Replies

We don't pick our presidential candidates based on how they will perform in the northeast or on the west coast.

You apparently don't understand the post, and maybe the topic at large. The McFly comment is neither intelligent nor clever. And picking 2004 as an example of presidential selection is pointless as we had an unchallenged incumbent. Using the years 2000, 2008 or 1996 would have made more sense if you were interested in making a cogent argument.

Whether they have elected officials or not, every state, including northeast states have a Republican Party. Because these states are heavily populated, they have a substantial number of delegates. The same goes for California, which is similarly situated politically. Every elected official, at the local and state level for both statewide and federal positions wants to do as well as possible. Even if he doesn't win outright, he wants to make a respectable showing. The candidate at the top of the ticket usually has an effect on the under-ticket.

The delegates in those states DO pick candidates based in large part with how they will perform. So, yes, if you are in Maine, running for State Senate, and you think that you will get 5% more with Romney on top of the ticket instead of Gingrich, and you are a delegate or have influence on the delegate selection, you are that much more likely to support Romney. If you are a state party chair, and have a whole bunch of incumbents and challengers to consider, that effect gets multiplied.

For the record, I was actively politically as a teenager in Connecticut in '76, and I saw how much joy there was over Ford winning CT and my district at party hq, even though the party as a whole did not do so well in that election, and that our measly 8 electoral votes meant nothing to Ford, who lost to Carter.

I also knew as a State Rep candidate in 1996 that having Bob Dole at the top of the ticket was a HUGE liability to my difficult candidacy. In the end, he garnered 27% in my middle of the road for CT district. 27%! I did better than that, but not enough.

And of course, this kind of environment seeps into the thought processes of the folks in D.C. and New York who have influence at the upper levels. From the RNC's perspective, they don't want to be 100% locked out of a well-populated region like the NE as a party.

In short, delegates and party chairmen in northeastern states and California give extra weight to how a candidacy will affect them, as opposed to how he would do nationwide.

“In short, delegates and party chairmen in northeastern states and California give extra weight to how a candidacy will affect them, as opposed to how he would do nationwide.”
______________

Dr Sivana-

Thank you for your post; it is very informative and clarifies the macro-view of our current political system. I might add it is also very troubling, in that it points out that those who are for liberty, and, therefore against both Romney and the GOP-E machine (that would include me), are arrayed against an extremely powerful, deeply entrenched bureaucracy that is firmly attached even at the “grass roots” level. To effectively change the current system we will have to thoroughly “weed out” and “reseed” those “grassroots” as well.

Your post also leads me to the conclusion that there is a need for term limits even at the state level. To me the “bottom line” is that continuing to maintain any permanent political class at any level will, by its very nature, ultimately cause the suppression of our God given rights as a free people and the death of the Republic.

Looks like a long, hard, uphill battle ahead of us even if we should be fortunate enough to elect a Conservative into the presidency. At least understanding the problem and the nature of its solution gives me some hope.

v/r,

-Geoff