Do we nominate an individual, who in the past, has contributed to liberal causes, and in some cases currently takes liberal stands on issues, just because he is at the front of a ground swirl that wants to destroy anything named Republican on the national level? Do we nominate a candidate who promises great plans and wonderful things (Hope and Change in a new guise).
Win at any cost, huh. Go with the ground swell and vote for the one with the loudest voice, and biggest media exposure. Is that what we want?
Or do we nominate a conservative Republican, who has been subjected to demagoguery, by those who want the other candidate? Do we nominate a candidate who has stood strong for conservative causes, but now is labeled as somehow GOPe, yet is also at the same time considered an outsider? Do we believe the charges brought up by non-conservatives, Dems, libertarians, Media and others? How do we nominate someone who has no standing in the eyes of the American voters, because of the smears?
This is exactly why we have conventions. Once the dust settles, the convention gives delegates the chance ponder and evaluate candidates.
Yes, delegates do the voting, all we do in the primaries is select the number of delegates, for the first ballot. If there is a plurality, the process goes to a second ballot, or third, until a nominee is selected.
The fact that you think the dirty, rotten, corrupt political delegate system is really excellent, and particularly because they might choose someone the VOTERS DID NOT, proves that you are part of the problem.
Are you a political operative youreslf in some way?
Yes! Absolutely YES!! I would say this if it were Trump, or Cruz, or Kasich. The way to win against the Hildabeast is UNITY. And we have to do it quickly.