Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Quit making sense.

With my poor grammar, atrocious sentence structure, and sparse punctuation don't you think I'm trying?

[Bigun]

The GOPe does not pick the candidates.  The candidates pick themselves, and the primary voters pick the nominee.  If hard right conservatism was popular with Republicans then the candidate would be hard right.  The GOP leadership just reflects the reality that conservatism is not that popular outside of talk radio.

That being said, we have never had a more conservative Congress in my lifetime.  You should be happy that voters have chosen huge Republican majorities from Congress down to state legislatures, but you instead choose to elevate the GOPe to an omnipotent political juggernaut that you are pitifully unable to influence. 

When the most extreme wing of conservatism leaves the GOP, it will force the GOP to move left to win a majority.  Hard right conservative self deportation allows moderates to then perceive the GOP as an acceptable party to support.  It does seem like the conservatives want to lose for some reason.

And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.

Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!

[Luis Gonzalez]

And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.

Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!

In one sentence you call the system rigged and unfair toward conservatives and in the very next one you claim that Republican victories are conservative wins.

[MACVSOG68]

And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.

Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!

What is more fair than anyone wanting to run for office can do so?  Conservatives have always been in Congress and in state legislatures.  Even today the largest caucus in Congress is the Republican Study Committee, conservative by any definition. 

[Bigun]

In one sentence you call the system rigged and unfair toward conservatives and in the very next one you claim that Republican victories are conservative wins.

That's because the PRESIDENTIAL nominating process and congressional and state legislative elections are VERY different things!

[Bigun]

What is more fair than anyone wanting to run for office can do so?  Conservatives have always been in Congress and in state legislatures.  Even today the largest caucus in Congress is the Republican Study Committee, conservative by any definition.

Nothing wrong with the first part but the process under which that happens is hugely flawed IMHO!

[MACVSOG68]

Nothing wrong with the first part but the process under which that happens is hugely flawed IMHO!

Well, there are GOP candidates running representing every faction of the GOP, including the libertarian faction.  If anyone could complain about a stacked deck it would be the Dems.  I know some don't like open primaries, but only one of the early states is open.  Some would like the primaries all to be held on the same date.  In the end though, it's still a popularity contest, money is the driver, and I have no reason to believe at the end of the day, the result would be any different.  You may have evidence to the contrary.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's because the PRESIDENTIAL nominating process and congressional and state legislative elections are VERY different things!

No, it's because you want to fluctuate your argument to suit your preconceived notion that conservatives don't win because the system is rigged against them, so you would have us believe that (once elected) the conservatives who win at the State level and become the people charged with setting up and running State Presidential primaries, turn around and rig those Primaries against conservatives. 

Is that about right?

[Bigun]

No, it's because you want to fluctuate your argument to suit your preconceived notion that conservatives don't win because the system is rigged against them, so you would have us believe that (once elected) the conservatives who win at the State level and become the people charged with setting up and running State Presidential primaries, turn around and rig those Primaries against conservatives. 

Is that about right?

NO it isn't about right! Not even close to right!  The party establishment sets up the primary process NOT the legislatures of the several states.

[Luis Gonzalez]

NO it isn't about right! Not even close to right!  The party establishment sets up the primary process NOT the legislatures of the several states.

So then, how does the establishment stop voters from voting for conservatives at the State primaries?

[Bigun]

So then, how does the establishment stop voters from voting for conservatives at the State primaries?

They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.

Everything is someone else's fault, isn't it Bigun?

[Bigun]

Everything is someone else's fault, isn't it Bigun?

It has nothing to do with fault and you damned well know that!

[Luis Gonzalez]

It has nothing to do with fault and you damned well know that!

You're blaming the GOP for scheduling primaries in a way that they puts conservatives at a disadvantage, or maybe for not scheduling them in a way that gives an advantage to conservatives. Either way, whatever or whichever way you say it, what you say over and over in this forum is that conservatives can't win because the GOP won't let them.

That's placing fault (or making an excuse) for the conservatives' inability to win national primaries on the fact that the winning party, well... wins.
 
If conservatives were truly as strong as you claim that they are, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

[truth_seeker]

Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial.  Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."

[mystery-ak]

Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial.  Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."

That's good to know....never thought of myself as a victim..

[240B]

Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial.  Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."

That is an absolutely perfect description of Obama and Michelle. That is exactly what they are and what they do. They must be some kind of super-Conservatives.

Me? A victim? Yea, I guess I can see that. We are all victims of Liberalism.
The difference is that when I feel like a victim I do not hire Al Sharpton and his goons to burn down businesses and kill Jews, like some people do.

[Bigun]

That is an absolutely perfect description of Obama and Michelle. That is exactly what they are and what they do. They must be some kind of super-Conservatives.

Me? A victim? Yea, I guess I can see that. We are all victims of Liberalism.
The difference is that when I feel like a victim I do not hire Al Sharpton and his goons to burn down businesses and kill Jews, like some people do.

And anyone who thinks that there isn't PLENTY of liberalism to go around in the Republican party is delusional as well!

[Bigun]

Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial.  Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."

You call it whatever you like!

For me it is having actually been IN the game long enough to finally figure out how it's played!

[MACVSOG68]

They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.

As you pointed out earlier, I'm slow on the uptake, but I don't follow.  In 2012 the early state primaries were pretty well split among four candidates.  Yes, by Super Tuesday it was all Romney.  At least in the current order, small state voters can have an impact.  If the primaries were all held on the same date, the candidate with the most money would have a completely unbeatable advantage, and all he/she would have to do was to spend it all in the large states.  Would that be preferable?

Other than complaining that the current system doesn't work, what would you do to improve it?

[MACVSOG68]

Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial.  Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."

You're painting with a very broad brush.  I certainly see liberalism as perpetual victimhood, since their entire philosophy is directed toward defining everyone as a victim of sorts and blaming society, money, race and conservatism as the culprits.

[Bigun]

As you pointed out earlier, I'm slow on the uptake, but I don't follow.  In 2012 the early state primaries were pretty well split among four candidates.  Yes, by Super Tuesday it was all Romney.  At least in the current order, small state voters can have an impact.  If the primaries were all held on the same date, the candidate with the most money would have a completely unbeatable advantage, and all he/she would have to do was to spend it all in the large states.  Would that be preferable?

Other than complaining that the current system doesn't work, what would you do to improve it?

I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.

I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!

[EC]

Eating our own makes for a very poor diet. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.

I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!

He asked what you would do to improve the system, and you responded "make it better".

That's not very specific, nor is spreading "the early primaries around" very specific.

How would you suggest that we went about ensuring that only "actual Republicans" voted in primaries. I can register as anything I want before a primary, then vote for whoever I want in a general election.

Here are the States that hold open primaries:

Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin 

Where's the problem?

[MACVSOG68]

I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.

I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!

The primaries start with the Midwest, Northeast, and South.  Then it continues all around the Country.  I think it's pretty well spread around now. Republicans in large states like California complain that because of the makeup of the primary with small states participating early, the process is over before they can weigh in.

As for the actual Republicans, it's a fair point that there are a handful of open primaries.  A lot of voters express concerns about that.  But let's assume that in 2012 (and 2008 for that matter), there were no open primaries and all of the primaries were held on the same day.  Do you think the results would have been different?