GOP Wants More Control Over Picking 2016 Nominee

AP ^ | 5/7/14 | PHILIP ELLIOTT

[GregNH]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican National Committee wants to take more control over how the party picks a White House nominee.

The RNC was to meet Wednesday in Memphis, Tennessee, to choose members who will effectively set the calendar for 2016's long list of potential presidential contenders. If the party's chairman, Reince Priebus gets his way, the GOP will pick its nominee more quickly than during past contests and have fewer debates in which candidates could criticize each other.

The RNC also was expected to put penalties in place for candidates who don't follow the committee's plans.

[airborne]

Come on.

Everyone knows the GOP-E will take whomever the media picks for them.

The last Republican candidate picked by the voters was Reagan.

My prediction - Chris Christie will be the nominee, and will be the next President.

The media needs a Republican in the White House - because when the economy collapses, the media and Dems will need a patsy to blame.

And Christie is their guy. The GOP-E will go along with the whole deal, so they can destroy the ‘Tea Party’.

Mark the date. That’s my “conspiracy theory” prediction.

[WesternPacific]

If you do not want the leadership of the Republican party to make the decisions then who?

New Conservative Leaders would be helpful.

[Moonman62]

Selected not elected.

[Bidimus1]

Have Texas vote day after the Iowa and New Hampshire .. this alone will fix a lot of issues.

[deport]

You have to be selective as there are some
very high density democratic areas.

[Defiant]

It's time.

[dfwgator]

We need a 2nd party, first.

[Defiant]

I’ve heard that said. Seconded.

[Timber Rattler]

Flashback to the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa Bay:

"This past Friday, the RNC’s Convention Rules Committee voted – after several contentous votes – to change the party’s rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state – in other words, take power away from the grassroots and their ability to elect fellow conservatives as delegates."

[nascarnation]

I think we’re screwed either way.

Perot had unlimited funds and a lot of positive press coverage and we got a Clintonian plurality win.

The next 3rd party would have less money and a media onslaught.

[wardaddy]

EFF them with a splintered broom stick

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Priebus wants a shorter timeframe because he is worried about gaffes and beating up RINOs.

Romney did not lose because he got beat up as a RINO.

His private comments did not happen at a debate and had little to do with who his GOP opponents were.

Kay Hagan anticipating a result in the 40s for Tillis is going to expose him as a RINO to subvert turnout.

[Defiant]

I agree that a 3rd party will only be successful if we can get some big bucks backing it. Perot had his own money, and a good public image before we figured out he was a loon. If only we could get one billionaire to bankroll it, or a bunch of super rich, and a few big names. That's all it would take. And I don't think we have to oppose the Republican in every race. Just in the Presidential race, and in a few select races in conservative states. Over time, the Republicans would switch over to one or the other, the RINOs would out themselves as Democrats and conservatives would have a party again.

Key is control of the White House. Win that and you can create a new party.

[airborne]

http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/#

[nascarnation]

Remember that the “blue wall” now consists of 251 electoral votes with only 270 needed to win.

The entire campaign for 2016 is going to be contested in Ohio and Florida.

[Finny]

I like your tagline!

[huldah1776]

They are so extreme and their voters so blind it makes it easy.

[LambSlave]

Jeb Bush?! Surprise, surprise, surprise... or is it “unexpected”

[GregNH]

I am feeling a backlash, I pray it so.