Colorado was Ted Cruz's pyrrhic victory; he shot his credibility to hell for all of thirty delegates.
The professional political dopes behind #nevertrump didn’t even have enough sense to throw Trump a couple of delegates for appearance’s sake...
Yeah, he is a big winner, as long as it’s a question of buying and stealing the delegates and lying about it rather than winning the vote. He’s a real pro.
Nice if you can win an election without anybody voting.
Lenin and Mao did it all the time.
Chris Christie had a $175,000 attack add against Tom Tancredo in the last governor election which turned away many republicans and got John Hickenlooper,(D) elected. The DC GOoP lover knocking out conservatives to get democrats elected.
Colorado was Ted Cruz's pyrrhic victory; he shot his credibility to hell for all of thirty delegates.
Where people have a complaint isn't that there is a process. It's that the process is set up to produce a delegate allocation WAY out of sync with the preference of the people. I'd expect that Trump is probably around as popular in Colorado as he is in the states where the people actually have a chance to vote for a candidate (as opposed to voting for a delegate, who will vote for a delegate, who will vote for a delegate). But yet Cruz got all the delegates.
People can understand winner-take-all primaries. Whoever gets the most votes wins it all. People can understand proportional delegates based on how the candidates ended up when the votes were counted. People CAN'T understand how Colorado became winner take all without any record of who the voters of the state preferred. And they don't need to understand it to know it stinks.
What a f mess. You call this understandable? It is pure BS.
The delegates that were “voted on” were not bound. They were voted on, and then sCruz paid them off.
Showing up at a specific time at some designated location and then voting not for a presidential candidate but for a local party activist who will then go on to a county caucus is not exactly going to be particularly responsive to the will of the people. I have a friend who lives in Aspen who told me that at the caucus he went to, there was not even any mention of which candidate the delegates they were sending to the county caucus would be supporting; it was more of a local popularity poll to select a few people popular in the local party organization. Now you can believe that or not, and I recognize at the end of the day, it is responsibility of the caucus-goers to make sure their opinion is heard.... I get all that but in this day and age with all of the available technology, the only reason to deny party members a binding primary election is to make sure that the party insiders control the outcome.
As I posted before. If there was a vote of the peasants as Cruz claimed, what percent of the “little people” supported Cruz, Trump, and Kasich respectively?
Did the final resulting delegates’ bindings reflect the peasants’ percentage of preference?
Colorado was described as a four step process in another simillar posting - real simple[sic]. The more convoluted the process the easier to cover up machinations.
“Charlie Martin writes on science, health, culture and technology for PJ Media. Follow his 13 week diet and exercise experiment on Facebook and at PJ Lifestyle”
I guess his opinion is impotent.
The lame stream media WANT TRUMP to be the nominee — so he can lead the Republicans to landslide losses in November.
When the author said “dopey followers” I quit reading
I don’t care if they’ve been doing it this way for a thousand years, it’s still a crap process.
They can defend it all they like, in fact I hope they double-down on defending it because it just proves Trump’s point that the system is rigged and run by insiders (like the insider who wrote this).
The Colorado Steal pretty much assured Trump the nomination and showed Lyin’ Ted to be the insider politician that he is.
How likely is it that the process as described will reflect the will of the voters? (In this case, Republican)
The answer, as illustrated by the Colorado results: not at all. The power of insiders to exert their will on the end result by definition comes at the expense of the voter.
Give me a f%^&*ing break.
I see three "votes" in that process and the fourth would be what they do at the national convention. Only one of those four votes directly reflects the will of the people.