Posted on 02/25/2008 5:34:34 PM PST by ovrtaxt
I am aware that there is some more weight to states that have more GOP congressmen and some other rules along those lines. It is not weighted enough....and....what does it matter how many delegates Texas has if the nominee has been chosen by the time they get to vote?
I do not fail to understand that there are Republicans in every state and so it is absurd to cut out certain states completely.
Don't argue against things I did not say. I didn't say that we cut out Republicans in Blue states "completely". What I have argued for a long time is that states lose power in the party based on how they did the last time, and continue to slide for every election they have not elected a Republican, down to a minimum level, maybe 50 percent. You have to still fundraise and you want to build a party that can win in any state, but you have to care the most about your best customers. It's just basic business principles. My vote as a California Republican should mean diddly, because my state has less than diddly chance of giving that candidate any electoral votes.
I do not fail to understand that we won most states in 1988 and almost every state in 1984, so the “give almost no weight to the preferences of states where you have almost no chance of winning electoral votes” is a subjective and self-defeating concept.
Proving my point about the need for conservative candidates. Reagan won the country by first winning the nomination, and he could not win the nomination today. Not the way it is structured, not with current campaign finance rules, and not with the MSM even more in the tank for the Dems and choosing our candidate for us. The media has learned lessons from recent history, too, and they are getting better at manipulating than they used to be. They have it almost down to a science, with constant push-polls, highlighting certain issues and candidates, and ignoring others, using fear of PC to keep people in line.
I do not fail to understand that McCain won in South Carolina.
I wonder what would have happened if SC went first? What do you think? I also understand that McCain still only got something like 34 percent in SC. Big whoop. He should be our candidate because he got 34 percent in a state where Dems can vote in the GOP primary?
McCain won in conservative South Carolina and he won in Florida. He won because unlike in 2000 when a single candidate became the ‘conservative choice’, we were split with Huck and Romney, and McCain won by narrow margins.
Huck and Romney were by no means conservative. In a race such as this, to have a winner take all system when you have 6 people splitting votes and the winner getting 30+ percent is idiotic.
So be it. This was not a decision by elites, nor was it dictated by the state ordering, but a consequence of multiple campaigns running in a GOP primary and the choices of over 10 million voters getting reflected in the nominee.
The choice of how many of those 10million voters was McCain? 30 percent? Of those 30, how many were Republican? Of those, how many were in red states and how many were in states that have no chance of giving electors to a Republican?
This is the process that the party set up. They couldn't have known going in whether the winner would be Rudy or Mitt or McCain, but they knew that whoever came out of Iowa, NH, MI and Cal, NY etc, all the early states would be a liberal to their liking. And that's what happened. It's not an overt conspiracy, it's a conspiracy of inaction. They have a system that as it has evolved shuts out conservatives, and they like it that way. The only way to get out of that rut is to either change the rules substantially for next time (not going to happen) or find another way to get a conservative choice to the American voters.
Good points, though, well argued. We just differ.
Too late, the GOP is already there. I'd rather have a strong minority of conservatives that build on those principles than a bunch of "winners" that agree with the left but think pairing it back by 25% is a victory.
Instead of defeating our rivals they want to give up and agree with their premise. Example: here in Tennessee the governor and the Dems (along with RINO's) wanted to raise the cigarette tax by 40 cents a pack. My so-called conservative state representative in the most conservative county in TN (and practically in the US outside of Utah) wrote to me saying he wanted my help to "cut the governors request to only 20 cents a pack".
He didn't fight to say "Hell no", he admitted defeat an wanted me to "fight" to just get screwed less.
I don't play that game.
You put the cart before the horse...social conservatism isn’t dead BECAUSE those thing exist. Those thing exist because too many gave up the social conservative fight because they think it was too hard and, frankly, they were too lazy.
I’m only 48 years old and this crap wouldn’t have been tolerated when I was age ten living in southern California.
Too many have given up.
I'm actually saying that the culture climate has changed. Just as we no longer practice Victorian age social mores and decorum, there are certain evident facts that conservatives must unfortunately come to grips with:
o Virginity is no longer evident among the majority of freshmen entering college.
o Almost 6 percent of the American population is currently either behind bars, on parole or free having been convicted of felonies.
o Unlike the 1950s, most women no longer stay home and raise children--most household are two-earner incomes.
o Divorces are about 47 percent of every marriage and there is a large percentage of couples (somewhere in the 40 percentile range) living together out of wedlock.
o Gang affiliation is at an all time high in schools...
Face it my FRiend, the social fabric of America has changed!
Ronald Reagan did that magic because he attracted a lot MORE voters than those who made up the three-legged conservative stool.
Many of those landslide makers (not all) are known as "Reagan Democrats".
The modern conservative movement as presently led REPELS "Reagan Democrats" (the ones who haven't died of old age).
Unless you can figure out how to attract replacements for the fourth leg of the Reagan coalition, a nationwide landslide is an impossibility.
Here's a clue: Chanting "Nyah, nyah, his middle name is Hussein" is not going to git 'er done.
Exactly. Reagan actually gave people something to vote FOR.
But Mighty Mouth Obama can with your help.
He won’t get my help. I don’t vote for liberals.
This is what your champion and candidate has to say about it;
http://www.townhall.com/video/foxlocal/2085_022808mccainflub1
Face it - almost half the people in the US don’t pay taxes - and their votes count just as much as yours. Most of these people are going to vote for more goodies from the government - stuff for which they don’t have to pay. Candidates who want to win have to bid for their votes, whether they like it or not...
We’re being invaded, but ALL of the current candidates support illegal immigration, and giving these invaders a path to citizenship. Their votes will count as much as yours, assuming, of course, they aren’t already voting fraudulently.
Add to this various UN treaties that, if ratified, will outlaw gun ownership and free speech and will seize more of taxpayers wealth to redistribute to third-world kleptocrats. Remember, if ratified, these treaties supersede Federal Law and the Constitution.
Sometimes, I wonder if this is how a Roman felt in 470 AD...
Look. I intend to vote for a conservative. If there’s one on the ballot, I will gladly do it.
Like I said- I don’t vote for liberals, and I’m not going to start just because one of them happens to be Republican.
CORRECTION:
Got to win legislatures in **2008**!!
You are listing the results of giving up.
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.