Posted on 12/30/2013 8:44:43 AM PST by Theoria
These rules would help some if only one other change were added: Any state which actually voted for the GOP candidate in the last presidential election has its delegates doubled or tripled.
A rule ignored last election, when Florida held their primary early. They should have lost half their delegates. Rule ignored. Romney wins the primary.
/johnny
I suggest we drop all rules and regulations and just let them slug it out.
“The winner would not necesarrily be the richest, but the baddest ass ... and I think we could use a basdass Pubbie right about now.
No more, “My esteemed opponant .. “ crap.
“Why, just last week that sleazy bastard ... “
Let the fur fly.”
*************
DING!
I wish we would just tell NH and IOWA to pound sand with their early open primaries.
In fact they should make the rules have only closed primaries and sore loser rules.
Mix in the super-delegates and that gives the GOPelite candidate a very big advantage from the start. Unless the preferred candidate crashes and burns early, the nomination is probably a foregone conclusion.
Of course, there will be the retreads from 2008 and 2012, and the hangers-on who help split the votes. Ironically (or by design) those hangers-on tend to split the conservative vote rather than the GOPelite vote. Isn’t that curious.
Of course, from 2008 and 2012, the challengers were not that stellar of a bunch anyway:
the talkshow host who has zipper problems,
the female who actually was kind of flakey,
the one with brain-freeze when it came to naming the departments he would eliminate,
the deposed former House speaker who supposedly would out-debate Obama, but lost the 2 Florida debates to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama,
the one who couldn’t retain his own Senate seat,
and for 2012, the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama.
Now, we already hear rumblings from Huckabee (his evangelical friends are just begging him to run). Even McCain and Romney, both hinting.
==
The most interesting might be the Dem race again — watching another unknown come out of the woodwork and send Hillary’s coronation trip into the abyss.
I’ve seen that too, but how do you fix that? I think all conservatives have got to unite around an acceptable conservative candidate.
The problem is, so many conservatives refuse to bend when it comes to nominating their side’s candidate. No one is ever good enough for the majority of conservatives. They will only vote for their guy and will refuse to vote in the general election if their “guy” doesn’t’ win The primary.
They will even vote for a democrat just to spite those they disagree with.
I’ve seen that happen on several primary seasons.
I had to look up hortatory though.
Nah, won’t work. They will be just as shocked when, in a shorter primary, their guys lose even faster.
Romney was a liberal.
Liberal Republicans are unelectable.
Instead of whining about how conservatives won't vote for the liberal GOP-E candidate, why don't you push for a conservative candidate, and stop rewarding the GOP-E with your vote when they nominate a liberal.
/johnny
Actually, think about it: a shorter period FAVORS the “non-establishment” candidate who will usually have less money. The longer the campaign, the more it works against the lesser-funded candidate.
Speaking as a no-GOP person, if they really wanted to do some good, they would forbid anyone to announce their candidacy or speak on the possibility of other members’ candidacies more than about 12 months from the election day. These increasingly long campaigns are causing political fatigue in the general public, especially with all the negative campaign ads.
Yup. The conservatives need to pick one and put ONE person on stage with the GOPe idiot.
I’ve said before the tea party needs their own primary before the GOPe one.
Send the ONE winner to the stage with Cristy.. You likely will only be able to fit one more on the stage anyways.
Or those states that actually went to the GOP in the general get to have primaries first. They can figure out how order the primaries out of that bunch.
.
Oh yes and it has been that way for some time. The GOP could just say, if you have a closed primary, you get to have 100% of your delegates. If you have an open primary, you only get 50% of your delegates.
One election/primary cycle would be all it takes to return the GOP back to conservatives. But conservatives are not in power right now at the GOP.
That's why the media wants Christie. Mrs. Clinton will look fit and trim by comparison.
A big thing they should do would be to make the order of states (who primaries first) based of percentages of Repub votes from the last Presidential cycle. The 5 states with the biggest Repub-Dem split would primary first, then the next 5 get the next week or two to primary, and so on until you have CA and MA and everyone else at the end, once the field has been whittled down to proper conservatives.
“I have an idea. Just have one primary, and make it in Texas.”
I have a better idea...
Only closed primaries count. Open primaries or a caucus would be considered as nothing more than a straw poll.
The dates of primaries would be chosen based on the percentage of votes given to the Republican POTUS candidate in the previous election. The higher the percentage the earlier the primary date.
Primaries could be grouped by region using the above formula is so desired.
The liberal $hitholes in the NE and the left coast would be going last!
I am in agreement. The order of the states primaries for 2016 should start with the states with the highest support of the republican candidate in the previous pResidental election. Oh and don’t let registered deomcRats vote in republican primaries. That way Texas, Oklahoma Idaho etc. would be picking the candidate.
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.