Posted on 04/17/2016 7:49:51 PM PDT by 4rcane
He announced March 23.
Want some cheese with that whine?
You didn't read the article, either.
At least one of those names was on a photo of a cell phone text sent out by Cruz to advise which names to vote for in CO.
Shady.
“Let’s hope New York puts Cruz out of his misery.”
Please allow me to rewrite this... ;)
Let’s hope New York puts Cruz out of OUR misery.
k..I feel better now.
You're being deliberately obtuse.
This revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.
Cruz and his team devised a scheme 8 months ago to steal the Colorado delegates FOR CRUZ. In order to do that, they had to disenfranchise the actual voters of Colorado. Period.
And they succeeded.
Cruz has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty of being a politician that will do anything for power. I really want to see the convention go to the 2nd round of voting and look at Cruz’s face when the GOPe stab him in the back, change the rules, kick him to the side and try and select someone else.
True wirds
I’m confused.
I don’t know when Colorado became a caucus state, but it’s been that way as long as I can remember.
The proposal that was voted down would have changed that long-standing tradition to go with a direct primary, which would also be a perfectly fine way of selecting delegates, but what’s wrong with caucuses? And why now, after all of these decades?
>The proposal that was voted down would have changed that long-standing tradition to go with a direct primary, which would also be a perfectly fine way of selecting delegates, but what’s wrong with caucuses? And why now, after all of these decades?
Nothings wrong with caucuses. The problem was the lack of a binding presidential preference poll along with the caucus. Colorado dumped it so they could prevent the average GOP voter from selecting their candidate of choice. Only party elites votes matter.
Caucuses, while not my preference, at least provide an opportunity for wider participation of the voters.
This sham in Colorado was designed specifically to prevent normal everyday citizens from participating. They WANTED to shut them out, so they did.
If the party doesn't want non-elites participating, then they need to stop trying to get them registered as Republicans.
Perhaps they should insist on applications to be Republicans, wherein applicants would submit bank statements, transcripts, family histories, and so forth to prove their worthiness to participate as full members.
Their straw poll was never binding. But that isn’t the issue being addressed in this article. They didn’t change their system to get rid of the straw poll until August, and that in response to the rule change from the RNC that would have required the results to be binding.
And I’ll stipulate that change was obviously done to KO Trump’s chances in CO.
Different issue though. Iowa doesn’t have a straw poll go along with their caucus. Neither does Wyoming. Let alone a “binding presidential preference” primary.
Not trying to argue, just trying to understand the objection to this vote. I get it over the rule change in August.
The problem is the state senators – who also “happen to be” on one candidate’s campaign team – voting to create a state party system that basically gives the results to said candidate.
Perhaps I misunderstand the article, but this particular vote (in May) was to keep the existing system. The rules were not changed to eliminate the straw poll until August.
I get that the state senators are signed on with a particular candidate, and obviously they’re not going to do anything to hurt their candidate, but voting to keep the existing system doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy. I just don’t know what i’m missing here.
>Different issue though. Iowa doesn’t have a straw poll go along with their caucus. Neither does Wyoming. Let alone a “binding presidential preference” primary.
>>According to the Republican Party of Iowa’s bylaws, if more than one candidate is nominated at the Republican National Convention, all of Iowa’s delegates are bound to vote “proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses” on the first ballot, even if the candidate has withdrawn from the race.[1] The ballot is a blank piece of paper, and the candidates that voters may vote for in the non-binding preference poll included the following:
Iowa did indeed have a presidential preference poll even if they chose to call it something else. Colorado could have done the same, but the GOP bosses wanted to keep the power for themselves.
Ok, thanks. So Iowa does have a staw poll, just as CO used to have. But isn’t this article saying that these four state senators voted to keep the existing system, and not have a binding primary?
Am i mistaken in my understanding that the state party didn’t eliminate the straw poll in a separate decision in August?
They eliminated the straw poll in August because they didn't want it to be binding as required by the RNC. This was done to make sure the party elites chose the presidential candidate rather than the people. It's a corrupt system just as Trump and many others are pointing out.
Very valid observation GPH, and I concur.
There are more we can add to the list to the ‘conservative’ SJW - Levin being one, the voice who won’t allow any deviation from his new love.
Jonah the tub-o who is wallowing in his hatred.
Beck, there are really no words.
Erik the fat a** blub of hate.
The Colorado caucus system was abolished in favor of presidential primaries in 1992, but was restored in 2002 with the defeat of Amendment 29 (by Colorado voters BTW) and cost considerations, the fully restored Colorado Caucus was in 2004.
So in other words, the citizens of CO voted by a margin of 60.14% in 2002 for the system currently in place. The cost consideration BTW was that the taxpayers of CO didn’t want the state, i.e. the taxpayers to incur the costs of running a primary, what had been in nearly all years, a non-binding straw poll run in parallel with the caucuses except for between 1992 and 2004. With the caucus system the parties completely bear the costs of running the caucus and the voters in Colorado seem to like that idea.
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Candidate_Selection,_Initiative_29_(2002)
Colorado also been a caucus state for over 100 years. Colorado Republicans have not held an actual binding primary election since 2000, a year we also held caucuses. For over 15 years in the modern era the caucus process all by itself has been the only way we choose our delegates to the Republican National Convention. Trump and his minions were too stupid or too uninvolved to figure this out. Or both.
In each individual precinct caucus (usually five to 50 people come) we also traditionally took a presidential “straw poll” (sometimes called a beauty pageant), which simply indicated who the attendees favored as the nominee. Never was this straw poll binding, and never did it allocate actual convention delegates like the primary states do.
This year we did what we always do with one single exception, which disenfranchised nobody. This year we had no straw poll because the Republican National Committee had decided that any poll in any state would be treated as binding for the purpose of selecting delegates to Cleveland.
The Colorado GOP leadership decided they didn’t want the straw poll to be binding, probably a smart move because one year the straw poll victory went to Ron Paul and another year to Rick Santorum, neither of whom made it to the finals. The concern was that the straw poll if held on March 1 would award Colorado’s delegates to contenders who later dropped out of the race.
http://barbwire.com/2016/04/15/will-use-trumped-colorado-lies-excuse-third-party-run/
And “Under the bill, Colorado would have held a presidential primary in March that ran parallel with the state’s complicated caucus system… when it came before the Senate Appropriations Committee, four Republicans voted to kill the bill with three Democrats supporting it.” – and as they should have as it was a bill very similar to what the voters of Colorado had already soundly rejected in 2002.
Trump announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015 so in May of 2015 when the proposed legislation was introduced and rejected in committee, Trump wasn’t evening running yet so it couldn’t have been meant as an attempt to stop him unless they had psychic powers or were consulting with Madame Cleo, no matter what Trump now claims about the system being rigged against “HIM”. And Cruz, while announcing his candidacy March 23, 2015, in August of 2015 he was not polling well and coming in 6th place in the overall list of the top 10 candidates. It is very doubtful that this was done for the benefit of Cruz.
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.