Bye.
A unified opposition would have, and perhaps still could, beat Romney. In spite of all your points.
A weak field and lack of a unified opposition got us here. A strong candidate with unified support behind him and we wouldn’t be here. There’s nothing permanent about the party that hasn’t been changed in the past and can’t be in the future.
I don’t see your alternatives having any good effect. Do you, does the opposition to Romney, even agree on who to unite behind? I don’t see it. All I can see is taking the same infighting somewhere else; and, I don’t see what good that would do.
thanks for your replies.
Yes we can still win local races within the GOP, but the elites have a lock on the Presidential nomination. As a though exercise, imagine if the primaries had gone like this:
Missouri caucus;
Texas Primary
Florida Primary
Super Tuesday is South Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho. New Hampshire thrown in for good measure, to cover all the regions.
By the time you are to this point, it's Romney who is in last place and gone, and the conservatives are in charge.
Bring up this proposal at the next RNC board of governors meeting, see what they say. And while you are at it, suggest that California gets 50 percent fewer votes per capita because they do not contribute votes in November. See how that goes down.
The fact is, the process is deliberately set up to favor a liberal that is acceptable to the Country Club set. They took the existing set up from the late 70s and set it in stone in a way that made that advantage permanent, instead of wondering why they can't win when the country is conservative.