January 27, 2014

RNC Primary Schedule/Rules For 2016 Aim To Wrap Up Nomination Early
— DrewM

Ah yes, the ever excited quadrennial battle over the GOP's nomination calendar. This year the GOP decided to go with a schedule that front loads the primaries to try and avoid the problems of 2012.

The new rules will help protect early-voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — from others who want to rush up to the front, and allow the party to hold an earlier convention, as they look to unite and raise more money for the general election.

The four designated early states will be required to hold their contests in February. States that vote between March 1 and March 14 will be required to award their delegates proportionally, weakening their impact, while states with primaries after that will assign their delegates in a winner-take-all contest, making them much more consequential in the delegate count and adding an incentive to wait.

The states that break those guidelines will face increased penalties compared to previous years. The committee passed a rule drastically shrinking the number of delegates that state would get at the party's nominating convention. States with 30 delegates or more would be cut down to just nine delegates plus the RNC's committee members, and states with less than 30 delegates would be cut down to 6 delegates plus their committeemen.

The real challenge will be controlling the debates and most importantly, the moderators. That's going to be harder for the party because second and third tier candidates will show up at any debate no matter what the party says. These candidates won't be worried about being docked delegates because they will have no shot at getting delegates unless they breakout and debates are a path to do that. The question is, will the top tier candidates feel compelled to show up too? My guess is they won't at first but if someone starts getting traction through the unsanctioned debates, all bets will be off.

As for the change to a compacted schedule, it is in response to what many felt was a protracted and damaging primary schedule in 2012. Of course, that calendar was in response to what many thought was a too compact schedule in 2008.

The real issue in 2008 and 2012 wasn't the schedule, it was the lousy candidates. In fairness to the RNC, it can't control the quality of candidates so it shuffles the thing it can control...the schedule.

As Quinn Hillyer points out, the shortening of the schedule tends to disadvantage grassroot efforts. While the extended schedule in 1976 enabled Ronald Reagan to launch a near successful insurgent campaign against Gerald Ford (a loss that set up his win 1980), the 1996 primary calendar protected Bob Dole.

Indeed, rarely has an early end to seriously contested primaries done much to help that partyÂ’s candidate. In 1988, George H. W. Bush effectively got the Republican nod long before Michael Dukakis secured the Democratic bid, but that didnÂ’t stop Dukakis from building a 17-point lead over Bush (before Willie Horton, a bad tank photo, and an emotionless debate performance sank the Democrat). In 1992, Bill ClintonÂ’s long and messy nomination battles with Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown didnÂ’t keep him from winning the presidency. In 2000, Al Gore coasted to the Democratic nomination while George W. Bush had his hands full with John McCain, but Bush won in the fall anyway.

In sum, there is no good evidence that condensing the process will help produce a victor in November. But there is every reason to believe that a rush to judgment will leave grassroots activists feeling as if they had no voice in the process, while perhaps producing a nominee who hasnÂ’t proved his mettle.

On balance I prefer a longer campaign but I don't think it matters much. It's hard to look at any candidate and say they won or lost the general election because of the length of the primary campaign. Ultimately, it's about candidates and the electoral environment.

One reform I'd like to see is something one of the other co-bloggers suggested (it might have been Slu or CAC. Update: I've been informed this is the brainchild of one Mr. John Ekdahl.) and that's a series of regional primaries held over the course of a few weeks that would be followed up by individual primaries in larger and/or key states.

This would be something like a playoff system where candidates could in a sense pick which regional primary(s) they'd compete it in and then face-off in the other individual primaries to determine the eventual nominee. This would enable candidates to have more than one path to the nomination (IA or NH, then SC followed by FL). It would also give less well known candidates time to develop name recognition, money and a chance to make their case to voters.

No matter what system you have it will come down to candidates but as long as we have this linear slog over a single, well worn path, the only options the party will have will be this constant swing between shorter and longer calendars with the same results.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:11 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 872 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:12 AM (PYAXX)

2 I will always respect you Tea Party wingnuts.

Posted by: El Gobernador Jeb Bush at January 27, 2014 09:12 AM (8ZskC)

3 So this will make it easier for the GOP establishment and MSM choose candidates, right? Fabulous.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 27, 2014 09:12 AM (POpqt)

4 As goes the State of Inebriation so goes the GOP.

Posted by: the chicken at January 27, 2014 09:14 AM (NU/ou)

5

A 2016 presidential election... dream on rethuglikkkans

Posted by: Barack O'Stalin at January 27, 2014 09:14 AM (Pr6hk)

6 Republican voters?  Never met one.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 27, 2014 09:15 AM (Pr6hk)

7 Just popping into the new Thread to say 'Hi'.

Posted by: Beyonce'sRight Piss Flap at January 27, 2014 09:15 AM (ODDY+)

8 In case it hasn't been mentioned recently, Ames Iowa needs to shut the fuck up. . Goodhart's law applies .. the reliability their "straw poll" had picking winners no longer applies now that everybody's watching (and trying to manipulate) it. . Mew

Posted by: acat at January 27, 2014 09:15 AM (4UkCP)

9 你 看 什 么，圆 圆 的 眼 睛 里 呢？

Posted by: Jon Huntsman, Model Republican of the New Millenium at January 27, 2014 09:15 AM (8ZskC)

10 Oops, I meant popping out.

Posted by: Beyonce's Right Piss Flap at January 27, 2014 09:16 AM (ODDY+)

11 Isn't this like the show Survivors, It's already over, just waiting for the episode to air?

Posted by: Paladin at January 27, 2014 09:16 AM (DPvCq)

12 3 So this will make it easier for the GOP establishment and MSM choose candidates, right? Fabulous. That's how I'm reading it too. The Stupid Party...getting stupider by the minute...

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 27, 2014 09:16 AM (7ObY1)

13 My friends, I am pleased to accept your nomination.

Posted by: John McCain at January 27, 2014 09:16 AM (Pr6hk)

14 Actually, I like the idea of National Primary Day in, say, April. Maybe May. What I really hate (more than the fact that squish states tend to go first and set the "tone" of the primaries) is the Parties dictating to the States when they can have their primaries.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (PYAXX)

15 Fact is the old smoke filled back rooms worked a lot better, but still with out great candidates with a backbone and a set of balls, what's the difference

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (t3UFN)

16 I'm sorry. What was the problem with 2012 again? I've forgotten.

Posted by: Yukin Flambeau at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (tq0Hd)

17 The primary was a big reason Romney couldn't close the deal, it was almost designed by Democrats.  Hundreds of millions wasted and it allowed Obama to pummel Romney in the summer who was badly bruised and broke.

I could understand a long drawn out fight if there was top tier talent duking it out, but the fact that our Party was seriously considering the likes of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich as viable contenders for the White House was an embarrassment.  If Romney was not your ideal candidate, fine, but
"Not Romney" was not a real person.

Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (+FSBg)

18 One factor not mentioned is that the sooner the Republicans pick their candidate the sooner the press can concentrate their fire on him.  They are already after Christie because they think he is the frontrunner and we are several years out from the election.

Posted by: Thatch at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (qYvEa)

19 You know who this helps?

Posted by: Raz Al'ghul at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (fT3qO)

20 Were I king of the world, I would change one thing in politics. No television at all. No debates, no ads, nothing. If you're not willing to read about the candidates, you don't even need to be voting.

Posted by: toby928© at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (QupBk)

21 We had to shorten the primary season, we didn't want to risk running out of  donuts

Posted by: Chris Christie at January 27, 2014 09:17 AM (Pr6hk)

22

"Raise  more money for  the general election campaign..."

 

As I recall (and I do), Mitt had no trouble raising oodles and oodles of cash for  the general.   Obviously that wasn't the problem.

 

Next. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 27, 2014 09:18 AM (TOk1P)

23 The new rules will help protect early-voting states ¡ª Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada ¡ª from others who want to rush up to the front, and allow the party to hold an earlier convention, as they look to unite and raise more money for the general election. My number has been disconnected. Call Paco & Jose.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 27, 2014 09:18 AM (CRyse)

24 I got nothin'. And neither does the GOP.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:18 AM (RD7QR)

25 I thought the reason for the compact schedule was so that there could be an early convention and then, post-convention, the party and candidate could coordinate their efforts and spend big to counteract the Dem/MSM nonsense.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:18 AM (Hvt9o)

26 oops, that was a pretty sweet sock fail.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:19 AM (fT3qO)

27 One reform I'd like to see is something one of the other co-bloggers suggested (it might have been Slu or CAC) and that's a series of regional primaries held over the course of a few weeks that would be followed up by individual primaries in larger and/or key states. Obligatory mention of Geraghty's plan: http://bit.ly/1lhlMMP I'm not saying it's perfect but it's along those lines.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:19 AM (VtjlW)

28 Really, how long do we need to look at a man's creases to judge him fit for office?  Now 'want' is a different story.

Posted by: David Brooks at January 27, 2014 09:19 AM (Pr6hk)

29 I'm just playing the long game here (and by "long game" I mean having enough kids to constitute a major voting bloc).

Posted by: Rick Santorum at January 27, 2014 09:19 AM (9F2c1)

30 The primary was a big reason Romney couldn't close the deal, it was almost designed by Democrats. Bull ca-ca. The primary reason Romney couldn't close the deal is that he *wouldn't.* He wouldn't call Obama bad for the country- he would call him "dangerously inept." Indeed, with the exception of the first debate, he almost seemed like he was afraid to attack him at all. People don't vote for policies- they vote for candidates.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:20 AM (PYAXX)

31 Ah, yes, because we all know how much that bitter and divisive primary hurt Obama in 2008.

Posted by: anon at January 27, 2014 09:20 AM (rsPKs)

32 Sorry.  Way out of patience with states that vote blue getting to decide who the red candidates will be.  IMHO states who voted R in the last two generals should go to the head of the primary line.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:20 AM (P6QsQ)

33 What I really hate (more than the fact that squish states tend to go first and set the "tone" of the primaries) is the Parties dictating to the States when they can have their primaries. What I really hate is state governments meddling in when and how a party should choose their candidates.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (QF8uk)

34 Like there will be any unindicted GOP candidates in 2016

Posted by: Eric Holder at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (Pr6hk)

35

17 -

 

Absolute nonsense.  Romney was NOT beaten up.  By the time the convention... er, convened, he was on top of the world.  The party was unified, and ready to fight for him. 

 

His downfall was purely his own (and his campaign's) fault. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (TOk1P)

36 Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 01:20 PM (P6QsQ) Once again- why are the Parties able to set this at all? So what happens if Rs what Texas to go first, and Ds want them to go last? Are Texas tax-payers on the hook for two different primary elections?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (PYAXX)

37 I'm just playing the long game here (and by "long game" I mean having enough kids to constitute a major voting bloc).

Posted by: Rick Santorum at January 27, 2014 01:19 PM (9F2c1)


------------


Don't laugh.  We may seriously have to take a look at this strategy.  On a broader level of course.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (P6QsQ)

38 Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 01:20 PM (P6QsQ)

I was wondering when Vic would show up and say that...

Posted by: Rick Santorum at January 27, 2014 09:21 AM (9F2c1)

39 I'm skeptical that this will work in the same way it protected Dole almost 20 years ago. The environment is different now on many levels. Especially in that the insurgent candidates tend to be hot early on.  It took months before Romney was the guy, and that was only after serial character assassination or self-immolation of everyone else running. 

I'm also not sure it matters and think we'll probably end up with whoever the party and the media conspire to put on the ticket either way.

Posted by: f2000 at January 27, 2014 09:22 AM (c7Pp2)

40 Wake me up for the 2008 primaries

Posted by: Fred Thompson at January 27, 2014 09:22 AM (Pr6hk)

41 What I really hate is state governments meddling in when and how a party should choose their candidates. If the parties want to pay for their own primaries, then I have no problem with them setting whatever dates they want. As long as they're going to ask the State (that is: the voters) to foot the bill, the State gets to decide.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:22 AM (PYAXX)

42 Obligatory mention of Geraghty's plan: http://bit.ly/1lhlMMP I'm not saying it's perfect but it's along those lines. Yes, I’ve had a similar idea—it seems to make sense to me. Give the candidates the ability to show their qualities in smaller states, and then they have to close the deal in the larger states.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 09:23 AM (QF8uk)

43 In all seriousness, can a candidate with a lazy eye or who is cross-eyed (Scott Walker) really win a presidential election? Pardon the pun, but optics count. Elections aren't just contests of policy and ideology. If Clinton looks too old and ugly, that's going to hurt her. If Christie looks to fat, that's going to hurt him. What about Walker's eye? I think that's going to hurt him.

Posted by: Scar face at January 27, 2014 09:23 AM (8esY+)

44 America has always been a dictatorship

Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (Pr6hk)

45 At least if Newt runs he will bash the media some in the debates. I guess that's the "circuses" part of our Bread and Circuses.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (RD7QR)

46 I have this to say:  Fuck Iowa.  That's all.

Posted by: DanInMN at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (XqeyF)

47 What difference does it make?

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (Pr6hk)

48 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 01:20 PM (PYAXX)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (fT3qO)

49 How many Hail Marys do I have to say for a Catholic sock fail?  (And if any single 'ettes want to help me pursue Granny Winger's strategy, I'm all for it ). 

Posted by: The Lost Dutchman at January 27, 2014 09:24 AM (9F2c1)

50 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 01:21 PM (PYAXX)

================




I know.  Just frustration talking. 

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (P6QsQ)

51 40 Wake me up for the 2008 primaries

Posted by: Fred Thompson at January 27, 2014 01:22 PM (Pr6hk)


Ah Fred, if only you didn't have that hot young wife sapping the energy from you, you could have saved the nation.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (RD7QR)

52 This year, there is only one step in my plan for America....


??????


Oh shit.

Posted by: I'm Rick Perry, bitch at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (Pr6hk)

53 Why isn't Ron Paul running again? We need him to save us from the chemtrails!!!1!!

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (Aif/5)

54 The new rules will help protect early-voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada


And they protected them by making them "proportional" delegate States while the later ones are winner take all.   Look at the NRO article.  Their aim wasn't to "protect" States, it was to insure complete RNC control of the process.  They took a primary system that was already screwed up and made it worse.


Piss on the RNC they are rapidly moving out of my view. 

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (T2V/1)

55

Just lipstick on the pig.

 

Just give Hitlery the damn job and let the burning times start.

Posted by: Drill_Thrawl at January 27, 2014 09:25 AM (Z7toi)

56 Don't laugh. We may seriously have to take a look at this strategy. On a broader level of course.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 01:21 PM (P6QsQ)


Good luck with that.

Posted by: Bloodthirsty Muslim Hordes at January 27, 2014 09:26 AM (tv7DV)

57 whoops

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:26 AM (fT3qO)

58 HATE THIS. For the record, bruising primary campaigns are good. Candidates can't fake long haul messaging, effective organization, or a fundraising base over a six month span. This was the way it once was and I believe it yielded better candidates.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:26 AM (659DL)

59
I get a kick out of all the whining about primaries.

Nobody turns out for Republican primaries, anyway!
Have you seen the returns from 08? They were LESS THAN HALF of the D turnout.

The problem isn't the primary schedule. The problem is motivating people to get out and vote in the primaries.

Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 27, 2014 09:26 AM (gYIst)

60 The delegates to the states that have open primaries (repubs and dems can vote for a repub candidate) should not be counted at all.  Period.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (vlwRu)

61 As for the BS debates they have already said they will still be hosted by the MFM.  They are still the Party of stupid.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (T2V/1)

62 We must pass comprehensive immigration reform now just in case a Republican takes the White House in 2016

Posted by: John Boehner at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (Pr6hk)

63

The one and only way for us to avoid being put over a barrel by the Stupid Party and getting Jeb Bush/Chris Christie/any other RINO is for conservatives and liberty lovers to organise NOW and get behind ONE conservative candidate going into the primaries.

 

As it stands, we scatter ourselves across five different candidates and the RINO comes out with the plurality most of the time. 

 

Conservatives and liberty lovers seriously need to consider organizing now and having our own "primary," so to speak, and all get on the same page long before Iowa ever starts caucusing. 

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (YYJjz)

64 You can all exhale now.... NewsBreaker ‏@NewsBreaker UPDATE: Manhattan: 88 Lexington Ave FDNY reports- no explosion, it was a tire that exploded. (and who the eff wrote that?)

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (bCEmE)

65 Hah, over on AssGass Obama to crib pages from Nixon, bug Rparty headquarters (probably use NSA), and tell everyone 'I am not a crook'.

Wait? What? "Year of Action", isn't that leftspeak for 'take it to the street'?

Ok, so who are the protestors going to protest? the Rparty? what the hell has the Rparty done?

Posted by: Yukin Flambeau at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (tq0Hd)

66 Miss me yet?

Posted by: King George III at January 27, 2014 09:27 AM (Pr6hk)

67 Seriously, the Dems are blundering horribly by nominating Hillary Clinton. Her name (Clinton) is a tarnished brand. All conservatives hate it (obviously), but many liberals hate it too. For those in the middle, the name is essentially a joke. She will have been in the public eye for 24 years as of 2016, and in 24 years, what has she done of note? Seriously. What? Failed socialized medicine plan in '93? Fail. Stood by silently while her husband cheated and lied? Fail. Acted like a royal bitch? Check. Killed four Americans in Libya and then tried to blame others? Check. But aside from that, really, I searching the databanks and I can find nothing that she's actually ever done. Consequently, the Republicans could nominate a Pet Rock and have a good chance of winning. The mechanism for nominating that Pet Rock are of little interest to me personally.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 09:28 AM (+cx5n)

68 I said - >insert obligatory comment about Rombley not being bothered to purchase ad time in FL. If the candidate I'm supposed to vote for because, 'R', can't put forth the effort required to win, why should I?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:28 AM (fT3qO)

69 Wow.  These guys make me look good.

Posted by: Micheal Steele at January 27, 2014 09:28 AM (Pr6hk)

70 Isn't an exploding tire an explosion?

Posted by: Boss Moss at January 27, 2014 09:29 AM (LAN8Y)

71 We will watch you crush yourselves.

Posted by: Nikita Krushchev at January 27, 2014 09:29 AM (Pr6hk)

72 Consequently, the Republicans could nominate a Pet Rock and have a good chance of winning.

The mechanism for nominating that Pet Rock are of little interest to me personally.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:28 PM (+cx5n)


I'm all for Pet Rock '16. Far less chance of a gaffe about rape or something.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:29 AM (RD7QR)

73 I think I channeled my inner Sven on that last one.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (fT3qO)

74

The last primary was courtesy of Michael Steele, who wanted an exciting convention instead of a boring TV infomercial. 

 

I could give a shit about the length, but I do firmly believe the voting order of states should be based by the percentage of votes that went R in the previous Presidential election.  I see no reason why Iowa should have disproportionate influence in the primaries.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (PFy0L)

75 You guys just can't compete with the Free Shit Express. Read 'em and weep. 

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (Dwehj)

76

Primaries?  Why?  Wouldn't it be easier just to tell us who we should vote for and skip the theatrics?

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (BZAd3)

77 Caldera/SMOD '16

Posted by: toby928© at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (QupBk)

78 I have a three hundred and seventy-eight step plan for America

Posted by: Paul Ryan at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (Pr6hk)

79 Consequently, the Republicans could nominate a Pet Rock and have a good chance of winning.

What about SMOD?

Posted by: The Lost Dutchman at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (9F2c1)

80 62 The one and only way for us to avoid being put over a barrel by the Stupid Party and getting Jeb Bush/Chris Christie/any other RINO ... Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus No! Noooooo! Not Jeb Bush - the only person GUARANTEED to lose to Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 09:30 AM (+cx5n)

81 I see no reason why Iowa should have disproportionate influence in the primaries. So that everyone can pretend that they never said they loved ethanol subsidies two weeks later.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:31 AM (659DL)

82 Bow to me, or I will allow this to continue

Posted by: SMOD at January 27, 2014 09:31 AM (Pr6hk)

83 Looks like a WIDE OPEN race.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at January 27, 2014 09:32 AM (Pr6hk)

84 That NRO article strikes me as pointless linkbait.

They're moving the convention a month earlier- still long after the candidate will have been decided.  Big fucking deal.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 09:32 AM (SY2Kh)

85 Chris Krispy needs every advantage.

Posted by: Reince Preibus at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (Pr6hk)

86 I saw Pet Rock open for Leif Garret back in '77.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (+cx5n)

87 but I do firmly believe the voting order of states should be based by the percentage of votes that went R in the previous Presidential election.

Then you will get candidates that must go *all the way to the right* in order to win.  That is good for us, but not so good for a general election campaign.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (Hvt9o)

88 Posted by: SMOD at January 27, 2014 01:31 PM (Pr6hk) You missed completely last time, lazy ass.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (659DL)

89 We need a real moderate this cycle.

Posted by: Typical RINO Consultant at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (Pr6hk)

90
btw, do you know why I won't be watching the STFU speech tomorrow?

Not because I already know the lies obama will spew, because I don't want to see the R's applaud the lies obama spews.


Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 27, 2014 09:33 AM (gYIst)

91 SoCons!!11!! Need I say more?

Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (Dwehj)

92 Then you will get candidates that must go *all the way to the right* in order to win. That is good for us, but not so good for a general election campaign.

==============



I say we go for it.  We certainly couldn't do any worse, and what we've been doing ain't working.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (P6QsQ)

93 What we need is about three national primaries all on the same day.  The bottom 50% get kicked out until you get to the last one then the top two run in it.


That will eliminate what the major problem in 2008 was, the Not Romney syndrome.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (T2V/1)

94 I wonder what the Ewok is cooking up for us.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (RUvjp)

95 Sounds perfect.

Posted by: Donald Trump at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (Pr6hk)

96 Hey we might all be in hiding by the 2016 Primaries?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (t3UFN)

97 81 Bow to me, or I will allow this to continue

Posted by: SMOD at January 27, 2014 01:31 PM (Pr6hk)


Dude. I can produce in the clutch, whereas you choked!

Posted by: Yellowstone Caldera at January 27, 2014 09:34 AM (RD7QR)

98 86  Then you will get candidates that must go *all the way to the right* in order to win. That is good for us, but not so good for a general election campaign.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 01:33 PM (Hvt9o)



Bull shit.  We have tried the "winnable moderate" multiple elections in a row and they have lost every damn time.   Time for a change.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:35 AM (T2V/1)

99 I wonder what the Ewok is cooking up for us. Pancakes. Not sure you'll wanna eat 'em though.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:35 AM (fT3qO)

100 Yes, I’ve had a similar idea—it seems to make sense to me. Give the candidates the ability to show their qualities in smaller states, and then they have to close the deal in the larger states. Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 01:23 PM (QF8uk) I also like grouping regionally. That seems to be a common sense choice. There's never going to be a perfect system but I do think there can be a better system.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:36 AM (VtjlW)

101 I see no reason why Iowa should have disproportionate influence in the primaries.


Hey, it could be us, and then you'd have politicians trying to figure out how to run cars on pineapples.

Posted by: Hawaii at January 27, 2014 09:36 AM (9F2c1)

102 Consequently, the Republicans could nominate a Pet Rock and have a good chance of winning.

The mechanism for nominating that Pet Rock are of little interest to me personally.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:28 PM (+cx5n)


I had to check the date on this post because I swear I heard this theory back in 2012. Didn't work out so well then.

Posted by: Dandolo at January 27, 2014 09:36 AM (0XBx+)

103

The march of the FSA will overpower anything  any conservative candidate has to offer.  Just watch.  The  Overton Window is still moving left.

 

What do conservatives have to offer?  Work?  Puhhleeeze.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 09:36 AM (vlwRu)

104 Dude. I can produce in the clutch, whereas you choked! Posted by: Yellowstone Caldera at January 27, 2014 01:34 PM (RD7QR) Not bad, but there's only one way to be sure.

Posted by: Gamma Ray Burst at January 27, 2014 09:36 AM (fT3qO)

105

Then you will get candidates that must go *all the way to the right* in order to win. That is good for us, but not so good for a general election campaign.

 

-----------

 

Wooing  those lefty states  early in the primaries  that aren't going to go your way anyway is not viable either.   That ends up giving lefty RINO candidates momentum.

 

My suggestion turns  the primaries into a meritocracy...if you're a state GOP that wants more influence in the primary process, work to get your voters out. 

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 09:37 AM (PFy0L)

106
Hey, it could be us, and then you'd have politicians trying to figure out how to run cars on pineapples.

Posted by: Hawaii at January 27, 2014 01:36 PM (9F2c1)


Should be similar in principle to using coconuts...

Posted by: The Professor at January 27, 2014 09:37 AM (RD7QR)

107 Wake up. Free elections are a thing of the past. The Left is not going anywhere. It's fini.

Posted by: ahem at January 27, 2014 09:37 AM (lKGzI)

108 We clearly have to nominate a black lesbian woman from south of the border to have any chance at 2016.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:38 AM (P6QsQ)

109 Tanned, rested, and ready

Posted by: Jeb Bush at January 27, 2014 09:38 AM (M2qTM)

110 But on the flipside, aside from Scott Walker, who is even in the running for the running who would be even remotely acceptable to most here? If Tubby McTraffic-Jam is verboten, and the Jebster is a living nightmare, and Rand paul and Ted Cruz are too "extreme" for a national office (and aren't running anyway), and everyone else is essentially an unknown. Who? Palin? Ryan? Wise me up. I actually don't follow politics that closely (not a joke).

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 09:38 AM (+cx5n)

111
Ahh.  The GOP Establishment.  I fully expect them to start screaming "ESTABLISHMENT!!!"  in a "MATT DAMON!!!!!" sort of way.

Good luck with your elections and your establishment candidate.

I think they called the new rules the "no Rand" rules.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (n0DEs)

112 108 Tanned, rested, and ready

Posted by: Jeb Bush at January 27, 2014 01:38 PM (M2qTM)

Well, if "tanned" is a requirement...

Posted by: John Boehner at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (9F2c1)

113 109  Who? Palin? Ryan? Wise me up. I actually don't follow politics that closely (not a joke).

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:38 PM (+cx5n)



Ryan has pretty much turned into a machine Party boss RINO.  He is out in my book.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (T2V/1)

114 Bull shit. We have tried the "winnable moderate" multiple elections in a row and they have lost every damn time. Time for a change.

Posted by: Vic at January 27, 2014 01:35 PM (T2V/1)


I'm not saying go all the way to RINO McCain land either.  Somewhere in between.


The point here is that if you start the primaries with the reddest of the red states, it will produce only the reddest of the red candidates, having to sell a message to the general public that may not be receptive to it.  With the correct candidate it can work (see Reagan), but with a guy like Santorum, for instance, it is a recipe for failure.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (Hvt9o)

115
Then you will get candidates that must go *all the way to the right* in order to win. That is good for us, but not so good for a general election campaign.
Posted by: chemjeff




That strategy would cost us which state Romney won in 2012?

Well then, no place to go but up.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (kdS6q)

116 That NRO article strikes me as pointless linkbait. They're moving the convention a month earlier- still long after the candidate will have been decided. Big fucking deal. Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 01:32 PM (SY2Kh) You know that's from December, 2011, right? The only reason I linked to it is because there are some new Horde members around who might not know what the obligatory reference to the Geraghty plan is.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (VtjlW)

117 107 We clearly have to nominate a black lesbian woman from south of the border to have any chance at 2016.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 01:38 PM (P6QsQ)


What if we got Thomas Sowell, put him in drag, and renamed him Tomaso Sowello?

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:39 AM (RD7QR)

118 I wonder what the Ewok is cooking up for us. Kippers and eggs.

Posted by: Beyonce's Labia at January 27, 2014 09:40 AM (PghX9)

119 I wonder what the Ewok is cooking up for us. Pancakes. Not sure you'll wanna eat 'em though. Now with barrel syrup!

Posted by: rickb223 at January 27, 2014 09:40 AM (CRyse)

120 But on the flipside, aside from Scott Walker, who is even in the running for the running who would be even remotely acceptable to most here? I'd kick Jindal and Rand Paul in there.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:40 AM (659DL)

121 I wonder what the Ewok is cooking up for us. You don't cook Kaboom.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (659DL)

122 What if we got Thomas Sowell, put him in drag, and renamed him Tomaso Sowello?

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 01:39 PM (RD7QR)


-----------------



Works for me, and we might get the tranny vote as a bonus.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (P6QsQ)

123 Is Ace still drunk?  Nice job w/ the early morning posts Drew.

Posted by: prescient11 at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (tVTLU)

124 Did Perry say he wasn't running?

Posted by: Gamma Ray Burst at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (fT3qO)

125 I personally like Geraghty's and alexthechick's idea of a regional-type of primary system.  Or perhaps one in which a group of states in different regions all voted at the same time, but limited to say 10 max states at a time.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (Hvt9o)

126 109 Who? Palin? Ryan? Wise me up. I actually don't follow politics that closely (not a joke).

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:38 PM (+cx5n)


Rick Perry. Scott Walker. Jindal, if his speechifying improves.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (RD7QR)

127 Now with barrel syrup! Posted by: rickb223 at January 27, 2014 01:40 PM (CRyse) that's not syrup........

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 31 days until spring training at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (u8GsB)

128 We clearly have to nominate a black lesbian woman from south of the border to have any chance at 2016.

Is it possible to perform a sex-change operation on yourself?  I'm asking for un amigo.

Posted by: Dr. Ben Carson at January 27, 2014 09:41 AM (9F2c1)

129 /Off, planet-wide Hulk creating sock

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:42 AM (fT3qO)

130 But on the flipside, aside from Scott Walker, who is even in the running for the running who would be even remotely acceptable to most here? I'm still seeing a lot of support for Perry, were he to run again.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:42 AM (PYAXX)

131 Run Thomas Sowell, I'd vote for him. At least we would get someone who knows something about economics.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:42 AM (T2V/1)

132 101 Consequently, the Republicans could nominate a Pet Rock and have a good chance of winning. The mechanism for nominating that Pet Rock are of little interest to me personally. Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:28 PM (+cx5n) I had to check the date on this post because I swear I heard this theory back in 2012. Didn't work out so well then. Posted by: Dandolo I'm one of those folks convinced that Romney actually did win, but vote fraud by the Obama machine in five key states stole the election. In the end, that's what it comes down to: vote fraud. The Dems have turned it into an art, and every presidential election is swayed due to it. because the nation is so evenly split left/right, all it takes is the ability to cheat 3%-ish of the vote in a handful of key states to swing any election. And they do it, every time.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 09:42 AM (+cx5n)

133 There's a theory that "winner take all" works well because it lets a nominee get chosen faster, then everyone can rally behind him sooner. Otherwise, you get more and more resentment and back-biting and disunity. In 2004, that was part of the Democrat's problem- they had proportionality that meant that no one could wrap it up soon enough- the frontrunner at any given time was followed too closely by others for their teams to accept it. Not saying it would give us the best candidate or even a good one, but we'd get *a* candidate to forgive and rally behind sooner. (Personally, I don't really care how its' done, but I'd like both sides to have similar schedules and rules so the timing is less of an issue. Yes, that won't work with an incumbent running, but shut up reasons.)

Posted by: Sam Hill at January 27, 2014 09:42 AM (zgHLA)

134 that's not syrup........ It's Jam.

Posted by: Aunt Pearl at January 27, 2014 09:43 AM (PghX9)

135 For the incurious waddle of blog CBS edits Cruz's remarks for a totally fictitious segment http://tinyurl.com/l7eu3mb

Posted by: Beto at January 27, 2014 09:43 AM (MhA4j)

136 Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 01:41 PM (Hvt9o) Chemjeff, I'd go for that or even one giant national primary in early June rather than letting Iowa and New Hampshire matter.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 09:43 AM (659DL)

137 I think it is utter fucking bullshit that some states get preferential positions in the Election system.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 09:43 AM (bb5+k)

138 You know that's from December, 2011, right?

I should've specified- I was referring to the third link in the post, dated yesterday.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 09:44 AM (SY2Kh)

139 113  With the correct candidate it can work (see Reagan), but with a guy like Santorum, for instance, it is a recipe for failure.Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 01:39 PM (Hvt9o)
Reagan won by running against Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union, neither of which are in play today. Who knows what will work in 2016?


Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 27, 2014 09:44 AM (F75MN)

140 AMNESTY NOW!

Posted by: GOP Sooper Genyuses [/i] [/b] at January 27, 2014 09:44 AM (5ikDv)

141 I'm still seeing a lot of support for Perry, were he to run again.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 01:42 PM (PYAXX)

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

You better wait on that, Allen.   Hollowpoint, JeffB, and jwest haven't given their approvel of Perry.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 09:45 AM (vlwRu)

142 138 Worse than Carter and The Soviet Senate?

Posted by: Beto at January 27, 2014 09:45 AM (MhA4j)

143 Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 01:45 PM (vlwRu) You're right. If they do, I'll have to reconsider.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:45 AM (PYAXX)

144 Reagan won by running against Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union, neither of which are in play today. Who knows what will work in 2016?

I'm referring to Reagan's ability to communicate with people and to sell a conservative message.  He had a real gift.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (Hvt9o)

145 Whatever happened to TPaw?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (fT3qO)

146

I GOT IT !!!

 

We should have all the candidates tally delegates for the first 40 states. The top four candidates will then enter a 10 state Chase, culminating in a winner-take-all primary in Homestead.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (9NDZl)

147

No surprise but I disagree with DrewM  and   his continued bash Republican posts 24/7.    In 2008 and 2012  I thought we had a good cast of  candidates sans McCain.    We got McCain in 2008  partly  because of how the primaries are scheduled.  

 

I've concluded that  one of the   main reasons we did not prevail in 2012  was   that the Paulians and libertarians stayed home or voted for Obama.   DrewMs posts and people like him who rail against the Republicans  24/7  are going to cause a repeat of this.   That said,  he has every right to do this as I have every right to criticize it but don't be surprised when  we get the same result.

 

There is an art to advocating for your position without having to utililize the seek and destroy method.

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (m2CN7)

148 Zombie Reagan/Zombie Coolidge 2016?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (Hvt9o)

149 O/T: Damn, its 68F outside now.   I may have to retire to the porch rocker.  How can it be 68F now have have a snowmageddon tomorrow?

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:46 AM (T2V/1)

150 Reagan won by running against Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union, neither of which are in play today. Who knows what will work in 2016? Reagan won by reigniting a love for country and a hopeful, sunny optimism among voters who might not normally have voted for him. Old, young, black, white, rich, poor...everybody voted for Reagan. You don't win 49 out of 50 states (or 57 in Obama's case) without broad, deep support. And you don't get that kind of historic support just by running against something. Reagan ran for something...the shining city on the hill. We shant see his like again, I'm afraid.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 27, 2014 09:47 AM (7ObY1)

151 All this news about the process  but nothing about who rheinhold has picked as the chosen one?

prince jebward? duke lardington?

Well, the people are waiting.

Posted by: GMB vote for me. I'll give you nothing and make you enjoy it. at January 27, 2014 09:47 AM (nkPV9)

152 Chemjeff, I'd go for that or even one giant national primary in early June rather than letting Iowa and New Hampshire matter. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 27, 2014 01:43 PM (659DL) I dither on the one national primary day idea. I can see the attraction of it but on the other hand I like the idea of winnowing out some contenders. On the other other hand it forces the MSM to attack multiple targets at once since it'll be 50 state polling and who is in the lead and yadda yadda. Thus dithering.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:47 AM (VtjlW)

153 Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 01:46 PM (fT3qO) Who? Oh, yeah. I remember him, I think. Wasn't he the one who...? No. That's someone else. Well wasn't he the one...? No. That's someone else, too...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:47 AM (PYAXX)

154 MOAR Bipartisanship!

Posted by: GOP Sooper Genyuses [/i] [/b] at January 27, 2014 09:48 AM (5ikDv)

155 I'm gonna write-in my pud. I figure whoever wins will be a dick, so I'm throwing my purple helmet into the ring. I expect your support.

Posted by: I'm Beffy's pud, and I approved this message. at January 27, 2014 09:48 AM (bUmSq)

156 I should've specified- I was referring to the third link in the post, dated yesterday. Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 01:44 PM (SY2Kh) Ahhh, got it.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:48 AM (VtjlW)

157 What we need is about three national primaries all on the same day. The bottom 50% get kicked out until you get to the last one then the top two run in it. That will eliminate what the major problem in 2008 was, the Not Romney syndrome. I fear it might also eliminate good candidates who donÂ’t have media support and must build their name more slowly through the process.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 09:49 AM (QF8uk)

158 One national mega-primary only favors the institutional establishment candidates since they already have the networks in place to win.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 09:49 AM (Hvt9o)

159 In the end, that's what it comes down to: vote fraud. The Dems have turned it into an art, and every presidential election is swayed due to it.

because the nation is so evenly split left/right, all it takes is the ability to cheat 3%-ish of the vote in a handful of key states to swing any election. And they do it, every time.

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:42 PM (+cx5n)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

Agree.  All one has to look at are a few  key states that push early voting, absentee voting, and no ID laws.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 09:49 AM (vlwRu)

160 The primary schedule rules don't really apply to me, since New Mexico holds their GOP primary two weeks after the general election.

Posted by: RoadRunner at January 27, 2014 09:50 AM (XrGnJ)

161 I personally like Geraghty's and alexthechick's idea of a regional-type of primary system. Or perhaps one in which a group of states in different regions all voted at the same time, but limited to say 10 max states at a time.

Yeah, but one small problem- the RNC can't force the states to go along with it.

The worst they can do is strip the delegates from a state that doesn't follow RNC rules, at the risk of alienating that state's voters.

That said, yes- the current system where a half dozen states have such an outsized influence does suck.  Iowa can go fuck itself with a dessicated corn cob.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 09:50 AM (SY2Kh)

162 We're not called Idiots Out Walking Around for nothin', ya know

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 09:50 AM (Hvt9o)

163 One thing id like to see from the national GOP if anybody who makes these decisions is even listening anymore is to have debates moderated by people who don't hate you and wish ill upon you. Every election cycle i get really pissed off when I see people like Chris Mathews and Gwen Ifill moderating debates, from the left. They don't ask questions that folks from the right want to know, they ask questions from the left that will get them celebratory shots at the local bar from other left wing journos after its over. Lock those sorry hacks out. Get FOX News moderators or alternative media moderators. I bet we'd see a difference in the type of candidate that gets selected if they were asked questions that were relevant to the base to start with. Im pretty sure this will never happen though cause the GOP is hell bent on being made irrelevant and throwing sand in its base's face as often as it can.

Posted by: JA at January 27, 2014 09:50 AM (QnZBg)

164 156  I fear it might also eliminate good candidates who don�t have media support and must build their name more slowly through the process.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 01:49 PM (QF8uk)



Nothing prevents the unknowns from starting their campaigns two years before the election, which is what they did last time.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 27, 2014 09:51 AM (T2V/1)

165
The earlier the nominee is chosen, the earlier the MFM can start a poundin'.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 27, 2014 09:51 AM (n0DEs)

166 If it's Jeb or Christie I'm writing in Rick Tempest.

Posted by: Adam at January 27, 2014 09:52 AM (Aif/5)

167 Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 01:47 PM (VtjlW) One thing about a national primary is that you cull out many of the under-funded candidates early. That could be good or it could be bad, but the fact is that a lot of candidates simply won't have the money to file in all 50 states on time. That alone would probably drop the contention from 1 Establishment Guy (who has been told by the RNC that it's his turn) vs 5 - 8 "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!" candidates to 1 Establishment Guy vs 1 or 2 more conservative options.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:52 AM (PYAXX)

168 Nothing prevents the unknowns from starting their campaigns two years before the election, which is what they did last time. True, but itÂ’s that much more difficult to force media attention before the process even starts, and before faces start appearing in debates and such.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 09:52 AM (QF8uk)

169

Posted by: JA at January 27, 2014 01:50 PM (QnZBg)

 

I like the idea someone else floated previously.   Have two partisan moderators .  It will be like a direct and cross exam.   

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 09:53 AM (m2CN7)

170 @AllenG, Actually, I have experience here. When MO's governor Vetoed the change in the MO primary rules (it occurs on a default date unless actively changed by legislation) we held our primary election anyway, but the MOGOP didn't accept the results and caucused later in the year to avoid a delegate dock. Oh, said Governor, democrat. He vetoed the bill to specifically set up the problem, and so wasted a bunch of tax payer dollars since the state laws require *A* primary election (but don't force the party to accept the results.) No one called him on it either.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 09:53 AM (GaqMa)

171 "DrewMs posts and people like him who rail against the Republicans 24/7 are going to cause a repeat of this. That said, he has every right to do this as I have every right to criticize it but don't be surprised when we get the same result. There is an art to advocating for your position without having to utililize the seek and destroy method. Sorry, but the Republicans are what's going to cause a repeat of this. Republicans have shown, quite blatantly actually, that they have no problem seeking and destroying on their own side. Perhaps if the GOP was capable of producing results, they might have the leverage to do so.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2014 09:54 AM (fT3qO)

172 Damn lights are blinking. If the fucking power goes off it's gonna get cold in here! Will have to light something on fire!.

People start losing electricity in middle of winter because EPA shut down power generation, somebody better fucdking HANG.

Posted by: Yukin Flambeau at January 27, 2014 09:54 AM (8NlwM)

173 Are we sure the republican party didn't just allow Imperial King Obama to write an executive order to become the nominee himself?

Let's sack up, boys.

Posted by: Fritz at January 27, 2014 09:54 AM (UzPAd)

174 Cocktails of betrayal anyone?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy a Hissy or Coniption, Get a Free Fitting! at January 27, 2014 09:54 AM (hLRSq)

175
That said, yes- the current system where a half dozen states have such an outsized influence does suck. Iowa can go fuck itself with a dessicated corn cob.

GOP Primary Reality TV Show-

"Thunderdome: Alaska"

Reaching out to the LIVs.



Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 27, 2014 09:54 AM (5ikDv)

176 One national mega-primary only favors the institutional establishment candidates since they already have the networks in place to win. Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 01:49 PM (Hvt9o) Okay, let's game this out. Isn't the argument that there are 50 (or 57 whatever) institutional establishments that are in place now? Hence all the discussions about taking over your local and state party apparatus. Thus, instead of having to deal with each state's establishment in a staggered schedule, you'd have to deal with them all simultaneously. I'm not certain how that changes the calculation. Under those conditions, the institutions remain in place, it's only a matter of timing. Here's another random thought, if it goes to a national convention day, wouldn't fund raising have to start basically immediately at the end of the prior election cycle? After all, candidates wouldn't be gaining and losing momentum and donors would have to pick earlier on.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 09:55 AM (VtjlW)

177

116: "What if we got Thomas Sowell, put him in drag, and renamed him Tomaso Sowello?"

 

I'd hit it....I mean I'd vote for it. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at January 27, 2014 09:55 AM (LJpVo)

178 148 O/T: Damn, its 68F outside now. I may have to retire to the porch rocker. How can it be 68F now have have a snowmageddon tomorrow?

Posted by: Vic at January 27, 2014 01:46 PM (T2V/1)


Front's moving through, Vic. SEPA is at 36 degrees now but will be at 5 degrees by midnight. Global warming, dontchaknow.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 09:55 AM (RD7QR)

179 People start losing electricity in middle of winter because EPA shut down power generation, somebody better fucdking HANG.

Posted by: Yukin Flambeau at January 27, 2014 01:54 PM (8NlwM)


Hanging is one way we deal with "people" who dare to complain about Dear Leader's initiatives.

Posted by: EPA with a fresh order of 1B rounds of ammo at January 27, 2014 09:57 AM (tv7DV)

180 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 01:53 PM (GaqMa) Right now every State is vulnerable to that kind of "gaming the system." Well, maybe not Iowa and New Hampshire, but just about everyone else (and only "maybe" not those two). Obviously it's less likely in a Republican dominated state (for that to happen vs Republicans anyway), and somewhat more likely in a Democrat controlled state, but it's something that could happen in any state.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 09:58 AM (PYAXX)

181

Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:42 PM (+cx5n)


I cannot disagree about the cheating.

I think that a better candidate, however, would have won in a landslide. It is possible that I have to positive a view of our country.

Posted by: Dandolo at January 27, 2014 09:58 AM (0XBx+)

182 Are we sure the republican party didn't just allow Imperial King Obama to write an executive order to become the nominee himself?

Let's sack up, boys.

Posted by: Fritz at January 27, 2014 01:54 PM (UzPAd)

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

I am not ruling out the SCOAMT doing a dictated run-around of the Constitution.  No sir.  I'm not.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 09:59 AM (vlwRu)

183 Hillary was all but coronated last time until some unknown came out of the blue and grabbed the torch. Who is to say it won't happen again? The Repubs seem to pick the next in line. Unless this time is different for them.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 27, 2014 10:00 AM (F75MN)

184

I've concluded that one of the main reasons we did not prevail in 2012 wasthat the Paulians and libertarians stayed home or voted for Obama.

 

----------

 

Romney lost because he ran a shitty campaign and the GOP's much-vaunted GOTV failed miserably.

 

There just aren't enough Paulians or Libertarians to swing a national election one way or the other.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:00 AM (PFy0L)

185 31 Ah, yes, because we all know how much that bitter and divisive primary hurt Obama in 2008. Posted by: anon

It did take a toll, and then Lehman Bros collapsed and everyone's 401k's got cut in half when we were in the midst of a financial panic.

It would have been a MUCH closer race had that all happened after the election, but Hillary and Obama banged each other up pretty good.

Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 10:01 AM (+FSBg)

186 Isn't the argument that there are 50 (or 57 whatever) institutional establishments that are in place now? Hence all the discussions about taking over your local and state party apparatus. Thus, instead of having to deal with each state's establishment in a staggered schedule, you'd have to deal with them all simultaneously.

Well the reason why establishment candidates have an easier time in the first place is because they have a network of buddies in the state/local organizations who will work on your behalf and you don't already have to convince or persuade them to choose you as the nominee.  The upstart/grassroots candidates have to develop that network from scratch, as well as overcome the inherent bias in the system for the establishment-type candidates.  That takes time and a lot of work and people have to be paying attention to this sort of thing, which they tend not to do until primary season anyway.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 10:01 AM (Hvt9o)

187 The problem was never the schedule, it was the debates. Whose idea was it to have George Suckinpopolous moderate a Republican debate?

Posted by: Coolpapa at January 27, 2014 10:01 AM (1eFP9)

188 I am not ruling out the SCOAMT doing a dictated run-around of the Constitution. No sir. I'm not. Actually... IF it happens (and it could), it will be (first) via repeal of the 22nd Amendment (if it's going to start happening, we'll start hearing it from "Grass Roots" shortly after the election this year). From there, it'll be like reading newspapers out of Venezuela with "Sweeping New Powers" "voted" to the President every couple of months.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:02 AM (PYAXX)

189 I am not ruling out the SCOAMT doing a dictated run-around of the Constitution. No sir. I'm not. Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 01:59 PM (vlwRu) Since we're all conspiracy theorists now*, does that mean I am allowed to squirt people with vinegar? *ponders* *That's not a slam on you, it's that Insty's right, all that stuff that used to seem tin hatty now seems true. For example, apparently the NSA is spying on people via Angry Birds.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 10:03 AM (VtjlW)

190 National primary.

Everything else is stupid vane bullshit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at January 27, 2014 10:03 AM (cxs6V)

191 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 01:58 PM (PYAXX) Perhaps. My understanding though is that MO is the only state (or one of the few) that has a primary date default instilled in some law/constitution somewhere, which made it easy to fuck with it. Granted, the State of California could, at any time, fuck over the minority of R's that live there too. My point was though, what happens if a state decides to jump in line over the objection of the party within that state (that is, it's not the state party deciding it's the state itself for whatever reason.) At least in our case it was a rejection of the primary results. Which BTW, was also an unmitigated disaster, as the paulbots tried to take over every caucus across the state, leading to massive problems.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 10:03 AM (GaqMa)

192 brb

executiv ordrin my 3rd n 4th terms

Posted by: lolbama [/i] [/b] at January 27, 2014 10:03 AM (5ikDv)

193 Posted by: Regular Moron at January 27, 2014 02:02 PM (oGrEy) If I were Cruz, I'd demand a retraction, apology, and airing of the full segment. He wouldn't get one, of course, but he needs to make it known generally that what was aired was a lie created by the MFM. It helps that he apparently has the full transcript (and video?) himself.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:04 AM (PYAXX)

194 There is no real "next in line" this time though.  Santorum and Gingrich will be laughed off the stage this time.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 10:04 AM (Hvt9o)

195 In the end, that's what it comes down to: vote fraud. The Dems have turned it into an art, and every presidential election is swayed due to it. because the nation is so evenly split left/right, all it takes is the ability to cheat 3%-ish of the vote in a handful of key states to swing any election. And they do it, every time. Posted by: zombie at January 27, 2014 01:42 PM (+cx5n) The worst aspect of vote fraud in our National elections is the deliberate misinformation of the public by one party control of the media. The very first aspect of making an informed decision is having INFORMATION. Skew that, and you skew the votes. That's where it starts. Media misinformation/non-informing.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:04 AM (bb5+k)

196 The Repubs seem to pick the next in line.

Great googly-moogly, look who the runner-up was last time.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2014 10:04 AM (RUvjp)

197 There just aren't enough Paulians or Libertarians to swing a national election one way or the other.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 02:00 PM (PFy0L)

 

Within the swing states there are. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:05 AM (m2CN7)

198 Primaries? Pffffht. Do we have a candidate/person of color/woman who is gay/bi/curious and has media support?

Posted by: Meremortal at January 27, 2014 10:05 AM (1Y+hH)

199 It would have been a MUCH closer race had that all happened after the election, but Hillary and Obama banged each other up pretty good.

Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 02:01 PM (+FSBg)


Please don't use "Hillary", "Obama", and "banged" in the same sentence. Please.

Posted by: joncelli at January 27, 2014 10:06 AM (RD7QR)

200 It helps that he apparently has the full transcript (and video?) himself. Yes, it does. Keep your own audio/video should be engraved on hammer number two for conservative candidates. (Hammer number 1: hypotheticals are a trap.)

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 10:06 AM (QF8uk)

201 *That's not a slam on you, it's that Insty's right, all that stuff that used to seem tin hatty now seems true. For example, apparently the NSA is spying on people via Angry Birds.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 02:03 PM (VtjlW)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

Didn't take it as one.  What seemed totally impossible just a few short years ago, is now a reality.   The times, they are a'changin'.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 10:06 AM (vlwRu)

202 My point was though, what happens if a state decides to jump in line over the objection of the party within that state (that is, it's not the state party deciding it's the state itself for whatever reason.) Which is why I'm not a fan of the Parties telling states when they can, or cannot, have their primaries. Kill that crap with fire. If the Parties want to foot the bill- go ahead. But if the Tax Payers are going to foot the bill, the Republicans and Democrats should just have to accept what the voters of the States say.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:07 AM (PYAXX)

203
Actually... IF it happens (and it could), it will be (first) via repeal of the 22nd Amendment
Posted by: AllenG




Since the amendment process is actually in Article 5, the 2/3 rule should keep that from happening.  Dirty Harry can't just rules of the Senate 50+1 that one.



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2014 10:07 AM (kdS6q)

204 I'm referring to Reagan's ability to communicate with people and to sell a conservative message. He had a real gift. Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 01:46 PM (Hvt9o) One of the reasons we keep getting burned by the left is that "Acting" is in fact, the ability to communicate concepts and ideas to an audience. The left is full of actors, the right not so much. As a result, the left communicates many of their ideas through their art, and they become subconscious memes in the minds of the public.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:07 AM (bb5+k)

205 You proles are powerless against me!

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 10:08 AM (QW+AD)

206 The GOP is dead to me

Posted by: SPAM at January 27, 2014 10:08 AM (vYB+W)

207

Within the swing states there are.

 

----------

 

Again, no.    Sorry, but Romney fucked it up himself.  It wasn't the fault of the Ronulans or their Libertarian cousins. 

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:08 AM (PFy0L)

208 The GOP is dead to me Spam is dead to me.

Posted by: Your cat at January 27, 2014 10:08 AM (QF8uk)

209  There is no real "next in line" this time though. Santorum and Gingrich will be laughed off the stage this time.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 02:04 PM (Hvt9o)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

Just my opinion.  I don't think Gingrich is going to run.

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 10:09 AM (vlwRu)

210 Didn't take it as one. What seemed totally impossible just a few short years ago, is now a reality. The times, they are a'changin'. Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 02:06 PM (vlwRu) There's an interesting thread topic, what previously ridiculous proposition does the Horde now think is likely, if not inevitable? I'll start: 401(k) and other types of retirement account confiscation. I used to eye roll so much my eyes were in the back of my head. Now I'm shocked it hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 10:09 AM (VtjlW)

211 Do you still waste your time voting in  your state primaries if you are not  of my body?  Ha!  What fools!

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 10:09 AM (QW+AD)

212 Since the amendment process is actually in Article 5, the 2/3 rule should keep that from happening. Dirty Harry can't just rules of the Senate 50+1 that one. No, he can't. But I can't shake the feeling that the Dems could do it if they really put their minds to it. Maybe I'm just becoming too cynical (hah- as if that's been possible these last 5 years). I *don't* think SCOAMT would get away with just declaring himself President For Life (or anything like that). He might do it anyway, but I think that's too much, too fast, and at that point steps *would* be taken.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:10 AM (PYAXX)

213

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 02:07 PM (bb5+k)


There is a lot of truth to this.


Communication is more than just having an intelligent message.  Communication also has to do with its mode of delivery and how the message will be interpreted by the audience.  After all, if you say "A" but your audience hears "B", what you *actually* communicated was "B", not "A".

Posted by: chemjeff at January 27, 2014 10:10 AM (Hvt9o)

214 The left is full of actors, the right not so much. As a result, the left communicates many of their ideas through their art, and they become subconscious memes in the minds of the public.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 02:07 PM (bb5+k)


Capture the culture.

Posted by: Theodor Adorno at January 27, 2014 10:10 AM (RD7QR)

215 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 02:07 PM (PYAXX) I don't disagree at all. Although frankly I think whatever causes this whackiness with the MO elections also needs to end. The default needs to be "No primary scheduled." (Local election boards can still schedule elections for local issues, statewide ballot initiatives can either be moved of scheduled via a legislative process.). Then if the Governor wants to pull this shit, he vetoes the bill and...there is no spending of money!

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 10:11 AM (GaqMa)

216 Again, no. Sorry, but Romney fucked it up himself. It wasn't the fault of the Ronulans or their Libertarian cousins.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 02:08 PM (PFy0L)

 

I guess Colorado  legalized pot because of the strong Democrat and Republican support  for  it. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:11 AM (m2CN7)

217 National primary.

Everything else is stupid vane bullshit.

So you'd prefer that the delegate-rich states get all the attention from the candidates? 

Sure, that includes Texas, but also California, New York, Florida and Illinois.  Are those the states you want to see pandered to?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 10:11 AM (SY2Kh)

218 I and I alone have given myself the power  to select your candidate.

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 10:11 AM (QW+AD)

219 Here's another random thought, if it goes to a national convention day, wouldn't fund raising have to start basically immediately at the end of the prior election cycle? After all, candidates wouldn't be gaining and losing momentum and donors would have to pick earlier on. Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 01:55 PM (VtjlW) Does it not anyway?

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:12 AM (bb5+k)

220 186 The problem was never the schedule, it was the debates. Whose idea was it to have George Suckinpopolous moderate a Republican debate? Posted by: Coolpapa at January 27, 2014 02:01 PM (1eFP9) They'll do it again. Guaranteed.

Posted by: RWC at January 27, 2014 10:12 AM (fWAjv)

221 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 02:10 PM (PYAXX) You run Mooch, that's how you get around it. She could even run as "I will be a figurehead for my husband." Technically speaking I don't see anything in the law that would actually prevent either of those things. Moreover, is there an open question about what happens if a 2 term president runs as VP? I don't remember. I thought there was due to some weird wording in 22A, but I haven't looked lately.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 10:13 AM (GaqMa)

222 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 02:11 PM (SY2Kh) The current method isn't working. Though I'll point out it wouldn't have to work that way. Republicans can (and have) won w/o CA,NY, & NL, and the Republican candidates are going to pander to TX & FL anyway.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:13 AM (PYAXX)

223 Since the amendment process is actually in Article 5, the 2/3 rule should keep that from happening. Dirty Harry can't just rules of the Senate 50+1 that one.



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2014 02:07 PM (kdS6q)

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

Three more years, people.  What makes you think the Constitution will have any control over how business will be done in DC  by presidential election time?

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 10:13 AM (vlwRu)

224 I just love it how the NRCC dictates, "This is the way it's going to be" without bothering to ask squat-all from the people they're constantly begging for funds from. You will do things our way and like it, thank you very much.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 27, 2014 10:13 AM (pginn)

225

I guess Colorado legalized pot because of the strong Democrat and Republican support for it.

 

-----------

 

That's your argument?!

 

Just wow.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:14 AM (PFy0L)

226 I'm not voting for moderate slush because it's his/her turn again. Pick such a loser at your peril. 'If you don't want pass up your squish to save the country then don't expect me to hold my breath and save it for you.

Posted by: cackfinger at January 27, 2014 10:14 AM (OsCtd)

227 Repeal the 22nd Amendment?  Nah, I've already golfed at all the good courses in the DC area.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 27, 2014 10:14 AM (9F2c1)

228 30 The primary was a big reason Romney couldn't close the deal, it was almost designed by Democrats.

Bull ca-ca. The primary reason Romney couldn't close the deal is that he *wouldn't.* He wouldn't call Obama bad for the country- he would call him "dangerously inept." Indeed, with the exception of the first debate, he almost seemed like he was afraid to attack him at all.

People don't vote for policies- they vote for candidates. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It.

There were several reasons why Obama won, but I fail to see how you can say our last primary was anything but bad for our eventual candidate.  We came within a hair of a brokered convention despite the fact that when tallying the actual votes, it wasn't even close.

"Red on Red" violence over an extended period of time is not good for the eventual winner, especially since it wasn't policy differences they were fighting over, but nonsense like tax returns. 

It's not the only reason Romney lost, but a $100 million or so in extra cash would have been really helpful in swing states like VA, OH, and FL.  And the eventual winner lost months of fundraising for a general.

Some conservatives were so bitter that Romney won, they'll actually defend the process that almost took our primary to a floor fight.

I'm glad the RNC changed the rules, Michael Steele was a moron to think a bitter , drawn out primary would help the eventual candidate.

Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 10:14 AM (+FSBg)

229 That's your argument?!

Just wow.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 02:14 PM (PFy0L)

 

Well compared to your 'just no'  argument its a winner.  Dick.

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:15 AM (m2CN7)

230 *That's not a slam on you, it's that Insty's right, all that stuff that used to seem tin hatty now seems true. For example, apparently the NSA is spying on people via Angry Birds. Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 02:03 PM (VtjlW) Have we yet reached the point where it's safe to ask about Obama's birth certificate?

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:15 AM (bb5+k)

231 As it  has always  been, since some  unknown force  made it so in  1972, I am the Decider!

Posted by: Iowa at January 27, 2014 10:17 AM (QW+AD)

232 I guess Colorado legalized pot because of the strong Democrat and Republican support for it. Colorado 2012 presidential results: 51.2% Barack Obama 46.5% Mitt Romney 2.3% Everyone else, including Libertarians If everyone else had voted Romney, it would still not have “turned the election”. Also, it was a popular initiative with popular support (it got better than Barack Obama by 4%, at 55.32%). Ceding the end of the war on marijuana to Democrats is going to be a major mistake for conservatives.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 10:17 AM (QF8uk)

233

That's not a slam on you, it's that Insty's right, all that stuff that used to seem tin hatty now seems true. For example, apparently the NSA is spying on people via Angry Birds.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 02:03 PM (VtjlW)

My conspiracy theory is that before the next three years are up,  two conservative SC Justices will no longer be with us.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:17 AM (m2CN7)

234

211: "There's an interesting thread topic, what previously ridiculous proposition does the Horde now think is likely, if not inevitable?"

 

Black helicopters. 

 

Replaced by black MRAPs given out like candy to a militarized police force. Different only in operation, not in application.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at January 27, 2014 10:18 AM (v6cwT)

235 Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 02:14 PM (+FSBg) By all accounts, Romney had plenty of money. He could have spent it much more wisely than he did. He also could have, I dunno, called the SCOAMT a SCOAMT (not in those words, of course). As for the "bitter, drawn out primary" again I call bull. By the time the convention came around, everyone had more-or-less pulled together. By the first debate, Romney was clobbering TFG. Romney was the one who didn't seal the deal. Romney was the one who couldn't close. Romney was the one responsible for Romney losing.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:18 AM (PYAXX)

236 The Dems don't need Obama anymore and he will be thrown away like a used tissue. He has done his work successfully and Hillary can carry on from here. And the R's have no one who can come within 5% of catching her.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 27, 2014 10:18 AM (1Y+hH)

237 I'll start: 401(k) and other types of retirement account confiscation. I used to eye roll so much my eyes were in the back of my head. Now I'm shocked it hasn't happened yet. Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 02:09 PM (VtjlW) I think they already tried that in Poland. People said it wouldn't happen, but there it is.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:19 AM (bb5+k)

238 Have we yet reached the point where it's safe to ask about Obama's birth certificate? Possibly. On the radio this morning they had a list of TFG's "accomplishments." One of them was, "First president to apply to college as a foreigner and then deny being a foreigner."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:19 AM (PYAXX)

239

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 27, 2014 02:17 PM (QF8uk)

 

You don't think part of that 51% included identified  libertarians?

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:19 AM (m2CN7)

240 Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 02:19 PM (bb5+k) I see that one as well as merely declaring the end of SS for anyone under age X, but keeping the SS payroll tax.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 27, 2014 10:20 AM (GaqMa)

241
There is this old conspiracy about "red" money (not commie, the color) that I now find at least semi-plausible.  Its basically a week long shutdown of the banking system, and a devaluation of currency and a switch to red colored money.  The rest is worthless unless you turn it in.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 27, 2014 10:21 AM (n0DEs)

242

Well compared to your 'just no' argument its a winner. Dick.

 

-----------

 

LOL.

 

Obama won Colorado 51.49% to Romney's 46.13%.  The Libertarians only cast 36k votes out of over 2.5 million, nowhere near enough to tip the scales. 

 

In the primaries, Paul ran  fourth to Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich.  Santorum won with 40.3%. 

 

The numbers don't support your argument.  Plus, your average dopehead isn't regularly voting anyway, so if anything numbers are inflated.

 

That better for you, Richard? 

 

Simple fact is that Romney's loss is square at his doorstep, not some sinister outside forces.  Ronulan influence has *always* been outsized in comparison to their actual numbers and the Ronulan/Libertarian sect in this country just didn't have the actual number to do anything to swing the election. 

 

Sorry. 

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:22 AM (PFy0L)

243 Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 02:19 PM (m2CN7) Considering there was a Libertarian candidate for President, that's a fairly disingenuous argument. Might some of them claim to be Libertarian? Sure. But they *voted* Democrat. You don't get to say, "We lost because of Libertarians and Paulians" and then point to the Democrat vote total.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:22 AM (PYAXX)

244 Capture the culture. Posted by: Theodor Adorno at January 27, 2014 02:10 PM (RD7QR) Ever hear of "Will and Grace" or perhaps "Glee"? Beyond being merely entertainment, these shows deliberately pushed a culture meme.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:22 AM (bb5+k)

245

You don't think part of that 51% included identified libertarians?

 

-------------

 

OK, what  precise  percentage of Obama's vote consisted of identified Libertarians?

 

Or are you trying to use the "jobs created or saved" gambit?

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:23 AM (PFy0L)

246

Pulled together my ass.   People   proclaiming daily that you will hold  their  nose and vote for Romney is not exactly pulling together.    I'm surprised they didn't  put that on a bumpersticker.   

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:23 AM (m2CN7)

247 Ever hear of "Will and Grace" or perhaps "Glee"? Or that old classic- Murphy Brown.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:23 AM (PYAXX)

248
is there an open question about what happens if a 2 term president runs as VP?
Posted by: tsrblke




Potential conflict with the 12th Amendment, but it's mostly an extra credit polisci essay question than a real world problem.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2014 10:24 AM (kdS6q)

249 I guess Colorado legalized pot because of the strong Democrat and Republican support for it. Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 02:11 PM (m2CN7) I'm betting it was because of the massive number of Rich Californians who having left the nest they soiled, have now proceeded to soil their new nest.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:25 AM (bb5+k)

250 "Colorado 2012 presidential results: 51.2% Barack Obama 46.5% Mitt Romney 2.3% Everyone else, including Libertarians If everyone else had voted Romney, it would still not have “turned the election”. " If they had something better to vote for than Romney more probably would have turned out to vote. Romney was easy to sit at home for.

Posted by: cackfinger at January 27, 2014 10:25 AM (OsCtd)

251 So you'd prefer that the delegate-rich states get all the attention from the candidates? Sure, that includes Texas, but also California, New York, Florida and Illinois. Are those the states you want to see pandered to? Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 27, 2014 02:11 PM (SY2Kh) Rotating primary schedule. Every state gets to be first at some point.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:26 AM (bb5+k)

252 Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 02:23 PM (m2CN7) Well, it might have helped if Romney had done more to consolidate the base. But, yes, pulled together. I was unaware you even had a donkey. When you have people like me and Drew both trying to gin up enthusiasm for Romney, you can't really complain about some nebulous group "holding their nose and voting for Romney." Yeah, a lot of us started that way- but once the convention came around, we were "good little soldiers" and did the best we could with what we had. The fault lies with Romney.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 10:26 AM (PYAXX)

253 There is this old conspiracy about "red" money (not commie, the color) that I now find at least semi-plausible. Its basically a week long shutdown of the banking system, and a devaluation of currency and a switch to red colored money. The rest is worthless unless you turn it in. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 27, 2014 02:21 PM (n0DEs) I'd forgotten about that one. Also nood.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 10:26 AM (VtjlW)

254 Why did anyone need to vote for Romney anyway? He was inevitable. He practically elects himself. He won't scare off the moderates and the independents like the socons would. It's SMART how he doesn't go after Obama like those tea party nuts want. Ooops.

Posted by: cackfinger at January 27, 2014 10:27 AM (OsCtd)

255
Colorado had some huge number of counted "fake" votes that were discovered a few months after the election.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 27, 2014 10:27 AM (n0DEs)

256 55.2% voted for the pot measure which was 4% higher than the percentage Obama got in CO.     That means a lot of votes were left on the table. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 27, 2014 10:27 AM (m2CN7)

257
OK, what precise percentage of Obama's vote consisted of identified Libertarians?
Posted by: @JohnTant



FWIW -- from the tokers at Cato:

Libertarians supported John McCain over Barack Obama by 71 to 27 percent

The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama
David Kirby and David Boaz

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2014 10:29 AM (kdS6q)

258 I like the new calender, it allows me to get back to watching sports sooner after Ace's "No Southerner, No Christian" centrist candidate gets selected to lose to Hillary.

Posted by: Malcolm Tent at January 27, 2014 10:29 AM (2k3Qc)

259

55.2% voted for the pot measure which was 4% higher than the percentage Obama got in CO. That means a lot of votes were left on the table.

 

---------

 

You're stealing at least one base there, in that a portion of those voters were/are single issue who wouldn't vote for either candidate. 

 

Simply put, the math doesn't support your assertion, especially in a state where, when R voters had the chance, overwhemingly chose Santorum over Ron Paul.

 

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 27, 2014 10:30 AM (PFy0L)

260 >>Bull ca-ca. The primary reason Romney couldn't close the deal is that he *wouldn't.* He wouldn't call Obama bad for the country- he would call him "dangerously inept." Indeed, with the exception of the first debate, he almost seemed like he was afraid to attack him at all. Thats absurd. The idea that there was a national yearning for our nominee to sound like a blogger is ridiculous. Any Republican is going to have an extremely difficult uphill battle running against any Dem given that the media stacks the deck for them and we are now a nation that is 50% takers. Put incumbency on top of that and Obama was a lot less vulnerable than the "experts" like to pretend he was. Whenever Romney did go after Obama, and he did plenty, the media was there to cover for Obama just like Crowley did with Benghazi. They allowed Obama to slime him as a murdering, tax cheat and even went back to Romney's high school days to dig up "dirt" (ooh he was a bully in high school) and misrepresented what he did in private equity which went over with lots of LIV and Newt and Perry voters to a certain degree. The long drawn out primary hurt Romney because he was forced to spend primary money to fight off Newt and Santorum long after it was obvious they were done but refused to drop out. Romney couldn't even spend money against Obama until after the convention while Obama had a year to go after him non-stop and define him as rich plutocrat who wanted to kill people with his scary Mormon rays. Get the primary over early. There is absolutely no reason to allow our candidates to beat the shit out of each other for a year while Hillary runs unopposed. Stupid.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 27, 2014 10:30 AM (g1DWB)

261 Can't speak for Colorado, but  John Morgan,  a  POS  liberal lawyer  down here in Florida is trying to get  "Medical Marijuana" on the ballot this year.  His goal is to have  an even bigger  POS,  Charlie Crist  "declare his support"  and try to get all the dopers out to vote for him.   In a "purple" state like Florida it   might  be enough to  work.   

Posted by: Honest Lib at January 27, 2014 10:31 AM (wFGr5)

262

One of the main foci in the last election with the population was Ocare.  It's why the repubs won so big in 2010.   Romney held no moral high gound when it came to Ocare with his MA  sellout.

 

I'm also not disregarding the repub leadership on it's almost total inaction on Ocare.  Or I should say, it's seeming support  for Ocare.

 

Repubs pretty well burnt out much of the enthusiasm that it had in 2010.  (And they're still burning it)

Posted by: Soona at January 27, 2014 10:31 AM (vlwRu)

263 Possibly. On the radio this morning they had a list of TFG's "accomplishments." One of them was, "First president to apply to college as a foreigner and then deny being a foreigner." Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 27, 2014 02:19 PM (PYAXX) There was an interesting article on American Thinker the other day in which further support for the Lolo Soetero Adoption theory was produced. I personally think an Adoption by Lolo Soetero is where all the trouble began for Obama's birth certificate. Once an adoption occurs the original is sealed by court order, and cannot be unsealed except by court order to do so. All the state can do is produce a replacement document which is designed to resemble an original.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 27, 2014 10:33 AM (bb5+k)

264 236 Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 02:14 PM (+FSBg)

By all accounts, Romney had plenty of money. He could have spent it much more wisely than he did. He also could have, I dunno, called the SCOAMT a SCOAMT (not in those words, of course).

As for the "bitter, drawn out primary" again I call bull. By the time the convention came around, everyone had more-or-less pulled together. By the first debate, Romney was clobbering TFG.

Romney was the one who didn't seal the deal. Romney was the one who couldn't close. Romney was the one responsible for Romney losing. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It.

What does that mean, "plenty of money"?  It wasn't more than Obama got to spend, so no, it wasn't "plenty".  And $100 million extra makes a BIG difference, it can move the needle.

The primary was bad for Republicans, period.  The RNC overwhelming agreed and made the change.  The only thing a long, drawn out primary is good for is vanity candidates who are trying to get TV and book deals.

I actually blame the voters more than I blame Romney.  If anyone stayed home because he wasn't "nasty" enough with Obama, that's on them.  He layed out a case, said he was going to repeal ObamaCare on Day 1, smoked Obama in the debate, and had zero skeletons in his closet.  Romney won independents by double digits, it's our idiots that stayed at home, and I think much of that was due in part to a bitter primary.

Had the same Republicans that showed up for Bush in 2004 showed up in 2012, Romney would have won a landslide.  When someone sits out an election, it's hard for me to blame anyone but them.

Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 10:35 AM (+FSBg)

265 222 You run Mooch, that's how you get around it. I've been saying this for quite a while. It's the simplest logical explanation for why the Obama campaign apparatus has been maintained - and even strengthened - after the 2012 election. Easy peasy. No 22A violation at all. And the fraud machine is still in place. #winning

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at January 27, 2014 10:40 AM (+8Yuj)

266 It would help if the early States had a history of actually going for the Republican nominee in the general election. 

Iowa has gone Democrat in 6 of the last 7 elections.  Nevada - 4 of the last 6.  New Hampshire - 5 of the last 6. 

How about we let South Carolina (R back to 1980) along with South Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming (all voting for the Republican in the general to back at least to 1976) decide?

Makes more sense than letting Democrat States get first kick at the cat on who the Republican nominee should be.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at January 27, 2014 10:44 AM (MNXL5)

267 Actually all go back to 1968.  46 years of voting Republican.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at January 27, 2014 10:48 AM (MNXL5)

268 I'll start: 401(k) and other types of retirement account confiscation. I used to eye roll so much my eyes were in the back of my head. Now I'm shocked it hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: alexthechick - Please SMOD. Just for me? at January 27, 2014 02:09 PM (VtjlW)

===========================================


Probably be part of Hillary's 1st SOTU address. And I, too, am surprised that it hasn't been attempted yet. But it's coming.

Posted by: physics geek at January 27, 2014 10:50 AM (MT22W)

269 The question is, will the top tier candidates feel compelled to show up too? My guess is they won't at first but if someone starts getting traction through the unsanctioned debates, all bets will be off. This is not a problem. If some outfit hosting the debate insists on a moderator with an iffy reputation, call it off.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 27, 2014 10:53 AM (itCai)

270 Ha! The GOP will lose in a fucking landslide.

Posted by: Bob Dole's Petrified Wood at January 27, 2014 11:58 AM (Cs2tJ)

271 I could understand a long drawn out fight if there was top tier talent duking it out, but the fact that our Party was seriously considering the likes of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich as viable contenders for the White House was an embarrassment. If Romney was not your ideal candidate, fine, but "Not Romney" was not a real person. Posted by: McAdams at January 27, 2014 01:17 PM (+FSBg) =========== I want a "None of the above" option *ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT*. . I went to the trouble of registering Republican so I can vote in the primary, if they keep sending me a choice of yellow or brown shit to eat, I should be able to complain about it *effectively*. Mew

Posted by: acat at January 27, 2014 12:28 PM (4UkCP)

272 Lotteries for primary schedules. Seriously New Hampshire matters how? Does anyone even live there? BUT the biggest thing we need is a constutional amendment mandating an immediate transition of power after elections, like they do in Britain. Lame duck sessions only if it is a matter of war. So the losers can no longer sell us out. Losers voting is how we got Obamacare, and the mad nasties are going to sell us out on amnesty soon.

Posted by: Palooka at January 27, 2014 12:45 PM (Z7njD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
231kb generated in CPU 0.1526, elapsed 0.3004 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2618 seconds, 400 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 12130
  • Files: 155
  • Bytes: 259.0M
  • CPU Time: 9:58
  • Queries: 302706

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0