The conventional wisdom of Jeb being too moderate to be nominated

[jwoodie]

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Originally, Presidential Electors were selected by State Legislatures. This became corrupted by gerrymandering legislative districts, among other things. In terms of primaries, perhaps States should adopt an "instant runoff" system where voters' second and third choices are counted if their first choice does not receive enough votes. This would encourage people to vote for candidates rather than against candidates and lessen the halo effect conferred on candidates who are leading in the polls.

 

[PratchettFan]

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

Yeah. I think it is a good idea. We elect representatives to enact laws for us. We elect delegates to select candidates. In both cases, we should elect them and let them do their job. Presumably, they have more time and information to make informed decisions. It may not be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the circus we have now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Letting Dems pick our candidates in 2008 and 2012 sure worked out well for the country

Most primaries for the GOP were for Republicans only, my reactionary far right buddy.

Your type of candidate -- reactionaries such as Santorum, Cain, Carson, Trump, Palin, Bachman, and so forth -- are simply unacceptable to the center and right of center voter.

Now a Kasich or a Walker or a Paul may be a different matter.

You need to think realistically, which you do not do often enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupidest statement of the day: "any republican can beat Hillary."

None of the far right reactionary candidates would get 43% of the vote.

 

[bendog]

Letting Dems pick our candidates in 2008 and 2012 sure worked out well for the country

Most primaries for the GOP were for Republicans only, my reactionary far right buddy.

Your type of candidate -- reactionaries such as Santorum, Cain, Carson, Trump, Palin, Bachman, and so forth -- are simply unacceptable to the center and right of center voter.

Now a Kasich or a Walker or a Paul may be a different matter.

You need to think realistically, which you do not do often enough.

but, either we capture more of the minority vote than W did in 1988 (and he lost the majority vote) or it will take some implosion by the dems of a magnitude like on October 15th finding Slick in bed with teenage female hooker.

 

[OKTexas]

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

Yeah. I think it is a good idea. We elect representatives to enact laws for us. We elect delegates to select candidates. In both cases, we should elect them and let them do their job. Presumably, they have more time and information to make informed decisions. It may not be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the circus we have now.

How do you elect delegates if there is no primary? Wouldn't they just be party appointees with no allegiances, except to those that appointed them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Letting Dems pick our candidates in 2008 and 2012 sure worked out well for the country

Most primaries for the GOP were for Republicans only, my reactionary far right buddy.

Your type of candidate -- reactionaries such as Santorum, Cain, Carson, Trump, Palin, Bachman, and so forth -- are simply unacceptable to the center and right of center voter.

Now a Kasich or a Walker or a Paul may be a different matter.

You need to think realistically, which you do not do often enough.

We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives who will hopefully seek the nomination. My favorite is Palin because she's battle tested and has withstood the most massive Progressive Jihad anyone ever faced-- and she come out laughing at them. Walker is a close second for the same reason.

We need a new Coolidge, not an old Bush

 

[JakeStarkey]

Letting Dems pick our candidates in 2008 and 2012 sure worked out well for the country

Most primaries for the GOP were for Republicans only, my reactionary far right buddy.

Your type of candidate -- reactionaries such as Santorum, Cain, Carson, Trump, Palin, Bachman, and so forth -- are simply unacceptable to the center and right of center voter.

Now a Kasich or a Walker or a Paul may be a different matter.

You need to think realistically, which you do not do often enough.

but, either we capture more of the minority vote than W did in 1988 (and he lost the majority vote) or it will take some implosion by the dems of a magnitude like on October 15th finding Slick in bed with teenage female hooker.

We did get more of the female and minority vote in 2014. Let's keeping reaching to those folks, and we will have a good chance to take the WH, keep the House, and hopefully retain the Senate.

 

[bendog]

Palin might be strangely effective in reducing Hillary to tears of laughter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

 

[bendog]

Letting Dems pick our candidates in 2008 and 2012 sure worked out well for the country

Most primaries for the GOP were for Republicans only, my reactionary far right buddy.

Your type of candidate -- reactionaries such as Santorum, Cain, Carson, Trump, Palin, Bachman, and so forth -- are simply unacceptable to the center and right of center voter.

Now a Kasich or a Walker or a Paul may be a different matter.

You need to think realistically, which you do not do often enough.

but, either we capture more of the minority vote than W did in 1988 (and he lost the majority vote) or it will take some implosion by the dems of a magnitude like on October 15th finding Slick in bed with teenage female hooker.

We did get more of the female and minority vote in 2014. Let's keeping reaching to those folks, and we will have a good chance to take the WH, keep the House, and hopefully retain the Senate.

I must be missing out on how the gop is reaching out.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

Yeah. I think it is a good idea. We elect representatives to enact laws for us. We elect delegates to select candidates. In both cases, we should elect them and let them do their job. Presumably, they have more time and information to make informed decisions. It may not be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the circus we have now.

How do you elect delegates if there is no primary? Wouldn't they just be party appointees with no allegiances, except to those that appointed them?

How do you elect them now? Personally, I have no problem at all with them being party appointees. The whole point of having a party is that the party puts up a candidate. Why do we need pre-election elections at all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

In your dreams.

Rand Paul went to Stanford and the NAACP and came away with their respect and the support of many.

A true Conservative would win 55, 56 of our 57 states

 

[OKTexas]

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

Yeah. I think it is a good idea. We elect representatives to enact laws for us. We elect delegates to select candidates. In both cases, we should elect them and let them do their job. Presumably, they have more time and information to make informed decisions. It may not be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the circus we have now.

How do you elect delegates if there is no primary? Wouldn't they just be party appointees with no allegiances, except to those that appointed them?

How do you elect them now? Personally, I have no problem at all with them being party appointees. The whole point of having a party is that the party puts up a candidate. Why do we need pre-election elections at all?

I don't know about you but I don't want many of the current establishment republicans or dems making those appointments.

 

[PratchettFan]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

In your dreams.

Rand Paul went to Stanford and the NAACP and came away with their respect and the support of many.

A true Conservative would win 55, 56 of our 57 states

That depends upon your definition of true Conservative. I tend to agree with you, but I am a Goldwater conservative and thus labeled a RINO.

 

[PratchettFan]

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

Yeah. I think it is a good idea. We elect representatives to enact laws for us. We elect delegates to select candidates. In both cases, we should elect them and let them do their job. Presumably, they have more time and information to make informed decisions. It may not be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the circus we have now.

How do you elect delegates if there is no primary? Wouldn't they just be party appointees with no allegiances, except to those that appointed them?

How do you elect them now? Personally, I have no problem at all with them being party appointees. The whole point of having a party is that the party puts up a candidate. Why do we need pre-election elections at all?

I don't know about you but I don't want many of the current establishment republicans or dems making those appointments.

They already make the appointments. These are party decisions no matter what you do. I am suggesting that once the appointments are made the delegates act independently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

In your dreams. Rand Paul went to Stanford and the NAACP and came away with their respect and the support of many.

A true Conservative would win 55, 56 of our 57 states

Paul is not a wacky far right reactionary conservative like Cruz, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, etc. Those are losers, period, with America. Hillary or Warren would skip all the way to victory, never ever break a sweat.

Paul, Kasich, Walker, etc., are possibilities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

In your dreams. Rand Paul went to Stanford and the NAACP and came away with their respect and the support of many.

A true Conservative would win 55, 56 of our 57 states

Paul is not a wacky far right reactionary conservative like Cruz, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, etc. Those are losers, period, with America. Hillary or Warren would skip all the way to victory, never ever break a sweat.

Paul, Kasich, Walker, etc., are possibilities.

Warren will get the Indian vote.

Fer Shure

 

[LordBrownTrout]

May be false conventional wisdom. Personally, I didn't put any stock in the 2008 election because W was so bad that even a guy named Barack Hussein Obama won after beating Hill in the primary largely on her vote for the Iraq War (she didn't actually vote to invade on the grounds W invaded, but she didn't have a profile in courage moment on the invasion either.) Further, McCain had the nomination because he stood in line for it, and pretty much sacrificed his manhood doing so.

Then in 2012, Romney did everything he could think of to alienate moderate republicans, and then the very right decried he didn't run right enough, even though he took all the very very red states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/u...of-blue-state-republicans.html?abt=0002&abg=1

It's still too early to tell. I personally don't think Clinton is a shoe-in, so it going to come down to who the candidates are. If the Republicans back off of the primaries and give more power to the convention, I think they can field someone who can win. However, if the candidate has to appeal to the far right of the party (which they do to win the primaries), they will either alienate the middle to make them vote dem or just stay home. In which case, we will have another dem for president pretty much no matter who the candidate is.

Exactly. If the gop has to nominate a candidate who panders to the tea party, or those who want to end govt sponsored mammograms, cut education, and do vague and incomprehensible things to other entitlements while not touching old white people, then they cannot win a national election. But, my question is whether a candidate can be nominated while supporting immigration reform and common core? The link appears to support that moderate gop primary voters in blue states comprise at least 40% of primary voters. Can he get 15% of the rest?

McCain and Romney were both moderates and lost. I see Jeb being trounced if he makes it past the primaries.

 

[bendog]

"We have a Murderer's Row of talented Conservatives" of the Palin type who would not get 43% of the popular vote.

In your dreams. Rand Paul went to Stanford and the NAACP and came away with their respect and the support of many.

A true Conservative would win 55, 56 of our 57 states

Paul is not a wacky far right reactionary conservative like Cruz, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, etc. Those are losers, period, with America. Hillary or Warren would skip all the way to victory, never ever break a sweat.

Paul, Kasich, Walker, etc., are possibilities.

I think Walker has walked himself into being a divider, and that's poison. Paul and Kasich have talent. I've read that Paul didn't convince Adelson of his bona fides as a Zionist, so Adelson may fund efforts to torpedo him.

I'm trying to think of the last time a guy won the gop nominaton without sewing up the party leaders, wall street and the money before primary season, and I think it was Reagan. That's why imo BushIII may be inevitable.