More here
Posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:47 AM PST by Kaslin
They will as long a multiple conservative candidates and only one or two moderates are in the primaries, resulting in the normal vote splitting among conservative voters. We let barely 1/3 of the voters pick a moderate for us in the primaries, and more than half of those are from blue states. The blue states are picking the Republican nominee, and then don't go for him or her in the general election.
I doubt there'll be any radical change in the primaries, so deciding on one, or two at the most, conservative candidates before the primaries start is about the only way to improve that situation for 2016.
A lot of these opinions annoy me, but this one is the worst. Let's go:
First: Idiots voting is a terrible way to decide anything. In a final-choice election to fill a Federal or state office, especially with two and only two candidates running, I suppose it's at least as good as divine appointment or something else. But to NOMINATE one of many, with the BASIS that this is the strongest one, and the GOAL of winning that later, idiots voting contest? Absurd.
Second: Therefore, in a perfect world, I would do away with primaries. They are a novelty, historically, and they have not served us well. Since I can't do that, I would: ELIMINATE (or not allow the results of) "open" primaries. They can do nothing but harm. RESTRICT voting in a GOP primary to REAL (as opposed to enrolled) Republicans. A real Republican is someone who is active in campaigns, who signs or otherwise acknowledges the platform, or who has donated to the party in the last two election cycles. At a MINIMUM, require party registration for the last four years, consecutively.
Third: Require 2/3 of elected delegates, and 2/3 of appointed delegates (Governors, Senators, and Representatives, State or Federal) to concur in a nominee. The role of the "House of Elected Officials" is to bring the experience of winners into the process.
Your assertion that Romney (who I love, and for whom I am very sad about the bum rap he is about to get) "won" anything decisively is absurd. More than 3/5 of voters in contested primaries, all across the fruited plain, wanted someone else. THIS IS A BAD SIGN FOR THE FALL. Even if Romney had WON, rather than LOST, 60-75% of primary voters, IF THE ANTI-ROMNEY VOTERS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED, THEN HE WAS A POOR CHOICE. It appears that this is exactly what happened.
In summary, the GOP nomination process needs less "democracy", not more (I don't give two sh*ts what the Democrats do), and it MUSTMUSTMUST make it impossible for a plurality (another word for minority) to choose the nominee.
This turn around will not be happening at the ballot box. People will be picking up the pieces in a different way.
With the exception of a couple of Republicans, I doubt the Republicans will do anything to change. Unfortunately the only people to run for office in dc are wimps, girly boys. They NEVER put up a fight for their ideals..they wimp out. We have a terrorist being taken care of, at Ft Hood. He killed 13 American Service members, wounded many more a couple years ago. Today an Army fellow is on trial for killing enemy members, Navy Seals are being brought to trial for a game, and the Terrorist Haasan has YET to stand trial.
The general sentiment was that Romney stood the best chance of winning against Obama, and if you go back to the early months of the year you'll find a lot of polling data that supports this.
Having said that, I'd also add that you shouldn't blame Romney for the down-ticket losses this year. When you look at a state like North Dakota -- where the Democratic Senate candidate won in a state where Obama only got 39% of the popular vote -- you clearly have a situation where Republican candidates were completely tone-deaf about the local issues in their jurisdictions.
Don't look at this election from the top down ... look at it from the bottom up. THAT is how the GOP needs to fix its problems.
Once Obamacare is in place, (who’s going to stop it) controlling every aspect of our lives, we will in effect be in a social dictatorship.
The Country as we know it is through.
I think that both parties lose when they put up an awful candidate. I don’t think it has anything to do with the candidate that wins.
Carter-Reagan - Carter Awful
Reagan-Mondale - Mondale Awful
Bush - Clinton - Bush awful (too liberal and raised taxes)
Dole - Clinton - Dole Awful
Bush - Gore - Gore terrible candidate...too stiff and people were sick of Dems.
Bush - Kerry - Kerry AWFUL
McCain - Obama - McCain AWFUL
Romney-Obama - Romney AWFUL
That to me is the reason in a nutshell. it is pretty simple to see why candidates lose.
Stand down. Let the dems fail without any obstruction.
Shortest path to victory.
Something to temper your disappointment is that Canada has had full-blown socialized medicine in place for decades ... and right now that country is even more conservative than the U.S. Up there, people who don’t like it figure out how to ignore it and work around it.
“The general sentiment was that Romney stood the best chance of winning against Obama, and if you go back to the early months of the year you’ll find a lot of polling data that supports this.”
The election data that we possess now, demonstrates that this opinion was 100 percent wrong.
How many polls predicted that Romney would go -2 in the senate? Exactly zero. He lost pretty much every single close race, save North Carolina. Why? Because he depressed turnout among some of the strongest conservatives.
“you shouldn’t blame Romney”
Again, like I asked you before, why does Romney always get a pass for being a crappy candidate? Look at the average Republican nominee. How many nominees have lost 13 states?
Nominate a candidate who can articulate realistic conservative solutions to common problems people want addressed.
Fielding a dork in a sweater vest whose sole credential is “I’m pro-life” isn’t going to cut it.
How to get Republicans elected.
Become minority. Being White, male, Christian is a liability in today’s USA.
Promise to tax the hell out of people who work hard for their money.
Promise cell phones, TV’s, internet, food money, free college and free medical care to slackers and other non-productive members of society.
Change your name to Progressive Party.
Then you’ll get elected in today’s USA.
“that country is even more conservative”
Aahahahahaha. No. Just plain no.
Have you forgotten that the Conservatives only require 38 percent of the vote in order to win?
Like I said, you’re in the wrong party if you want someone who’s ‘cool’ and supports abortion.
Evidently the majority of Americans didn’t vote for the issues Mitt Romney represented. If we change or drop the issues that define conservatism then we become just like the democrats. Mitt Romney would have been infinitely better than any democrat, but I cringed every time he talked about working with democrats and “reaching across the aisle”.
Someone needs to figure out how John McCain and Sarah Palin received more votes than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan!
Remember the words of Ronald Reagan in his famous 1975 CPAC speech...
“I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
What we need is someone to articulate and champion conservatism not running from parts of it!
Hey, I haven’t seen you in awhile....hope all is well. Happy Veteran’s Day. Hope you and family have a wonderful weekend. I think one thing Republicans have to do is start believing polls....polls showed that Dems were winning and we said that they were wrong instead of doing something about the fact that dems were winning. We ignored the polls and said they oversampled.
Pro choice only means the choice to kill your unborn child. It doesn't mean the choice of schools or doctors for children after their born. They don't want us to have a choice in what to feed this child. They are only pro choice in killing babies. If children are our future, what does it say about democrats when they want to kill the future?
Closing the primaries is a good idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.