lakeview
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2013
- 567
- 83
The GOP was not the incumbent party during the last election ... Therefore the selection process for candidates was a little different than when you have a sitting President.
There were also a plethora of candidates seeking the nomination ... And the primaries selected Mitt Romney.
There were a few choices I would have preferred over Mitt Romney ... But that is neither here nor there ... They were not available on the ticket in November due to the fact they didn't win enough support in the primaries.
The GOP didn't choose Romney out of the pack ... Republican voters in states with closed primaries did ... In states without closed primaries, whoever pulled the switch chose.
.
You make an interesting point about the primaries but I'm not sure the primary results in Romney's case were earned. The Michigan primary was right before Super Tuesday and much was made of it nationally because Romney is from here and his father had been Governor of Michigan. Romney did not win the primary, Santorum won it...at least according to the rules which had been laid out before the primary. After the fact two at-large electors were awarded to Romney which should have been split with Santorum but the rules were changed after the primary. The co-campaign chairs for Romney in Michigan were the sitting Secretary of State and the sitting Attorney General so the two people who were in charge of identifying and prosecuting misconduct in elections were themselves the ones guilty of it, huge conflict of interest and should have been a major talking point even if nothing unsavory had occurred. If Romney had failed to win his home state I think that definitely would have impacted the Super Tuesday results.
I personally would rather get rid of primaries. Parties should just run the candidate they prefer and stop trying to "blood in" the electorate when it comes to poor choices.