt to put the subject on the table. So, if the above makes any sense to you, I would much appreciate if you would consider signing my petition to RNC leadership. Here's a link if you are so inclined: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/031/236/america-needs-conservative-leadership-reform-the-gop-presidential-primary-process-now/?taf_id=13804140&cid=fb_na
I tend to agree with that, given I live in Ohio, whose electoral votes make or break an election. And we have a candidate already chosen for us by those in other states.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 18, 2015, 02:37:46 PM
I prefer a liberal to a moderate. You can see the liberal's teeth.
:biggrin:
I used to say something similar to socialists and liberals, at least with socialists you know exactly what their goal is.
I don't see all the angst. The top RINO is Jeb. The only people that say he's the guy is the left. Even the GOP has backed off. And, does he really want to be president? So far he has been underwhelming and a bit strange. Lindsey? Is there a market for effeminate chickenhawks? Christie? Sure if everyone else is killed in a horrible boating accident. No one who has not yet jumped in has a chance. As far as those that have declared even the RINOs have conservative credentials. The top two are indeed conservative.
It's a good situation to be in.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2015, 09:17:50 PM
I don't see all the angst. The top RINO is Jeb. The only people that say he's the guy is the left. Even the GOP has backed off. And, does he really want to be president? So far he has been underwhelming and a bit strange. Lindsey? Is there a market for effeminate chickenhawks? Christie? Sure if everyone else is killed in a horrible boating accident. No one who has not yet jumped in has a chance. As far as those that have declared even the RINOs have conservative credentials. The top two are indeed conservative.
It's a good situation to be in.
Walker hasn't made it official and he does have a real chance!
Quote from: redbeard on May 18, 2015, 09:22:29 PM
Walker hasn't made it official and he does have a real chance!
I know but we all know he is in and is one of the top two.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2015, 09:23:38 PM
I know but we all know he is in and is one of the top two.
I'm still leaning in the direction of Walker and or Cruz.
Quote from: red_dirt on May 18, 2015, 01:46:59 PM
I am NY on one side of the family, MA on the other. Contrary to what is projected in the media, both states are home to a majority of honest, decent people. Especially, when you get out of the big city.
Now, I am coming to view Bloomberg, Del Blasio, and Warren as silent pleas for help, on the parts of the citizens of the states. They know how repulsive these candidates are. They also know the states cannot continue down the road they have been on. But, they are stuck. They are locked in, and they cry out for help, relief.
I'm in a rural part of NYS. The problem is urban versus rural. I'm retired, but m wife still works and commutes into the city (50 miles each way) because that's were the jobs are. The system is loaded that way. Unfortunately, though we surround them, the urban centers are full of marxists and sheeple dependant upon what the marxists redistribute to them. Not all of them, to be sure..but a significant majority of the politically active people. The unintended consequence of our numerous institutions of higher learning, is the Leadership of all our cities is lop sided with rank and file, true believer, far out Leftists! People are fed up with the Libreral control of goverment, schools, media and all things public, yet...the Liberals have a network that controls everything.
NYS is amicrocasm of things to come if America doesn't reject the marxists take over of our federal system. Just as we move out into the country, people will have to move to Texas and leave the country to be torn to pieces by the Libtard Rats that infect all our nation's cities. (yet, Texas isn't immune...their cities and colleges have growing populations of Libtard Elites, aswell.)
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 18, 2015, 03:06:29 PM
None. There won't be a RINO in sight by election-day, 2016.
The election will be about fixing the current president's disasters. Gods, what a generational mess.
Did you think the same in 2012? How about 1996? I did...
In any case (since I don't see everyone running to sign the petition), what are the arguments against requiring run-off's in GOP primaries?
Some (like the quote above) seem to be saying that it won't be necessary in 2016. Based on history, I'm not as hopeful. Putting 2016 aside for the moment, do you agree with my assertion that 2012 would have worked out a lot better for conservatives if primary run-offs had been required?
If so, why not support the petition? Maybe because you don't think anything will come of it? I agree -- probably not this time around. I've no delusions about the efficacy of a petition in the short term. Even so, given the consequences (past and future) of the GOP's flawed primary process, isn't it worth it to start the conversation?
Another argument against (which I've not seen here) focuses on practicability (if you have a bunch of candidates, you would have to plan for two primary votes in every state!). Fair enough.
But isn't there another way to skin it? For example, yesterday I voted in the RNC straw poll, which asked me to select my top 3 choices among the candidates. I didn't find the process complicated or cumbersome. Add one more step to the process to rank my choices and presto... you've solved the problem.
Guessing some additional explanation may be needed... What I mean is, rather than a separate run-off, what if a primary voter could select (in order) as many candidates as he wished? For me (subject to change!), I would select 1) Cruz, 2) Jindal, 3) Perry, 4) Walker, 5) Paul, etc (with Jeb finishing in last place). Assume this process is in place in the next Texas primary. Assume the top 2 finishers are Jeb 28% (the establishment vote) and Walker 25% (my #4). Neither has >50%, so the winner would be determined by a "calculated run-off" in which Walker would get my vote (because my 1, 2 & 3 didn't finish in the top 2).
Doesn't that make more sense than the current process? Without a run-off (back to the example above), Jeb would win Texas with only 28%! With a run-off on the other hand, assuming that no conservative would choose Jeb over Walker (in my estimate, no conservative would!) Jeb wouldn't even come close to winning the run-off. Instead, and this is inflated in Jeb's favour, Walker would win Texas. In favour of run-off's yet?
Last... there is the counterargument that makes me sick to my stomach. To win, we need a candidate that is attractive to the undecided's (aka, the idiots). To this I can only say... Oh, you mean like Romney, McCain or Bob Dole? How's that working for you?
I don't want to assume that I've covered all of the arguments against the petition... Anything else?
If not... Please take a minute to go sign the petition. :-)
Agnlaw
Just curious, but what kind of power are you placing on a petition that wants to strip power from the very people that created this mess?
Seriously, what good does this do without the power of law behind it?
We cannot have run-offs in the primaries. It's expensive. It slows everything down. The candidates' delegates will hash-out any abstract abnormalities at the Convention itself.
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 19, 2015, 08:36:20 AM
We cannot have run-offs in the primaries. It's expensive. It slows everything down. The candidates' delegates will hash-out any abstract abnormalities at the Convention itself.
If that's not a brokered convention, then what is?
Quote from: quiller on May 19, 2015, 08:43:38 AM
If that's not a brokered convention, then what is?
Well, 'brokered' has been the way from the beginning. The OP threw the word 'rigged' at us. And also prefaced the thread with 'GOP'. -Suggesting that Dem primaries aren't. I'm reacting to
that.
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2015, 07:10:24 AM
Agnlaw
Just curious, but what kind of power are you placing on a petition that wants to strip power from the very people that created this mess?
Seriously, what good does this do without the power of law behind it?
Expectations... I don't have any misconceptions about the efficacy of a petition addressed to RNC leadership to change anything directly. That said, I am hopeful that the issue can finally be brought into the light. Once in the light, it has a chance of being put into the platform. Once in the platform... etc. etc....
It is also a matter of accepting some level of personal responsibility for, as you call it, "this mess". The "very people that created this mess" are, ultimately, subject to the people that make up the party. Who is to blame for candidates like Romney, McCain and Dole? Directly, the RNC and moderate voters... But what about conservatives who refuse to even bring up the issue? In this, I believe conservatives (including yours truly) are guilty of a sin of omission.
Context... I'm working under the understanding that the majority of the Republican party (the voters, if not the politicians) are conservatives. Election after election, moderates (again, who I believe based on primary results make up no more than 30% of GOP primary voters), because of this inadequacy (lack of run-offs) of the primary process end up deciding for us who will be the GOP candidate. That is intolerable. Why do we tolerate it?
Why in the hell doesn't anybody ever seem to talk about such a glaring problem? I've NEVER heard ANYONE on TV or radio (not even the most celebrated "conservative" pundits) talk about this. Pray tell... Why not??? I've got to imagine that there are more people than me who have attempted to discuss the subject on the radio (I've tried many times and have never got past the call screener... for Limbaugh, Hannity or Levine... and sent multiple emails to the same -- never received a reply)... If these thought leaders are conservatives, pray tell, why the silence?
BTW... on "the power of law"... I'm pretty sure that the law has nothing to do with it until you get to the actual election (the RNC, national and state, runs primaries -- it isn't up to any branch of government).
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 19, 2015, 09:06:27 AM
Expectations... I don't have any misconceptions about the efficacy of a petition addressed to RNC leadership to change anything directly. That said, I am hopeful that the issue can finally be brought into the light. Once in the light, it has a chance of being put into the platform. Once in the platform... etc. etc....
It is also a matter of accepting some level of personal responsibility for, as you call it, "this mess". The "very people that created this mess" are, ultimately, subject to the people that make up the party. Who is to blame for candidates like Romney, McCain and Dole? Directly, the RNC and moderate voters... But what about conservatives who refuse to even bring up the issue? In this, I believe conservatives (including yours truly) are guilty of a sin of omission.
Context... I'm working under the understanding that the majority of the Republican party (the voters, if not the politicians) are conservatives. Election after election, moderates (again, who I believe based on primary results make up no more than 30% of GOP primary voters), because of this inadequacy (lack of run-offs) of the primary process end up deciding for us who will be the GOP candidate. That is intolerable. Why do we tolerate it?
Why in the hell doesn't anybody ever seem to talk about such a glaring problem? I've NEVER heard ANYONE on TV or radio (not even the most celebrated "conservative" pundits) talk about this. Pray tell... Why not??? I've got to imagine that there are more people than me who have attempted to discuss the subject on the radio (I've tried many times and have never got past the call screener... for Limbaugh, Hannity or Levine... and sent multiple emails to the same -- never received a reply)... If these thought leaders are conservatives, pray tell, why the silence?
BTW... on "the power of law"... I'm pretty sure that the law has nothing to do with it until you get to the actual election (the RNC, national and state, runs primaries -- it isn't up to any branch of government).
In essence you've addressed the issue, but failed to recognize 2010, 2014, where the base has made historic gains. Also the fact that many on the right sat out and let Mitten fall on his face, simply because the nation is sick of "politics as usual", and refused to accept another RINO as evidenced by the rejection of all GOP candidates currently running. (including Rubio, Rand Jeb etc)
Look at Walker and Cruz, these two are making a laughing stock out of these so called "Moderate Pubs", they alone are forcing every candidate to run to the right, with the exception of Jeb, who is failing miserably.
Bottom line? RINO haven't a chance in Hell of getting elected.
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 19, 2015, 09:00:54 AM
Well, 'brokered' has been the way from the beginning. The OP threw the word 'rigged' at us. And also prefaced the thread with 'GOP'. -Suggesting that Dem primaries aren't. I'm reacting to that.
After the way the Florida and Michigan state parties split delegate votes for Hillary and gave half to the guy not even on their state ballots --- and the way "superdelegates" trampled on regular delegates --- you might be too polite with
suggesting the Dems' primaries are crooked.
Brokered. Back-room deals and political throats cut deep, no extra charge.
Whether the GOP party bulls would allow such a thing (as I contend they will due to the sheer number of candidates), or whether they allow the more open process in floor fights and interminable balloting, I contend the end result will be a "moderate" (aka RINO) as #1 and a store-dummy conservative as the VP.
They'll call that presenting a stable electoral alternative to the ruinous criminals the Donks put up.
Quote from: Agnlaw on May 19, 2015, 09:06:27 AM
Expectations... I don't have any misconceptions about the efficacy of a petition addressed to RNC leadership to change anything directly. That said, I am hopeful that the issue can finally be brought into the light. Once in the light, it has a chance of being put into the platform. Once in the platform... etc. etc....
It is also a matter of accepting some level of personal responsibility for, as you call it, "this mess". The "very people that created this mess" are, ultimately, subject to the people that make up the party. Who is to blame for candidates like Romney, McCain and Dole? Directly, the RNC and moderate voters... But what about conservatives who refuse to even bring up the issue? In this, I believe conservatives (including yours truly) are guilty of a sin of omission.
Context... I'm working under the understanding that the majority of the Republican party (the voters, if not the politicians) are conservatives. Election after election, moderates (again, who I believe based on primary results make up no more than 30% of GOP primary voters), because of this inadequacy (lack of run-offs) of the primary process end up deciding for us who will be the GOP candidate. That is intolerable. Why do we tolerate it?
Why in the hell doesn't anybody ever seem to talk about such a glaring problem? I've NEVER heard ANYONE on TV or radio (not even the most celebrated "conservative" pundits) talk about this. Pray tell... Why not??? I've got to imagine that there are more people than me who have attempted to discuss the subject on the radio (I've tried many times and have never got past the call screener... for Limbaugh, Hannity or Levine... and sent multiple emails to the same -- never received a reply)... If these thought leaders are conservatives, pray tell, why the silence?
BTW... on "the power of law"... I'm pretty sure that the law has nothing to do with it until you get to the actual election (the RNC, national and state, runs primaries -- it isn't up to any branch of government).
It is going to be different in 2016 if the truly conservative candidates do not self destruct. Having Cruz and Walker in the race gives the TEA movement two very good candidates. All the others will claim to be conservatives, but they really are not. None are bad folks or terrible candidates, except maybe Trump, but there too many RINO's in the race. It will all sort its way out. The only potential problem I see is Paul supporters will whine and bow out after he is eliminated. Hopefully, they will gravitate to a true conservative.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 19, 2015, 12:52:51 PM
It is going to be different in 2016 if the truly conservative candidates do not self destruct. Having Cruz and Walker in the race gives the TEA movement two very good candidates. All the others will claim to be conservatives, but they really are not. None are bad folks or terrible candidates, except maybe Trump, but there too many RINO's in the race. It will all sort its way out. The only potential problem I see is Paul supporters will whine and bow out after he is eliminated. Hopefully, they will gravitate to a true conservative.
You're right on everything, but one thing I've been noticing in my travels. The Paulbots are fleeing in droves since he, Rand, has come out in support of several RINO/Establishment positions.
In short, they are downright pissed. His candidacy is finally imploding :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2015, 01:00:14 PM
You're right on everything, but one thing I've been noticing in my travels. The Paulbots are fleeing in droves since he, Rand, has come out in support of several RINO/Establishment positions.
In short, they are downright pissed. His candidacy is finally imploding :biggrin:
That is encouraging. I continue to be puzzled by conservatives who think they are aligned with libertarians. We share some views, but overall we are totally different.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 19, 2015, 01:06:03 PM
That is encouraging. I continue to be puzzled by conservatives who think they are aligned with libertarians. We share some views, but overall we are totally different.
What was once the Libertarian movement, where "live and let live" was a moral belief, has been usurped by kids looking to get high.
Libertarians did not believe in drug use, they have always been about law, Liberty and Freedom.
Sure, they felt if you wanted to brew your own whiskey, or grow a plant or two, that's your business, not the govts.
I know several Libertarians from my early years, all were solid America loving country types that took issue with the GOP, but like you and I, still supported them with a serious eye of skepticism.
These same people despise what the kids and libs are doing in morphing the true meaning behind the movement for totally selfish reasons, and ignorant of history.
Most of these guys have left the movement for TEA.
Quote from: quiller on May 18, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
I disagree. The GOP back-room boys will broker a convention before daring to put in a true conservative. Obama's positives are still above 40 and in their view it's potential suicide to give already-liberal voters that clear a distinction between candidates. They'll woo independents by staying left ("moderate").
I think that is exactly what they will attempt! They understand that Jeb is a shaky candidate at best. That is why they have fingered Rubio as their "man in waiting". He is allowing himself to be compromised and used by the Establishment and this will truly split the RINO voters just as much as the conservative voters..... especially when you throw in Christie! But the Establishment money will eventually starve all but one of their candidates for money. Whichever of their guys is strongest after the debates will get ALL of their money.
I believe we have a solid chance of winning this nomination. That is why we must unify our rank and file conservatives behind a single candidate to the best of our ability. We will continue to push Cruz through the debate cycle and see where we stand after that. If we must make a course correction, we will do so. But we must cling together as a voting bloc.
Quote from: kroz on May 19, 2015, 01:45:02 PM
I think that is exactly what they will attempt! They understand that Jeb is a shaky candidate at best. That is why they have fingered Rubio as their "man in waiting". He is allowing himself to be compromised and used by the Establishment and this will truly split the RINO voters just as much as the conservative voters..... especially when you throw in Christie! But the Establishment money will eventually starve all but one of their candidates for money. Whichever of their guys is strongest after the debates will get ALL of their money.
I believe we have a solid chance of winning this nomination. That is why we must unify our rank and file conservatives behind a single candidate to the best of our ability. We will continue to push Cruz through the debate cycle and see where we stand after that. If we must make a course correction, we will do so. But we must cling together as a voting bloc.
It is OK to have both Cruz and Walker in for the long run. We don't want one guy all the RINO's are shooting at. They need multiple targets. I personally think with so many RINO's they will be going after each other in a fight for the $.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 19, 2015, 02:17:38 PM
It is OK to have both Cruz and Walker in for the long run. We don't want one guy all the RINO's are shooting at. They need multiple targets. I personally think with so many RINO's they will be going after each other in a fight for the $.
I agree. But only one will get the lion's share of the RINO coffer. The Establishment will manage their money shrewdly.
Quote from: taxed on May 18, 2015, 02:38:30 PM
What's the difference?
At least the liberal is honest about being a liberal, unlike the RINO who tries to hide it, when his political arse is on the line.
Although it needs pointing out that neither is acceptable, as our representatives in our government! Both are liberals, and as such have no business holding elected office of any kind. Even if that office is dog catcher!