Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indiana, N Carolina, and W Va Test Romney and Paul Support (Vote PAUL to show Romney's Weakness)
UMN ^ | May 7, 2012 | Eric Ostermeier

Posted on 05/08/2012 6:54:16 AM PDT by xzins

Tuesday's primaries are three of the nine contests in the 2008 and 2012 cycles held when the presumptive GOP nominee and Ron Paul were the only active candidates left in the race

While the most closely-watched contest on Tuesday may be the Indiana Republican U.S. Senate primary battle between six-term incumbent Dick Lugar and Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, there will still be a few things to keep an eye on at the top of the ticket in the Hoosier State, North Carolina, and West Virginia.

For these three presidential primaries will be the first in which Mitt Romney faces only one opponent on the ballot who has not yet suspended his campaign - Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul's campaign has had a bit of a resurgence of late, with strong showings in the delegate selection phase in caucus states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine.

The primaries on Tuesday in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia will be a good test both of Mitt Romney's popularity at this stage of the campaign vis-à-vis John McCain in 2008, as well as Ron Paul's own base of support.

These three states, along with the upcoming primaries in Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, and South Dakota, each also featured two-man races in 2008 with McCain and Paul.

And so, with Congressman Paul's support significantly higher this cycle throughout the primary season, as well as voters not coalescing around Romney's campaign compared to other presumptive nominees in Republican Party history, expect more scrutiny over Romney's ability to turn out the GOP base in November if he fails to receive at least two-thirds of the vote Tuesday.

Only one of the remaining 12 primary states, Montana, is in classic "Ron Paul country" - the Texas congressman has excelled in both cycles in northern border states - although he also may perform particularly well in Oregon and South Dakota in the coming weeks.

So how much of a boost can Paul expect to receive in his one-on-one challenge against the former Massachusetts governor?

In 2008, Congressman Paul averaged 7.4 percent in the 41 state primaries and caucuses held before Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race on March 4th - leaving the field open to just McCain and Paul.

That left just two active candidates in the race (with the occasional ex-candidate still lingering on the ballot) for the remaining 12 contests.

Paul averaged 12.4 percent of the vote in those dozen primaries, or an increase of only 5.0 points when he had a one-on-one matchup against John McCain.

In 2012, Paul has averaged 15.7 percent of the primary and caucus vote through the first 37 contests (excluding U.S. territories).

Representative Paul has at least doubled his percentage of vote received from 2008 to 2012 in nearly half of these contests (17 states): Ohio (+100.0 percent), Arizona (+104.8), Iowa (+114.0), Florida (+118.8), Georgia (+127.6), Wisconsin (+138.3), Delaware (+152.4), New York (+153.2), Missouri (+171.1), Oklahoma (+190.9), New Hampshire (+197.4), Connecticut (+221.4), Massachusetts (+251.9), South Carolina (+261.1), Rhode Island (+266.2), Vermont (+283.3), and Virginia (+800.0).

That includes double-digit improvements on his 2008 tally in seven states: Iowa (+11.4 points), Maine (+17.8), New Hampshire (+15.2), Rhode Island (+17.3), Vermont (+18.7), and Virginia (+36.0).

The only two states in which Paul has received a lower percentage of the vote in 2012 compared to 2008 are Idaho and Pennsylvania.

However, when Paul won 15.5 percent in Pennsylvania in 2008, he was the only active candidate in the race other than McCain. Paul fell just shy of that mark in April with 13.2 percent with Gingrich still officially in the race tallying 10.5 percent.

The same is true in Idaho, where Paul and McCain were the only candidates on the primary ballot in 2008 when he notched 23.7 percent of the vote. In the 2012 Idaho caucuses, Paul was one of four active candidates on the ballot when he won 18.1 percent.

In Tuesday's primary states four years ago, Paul only received 7.7 percent in Indiana, 7.2 percent in North Carolina, and 5.0 percent in West Virginia.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: elections; paul; romney; romneytruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last
To: xzins

“If you know you’re going to lose, then why continue down that path?”

Because you are AN IDIOT? Ross Perot was not responsible for the Republican loss that gave us Clinton. Republicans were responsible for Ross Perot. Another RINO candidate like Romney will lose again.


51 posted on 05/08/2012 9:15:09 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel (And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’m in NC and DIDNT vote Romney....I voted Santorum as I couldn’t decide between him and Newt...I’ll probably hold my nose and vote Romney in the fall, but at least I didn’t have to do it this time....
.
Voted for Tea Partier Bill Randall as well....


52 posted on 05/08/2012 9:27:19 AM PDT by BallparkBoys (RESIST WE MUCH! ....We must, and we will much, about that, be committed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Obama or Romney or Paul, that is the choices. Two of the three are socialists who will bankrupt America, the third is a constitutionalist that will cut $ one trillion first yr in office and balance deficit in three yrs. What flipping else is there to know?


53 posted on 05/08/2012 10:10:37 AM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There is no place at all that the US Constitution says “The US is a 2 Party System”.

Yes, but that is what results from a winner take all system with no possibility of coalition government. Intentional or not, we have a 2 party system.

Donald Duck is a fictional character.

With as much chance of being president as any 3rd party candidate. In fact, if Donald Duck could be on the ballot he would probably get more votes than any other 3rd party.

54 posted on 05/08/2012 10:19:38 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

I prefer the Duck over Mitt.

Don’t you?

Longbow, you’ve been a conservative for a long time. Can you look me in the eye and say, “Mitt Romney is a solid conservative.”?


55 posted on 05/08/2012 10:29:15 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yes and vote for Walker in Wisconsin if you’re not voting for Falk in Dem Primary and vote Richard Mourdock for Senate in Indiana


56 posted on 05/08/2012 10:30:30 AM PDT by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

I like Folwell for Lite Governor (revising state government employee pensions and healthcare benefits), Shubert for Auditor (recapture the Highway Fund), Daoud for Secretary of State (crack down on illegals), and Alexander for Super of Public Instruction (vouchers, stop presuming college as universal goal).


57 posted on 05/08/2012 10:37:02 AM PDT by Blogatron (Brought to you by The American Frog Council; 'Frog - The other green meat')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
Vote Romney to defeat Obama

From your lips to FReepers eyes...We need to STOP ZERO!! Voting 3rd party will help zero become a MARXIST DICTATOR!!

58 posted on 05/08/2012 10:55:34 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Longbow, you’ve been a conservative for a long time. Can you look me in the eye and say, “Mitt Romney is a solid conservative.”?

Of course not. Romney has no record of being a conservative. I don't really know what he is other than a polished politician.

That really isn't the point though. Even if Romney turns out to be the squish we all assume, he still answers to the Republican party and is still vastly better to the Barrack Obama we KNOW we are getting. Federal Court nominations alone are a good enough reason to work night and day to make sure Mitt defeats Obama.

I have no problem with voting pragmatically. My vote is not an affirmative endorsement of anyone, it is simply used to achieve the best option available at the time. That means using it to cancel out an Obama voter in the swing state of Virginia.

59 posted on 05/08/2012 11:09:45 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: knarf

First, I apologize for 3 posts, rookie mistake.

As to a clue, the election is important for the Supreme Court, US Attorneys, Judges, cabinet positions, illegal immigration, defense spending, war on terror ...

There are many more, however on each of these Romney is far superior to Obama.

That was my clue


60 posted on 05/08/2012 12:21:42 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Not if your INTENTION was to establish or strengthen a 3rd conservative party.

Then your vote would do EXACTLY as intended.

Not at all. The time for that is the primaries and between elections. In the general election 3rd parties are spoilers you wasted a vote.

61 posted on 05/08/2012 12:28:08 PM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Blogatron

Thanks for the help.


62 posted on 05/08/2012 12:36:48 PM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You Paul people are so misguided. All your vote for Paul means to the average maybe voter is that Romney is a bad candidate and they might as well either sit out the election in November or vote for BO. You Paul people are the ones destroying the conservative support in the GOP. You are making other ignorant people think Romney can't possibly win because even his own party is in disarray. They will not have the get up and go to vote in Nov. And ignorant or not we GOP conservatives now need all the anti-BO votes voting for Romney to win. And, that is what we are about isn't it, winning?
63 posted on 05/08/2012 12:49:36 PM PDT by Maryhere ("HE comes to rule the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maryhere

Voting for the only candidate with both fiscal and social conservative values and promises, is destroying conservative support in the GOP?

Kick both Obama and Romney to the curb, support Paul.


64 posted on 05/08/2012 1:45:23 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

Sorry, Sun, but you don’t build 3rd parties in primary elections.

The time for a 3rd party to gain name recognition is in the general election. That is the time to vote and have your vote accomplish something.


65 posted on 05/08/2012 1:52:11 PM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
zero has already packed the court and Romney is no better (I'll find the link after I send this) .. zero's already bypasssed congress with his czars and regulatory commisions.

Romney can't be trusted (imo) to cancel every EO zero has ever signed, nor fire every czar, nor defund and eliminate EPA (f'rinstance).

The only one that had the aggies to speak hard against obama and vow to destroy all of his administrative efforts was Newt ... and he's gone.


We REALLY need a handle on the delegates and the convention if we are to be pre-emptively effective in regaining our America.

66 posted on 05/08/2012 2:24:32 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The time for a 3rd party to gain name recognition is in the general election

When has that ever happened. Don't say that's how the Republican party started. When Lincoln won the Whigs were gone, morphed into the Republican party. The Republicans didn't win anything as a third party. Support grew for the (R) between elections, not as a third party spoiler. Republicans won when the Whigs were history.

67 posted on 05/08/2012 3:12:02 PM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: knarf

No one is going to stop Romney at the convention at this point.

As to judges, save your link I’ve seen it 500 times.

As a republican president facing a republican Congress, Romney is NOT going to appoint the likes of Sotomayer or Kagan. I’m very sorry if you’ve convinced yourself he will.

As to Newt, well that really should be clear by now.


68 posted on 05/08/2012 3:36:51 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I voted for Paul today...because he wasn’t Myth Romney. Piss on the GOP-e.


69 posted on 05/08/2012 4:10:45 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

Realistic choices for whom ? Socialists. You’re barking up the wrong tree, because I’ve actively opposed and exposed Willard’s ultraleft record going back a long time. There is no scenario imaginable that I would vote for that lying fraud and sociopath ever. Unless the GOP does the right thing and dumps that abomination at the convention, my vote goes to Virgil Goode.


70 posted on 05/08/2012 8:35:38 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“Willard doesn’t have the delegates”

He will, it’s inevitable. He just got 65% of the NC vote and got 100% of Indiana’s delegates as well. Add in the delegates from the rivals who endorsed him and he’s already there.

“and WHY are you so anxious for us NOT to stop the Socialist abomination ?”

I am anxious for November to stop the Socialist abomination Obama.


71 posted on 05/08/2012 9:12:05 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Longbow1969

“The Libertarian and Constitution Party are recognized alternative parties in the US.”

Uh huh. Remind us again of how many Presidential races they’ve won and how many laws they got passed....

as many as Daffy Duck?!?

“There is no place at all that the US Constitution says “The US is a 2 Party System”.”

Yeah, and the Bible doesnt tell you how to compute the area of a circle, so obviously pi*r^2 is bogus.


72 posted on 05/08/2012 9:30:53 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

“Inevitable.” You even talk like the leftists. You’re on the wrong website.


73 posted on 05/08/2012 9:31:40 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Ron Paul failed the test in NC:
Romney got 65% and Ron Paul got 11%.


74 posted on 05/08/2012 9:33:30 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; mvpel

“Reagan lost to the guy that lost to Carter, so I have no idea why anyone would be confident that he can beat Carter.”

Good one.

Romney’s doing a bit better than Reagan was doing pollwise in May 1980, but otherwise this is shaping up quite a bit like that election.


75 posted on 05/08/2012 9:57:11 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB

I also voted for Santorum, even though he is out of the race. Romney won easily here in Indiana. I will hold my nose and vote for him in November.


76 posted on 05/09/2012 2:24:32 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; Longbow1969
The real issue was what Mitt Romney would get. If not this one, one of the articles I read said that 2/3rds was the threshold for Romney now that the main players are out and he's running alone. 65% is an insignificant mathematical deviation from 2/3rds.

So, I agree with you. In NC Romney met the test. That's not to say he didn't elsewhere. I just haven't seen the results yet.

77 posted on 05/09/2012 5:36:33 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
“There is no place at all that the US Constitution says “The US is a 2 Party System”.” Yeah, and the Bible doesnt tell you how to compute the area of a circle, so obviously pi*r^2 is bogus.

Faulty illustration. The bible is not set up as a math book.

The US Constitution is set up to establish the details of our government.

78 posted on 05/09/2012 5:41:33 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Political parties aren’t government. They’re political parties. Why would the Constitution say anything about it?


79 posted on 05/09/2012 5:44:56 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Because of the insistence by some that the US is a 2-party system. I pointed out that the US Constitution requires no such thing. That was the topic of discussion.

You reinforce my point by inferring that political parties aren’t mentioned in the US Constitution.


80 posted on 05/09/2012 6:05:49 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Functionally, it is a two-party system, but it’s certainly not a requirement. Third parties have, in the past, made tremendous headway (see Republicans over Whigs).


81 posted on 05/09/2012 6:23:53 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; P-Marlowe

It is functioning as a two-party system purely because they have achieved legal dominance and have engineered all to fit the template of 2 parties.

There is no reason, for example, why the Constitution Party could not wait on its convention until after the Republican and endorse that candidate if conservative enough to suit their principles. They would, in that case, not run their own candidate.

This would be a way for alternative parties to flourish. It would provide a means to grow, attain an identity, and stand for a set of conservative principles. (A conservative caucus within a party could not then run its own candidate if they did not support the chosen candidate...as with Romney this time.)

However, the system is set up so that ballot access is virtually impossible to attain, much less at a late date.

There is absolutely no reason the above process should be legally impeded in any way. As an illustration, having GW Bush’s name on, say, BOTH the Republican Line and the Reformed Line should gain a vote for Bush whether from a Repub voter or a Reformed voter.

I am betting that is legally impeded.


82 posted on 05/09/2012 6:39:09 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Is it legally impeded? I know there are ballot requirements, though I don’t know what they are. My impression is it has always been about exposure. Republicans and Democrats get the exposure; third parties do not.


83 posted on 05/09/2012 6:48:15 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; P-Marlowe

Just remember the weird rules Virginia has for our own well-known candidates to get on their flippin’ ballot, and you’ll see just the tip of the legal-impediment iceberg that has been thrown up in the parties we do have, and that will give an idea how hard it would be to make the nation NURTURE alternative parties rather than MAINTAIN THE POWER of only 2 parties.


84 posted on 05/09/2012 6:51:11 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You’re talking a state-by-state fight there. About the only card to play would be the “fairness” card since the Republicans and Democrats in power have zero incentive to relax the rules.


85 posted on 05/09/2012 7:12:55 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; P-Marlowe

A legal fight might win under equal access????


86 posted on 05/09/2012 7:35:39 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It is functioning as a two-party system purely because they have achieved legal dominance and have engineered all to fit the template of 2 parties.

The problem is that our system is winner take all with no possibility of coalition government. Such a setup will almost always produce a 2 party system. Doesn't matter if it was by design or not, the result of this type of electoral setup will almost always be 2 competing party's trying to get 50%+1 of the ballots cast.

87 posted on 05/09/2012 8:18:48 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The Constitution describes ... our Federal structure of Government, and its powers, yes, but not all aspects of how politics works.

2 parties is a logical consequence of first-past-the-post elections and a country divided between govt givers and govt takers. It’s that simple.

3rd parties are extremely ineffective at influencing political outcomes. They dont work, period.


88 posted on 05/09/2012 8:23:35 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Because of the insistence by some that the US is a 2-party system. “

We are simply stating a historical fact, that’s all.

Yeah, we’ve had 3rd parties as well for our history, and yeah, they almost never win any elections, least of all the President.


89 posted on 05/09/2012 8:26:22 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I’m just talking reality. Romney has a 100% probability of being the nominee.
As reagan put it, facts are stubborn things.


90 posted on 05/09/2012 8:29:52 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: xzins; WOSG
How about we just let the silly Ron Paul stuff go? Paul isn't going to be a factor. He isn't going to stop Romney from winning more than enough delegates for the nomination. All this "vote Paul to stop Mitt " has been fantasy from the beginning. It is completely obvious that most conservatives/Republicans that want to cast a protest vote against Romney would prefer voting for candidates that already quit the race than cast a ballot for Ron Paul. Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative and the vast majority of Republicans don't like him and are never going to vote for him.

Romney got like 65% of the vote in the 3 states that voted last night. His nomination is not in question. Paul got like 10-15% and barely even edged out candidates that have already quit the race. In WVA, Paul actually lost to Santorum.

91 posted on 05/09/2012 8:31:45 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; xzins

“All this “vote Paul to stop Mitt “ has been fantasy from the beginning. It is completely obvious that most conservatives/Republicans that want to cast a protest vote against Romney would prefer voting for candidates that already quit the race than cast a ballot for Ron Paul.”

Yup. I’m one of them. Would have been Newt for me, and might still be (in Texas) just to show conservative colors.
But if the only choice was Ron Paul or Romney, I’d vote Romney just to shut the fantasy down. Ron Paul is actively disapproved of by a majority of GOP voters for his looney stances on marriage, drugs, and foreign policy, and he wont ever get even close to being the nominee.


92 posted on 05/09/2012 9:31:27 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I don’t know—do you have “standing”? :0)


93 posted on 05/09/2012 9:32:29 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; WOSG; Future Snake Eater; P-Marlowe

Ballot access makes 3rd parties more difficult than does a winner take all system.

The 2 parties in power must submit zero for their candidates to appear on a ballot.

A 3rd party must submit, in a national campaign, a total of something like 1.3 million signatures, depending on the states and their terribly non-uniform requirements. This is not counting the legal hurdles that must be overcome just to qualify to submit the petitions. Then there are requirements about signatures, collectors, forms, etc.

IF 3rd parties were so innocuous, there would be no good reason to have these legal hurdles in place preventing others from joining the game.

More fair, probably, is for all slots on the ballot to be write-in slots. Period. That leaves it entirely up to the voter whom to vote for. Those who run solid campaigns will be known, and those who don’t won’t.


94 posted on 05/09/2012 10:56:40 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Ballot access makes 3rd parties more difficult than does a winner take all system.

A serious 3rd party should have no trouble with ballot access. The Libertarians often don't even get .5% of the vote, yet I believe they are on the ballot in all 50 states most cycles. There are too many fringe nutters and vanity candidates to loosen ballot access too much.

The Tea Party, for example, has millions of supporters and could easily have become a real political party. It isn't because the vast majority of people realize it would be a dumb thing to do as it would simple split the right of center vote. Actually, that is an example of just how easy it is to get on the ballot. Many fake Tea Party's sprung up (funded by the left) designed specifically to split their opposition.

Geeze, American's Elect doesn't even know what they stand for other than "moderation" and don't have any candidates lined up at all, yet they are already on the ballot in like half the states and working to be on the ballot in all 50. Ross Perot's party even hung around for awhile.

3rd party's just don't work in our winner take all system that doesn't allow for coalition building.

95 posted on 05/09/2012 11:57:46 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
loosen ballot access too much

What exactly is wrong with a blank ballot and everything done by write-in?

President

Senator

Congressman

My sense is that if people don't have a clue who is running to remember their names, then they probably shouldn't be voting in that race in the first place.

Ballot access would then cease to be an issue. The only difficulty would be in counting ballots. I have no problem with the counting taking a few days. What with the court challenges on many races, it already does anyway.

96 posted on 05/09/2012 7:09:56 PM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Too bad you don’t want him stopped instead of using the typical leftist media/party establishment narrative. Reagan had a name for people like Willard... he called them “Democrats.”


97 posted on 05/09/2012 9:20:28 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Now you are just being ornery for no good reason and using the pathetic ‘you’re a lib’ to avoid the point: It’s over. Romney will be our nominee. Just because I’m telling you reality doesnt mean I wanted it to happen. Dont be obtuse.


98 posted on 05/09/2012 11:30:27 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

I’m just telling it like it is and calling you out on it. Willard is not MY nominee and never will be. He is a disgusting, pathological liar, unethical and immoral, a reprobate and a Socialist. You may be in love with him and get a thrill up your leg when he appears on tv, but Conservatives of conscience will NEVER support such an abomination. Period.


99 posted on 05/09/2012 11:37:50 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson