Posted on 02/16/2016 11:11:23 AM PST by alicewonders
It all depends on keeping turnout as low as possible. If Trump and Cruz can’t get their voters out, but Bush or Rubio can, then Bush or Rubio will take a larger proportion of the vote.
Again, the way I see it is that all the campaigns see it as being to their advantage to keep turnout low and mitigate against wildcards. Understand that this is a gamble all are taking.
You do not understand how it works in this Commonwealth.
This is NOT going to be a boost to anyone NOT an Establishment pick- because virtually the ONLY bunch of folks who are stoked and plugged into this caucus event ARE TEAM MITCH’S POLITICAL MACHINE.
Most grassroots Conservatives are NOT going to be turning out for this caucus on a Saturday afternoon with a KY Wildcat game scheduled that afternoon. Not . Gonna. Happen.
The only ones turning out - are going to be the Establishment Party hacks and they will vote for whomever the Ruling Class is pushing - even if it is to damage the outsiders. Count on it.
Team Mitch handed him his Senate Seat despite his massive unpopularity in this state. Machine politics made that possible, and the Machine is the only thing working the Caucus event that MOST of the average Joe GOP is totally clueless about.
I found this Q&A about the caucus. It says you don’t have to stay all day. Just check in and vote. You can get info about the candidates if you wish. Leave when you’re done. It also has anteractive map of voting sites. Spread the word to your Kentucky Republican friends. It takes 5% statewide to win any delegates. http://www.kycaucus.com/kentucky-caucus-frequently-asked-questions/
Thanks for the info - but sadly, I am out of state that date at an engagement I was booked for long before they decided to change our primary date.
I can tell you that the foremost question everyone asks when talking about this is if we have people pestering us about their candidate when we arrive. Few to none are interested in being badgered by political operatives before they vote. Aside from the date they chose and the surprise most discover about the change of their normal voting precincts, none of us are interested in being electioneered. I predict a very low turnout.
I expect there will be low turnout also, as most primaries and caucus are which is why each vote is so important. There probably will be some electioneering as each candidate can have a manned info table set up, but definitely not the haranguing of the Democrat Iowa caucus.
Thanks for the info Betty Jane.
INVAR is right - this benefits the Mitch McConnell Establishment Machine. If internal polling showed that HIS establishment candidates were ahead in Kentucky - they’d be shouting this from the rooftops to get everybody out to vote. I don’t think that’s the case, however, and thus the under the radar approach.
That’s the way things roll here in Mitch’s state.
I expect there will be low turnout also, as most primaries and caucus are which is why each vote is so important. There probably will be some electioneering as each candidate can have a manned info table set up, but definitely not the haranguing of the Democrat Iowa caucus.
“No it wasn’t, and I’ve been following this situation for over a year now through family and friends who live in KY.
It was established to protect Paul’s Senate seat. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the deal was cut with McConnell’s blessing, but well before the current dynamics of the race emerged.”
This is true. However, efforts of the Republican Party in Kentucky to get information out about this change have been almost non-existent. In that respect, the GOP is playing with the rights of the voters to their advantage and it’s deplorable. You can bet they have made sure the information has gotten to those that they deem important, making them a number much more likely to show up and stack the vote.
Perhaps the reason is that the party finds depressed turnout to be to the party's advantage.
The way I read the article, it is like voting, just in a different location. It is called “caucus” because the voting is run by the party, not by the state.
I would guess your state and locality has party caucuses to select officers and consider platform proposals. They just don’t have a presidential preference vote at the same time.
The Iowa GOP caucuses have a secret ballot for presidential preference, just like a primary.
If everyone on FR was involved in their local GOP, the situation now wouldn’t be so dire. The number of people who are party activists required to take local control is actually quite small.
“Perhaps the reason is that the party finds depressed turnout to be to the party’s advantage.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s what I’m thinking.
“If everyone on FR was involved in their local GOP, the situation now wouldn’t be so dire. The number of people who are party activists required to take local control is actually quite small.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s the crux of it, isn’t it? I’m guilty myself, always tell myself I’m too busy and leaving it to someone else to do. I’m going to have to rethink that.
It’s probably more of a philosophical question than anything else. Who’s responsible for getting GOP voters to the caucus: the Party, or the individual candidates?
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.