The concession speech

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The "system" as it is, is what gave us Donald Trump in the first place.   We Need a National Primary so Every Republican in every State can vote on ALL 17 Republican candidates. After the more Liberal NE states had there way, the vast majority of Republican voters were down to only a couple of choices. Many,  like us in Washington by the time we voted, had only Trump left on the ballot.   

An Improved system for selecting our candidates is desperately needed. Like This:

• Primary Debate Period followed by:
• National Primary  (all candidates)- Leaving us  the Top 4
• Finalist Debate Period, followed by:
• Caucus held in every state Choosing a #1 and #2 Nationally. 
• #1 would Pres, #2 would be VP officially selected by the delegates at the Convention, which would soften any divided party.   
 

You'd have a tough time convincing states to do multiple round primaries, but i'd agree that's a better system.  Although if you did that this time around, you'd have ended up with (probably) Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and perhaps Carson as your final 4.

And Trump still would have won the plurality, with Rubio/Cruz in 2/3, neither of whom likely would have accepted the VP nod at that point.

[r9etb]

The "system" as it is, is what gave us Donald Trump in the first place.   We Need a National Primary so Every Republican in every State can vote on ALL 17 Republican candidates. After the more Liberal NE states had there way, the vast majority of Republican voters were down to only a couple of choices. Many,  like us in Washington by the time we voted, had only Trump left on the ballot.   

An Improved system for selecting our candidates is desperately needed. Like This:

• Primary Debate Period followed by:
• National Primary  (all candidates)- Leaving us  the Top 4
• Finalist Debate Period, followed by:
• Caucus held in every state Choosing a #1 and #2 Nationally. 
• #1 would Pres, #2 would be VP officially selected by the delegates at the Convention, which would soften any divided party.   
 

I disagree.  If you get that many candidates (which is in itself a serious problem) you need a way to rationally distinguish between them, and that takes time.  A one-day national primary would even more strongly favor a candidate like Trump.

The real complaint is that later states effectively have no say in selecting the candidate.  Primaries spread over months is good, if at the same time you allocated the delegates differently. 

 - Introduce a rule: no more than 5 primaries on any given date.  States will be assigned primary dates at random, no later than 18 months prior to the convention.
 - Introduce a method whereby the party can offer a slate of "vetted" candidates.  This would reduce the number and probably increase the quality of candidates.
 - Primaries should be closed: they are for selecting party candidates.
 - No "winner take all" primaries.  Delegates should be assigned on a proportional basis.
 - Allow any bound delegate to abstain from supporting the candidate to whom he is assigned.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The "system" as it is, is what gave us Donald Trump in the first place.   We Need a National Primary so Every Republican in every State can vote on ALL 17 Republican candidates. After the more Liberal NE states had there way, the vast majority of Republican voters were down to only a couple of choices. Many,  like us in Washington by the time we voted, had only Trump left on the ballot.   

An Improved system for selecting our candidates is desperately needed. Like This:

• Primary Debate Period followed by:
• National Primary  (all candidates)- Leaving us  the Top 4
• Finalist Debate Period, followed by:
• Caucus held in every state Choosing a #1 and #2 Nationally. 
• #1 would Pres, #2 would be VP officially selected by the delegates at the Convention, which would soften any divided party.   
 

I agree we have some problems. Doing a national primary makes it much harder the less money a candidate has so the system you propose tends to favor the well funded candidates. Not saying it wouldn't have it's upsides too, but I'm not sure it would have stopped Trump. Closed primaries are the biggest change we need to see in my opinion.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I doubt it.  More likely, they'll sink ever deeper into their paranoia, strengthen the walls of their echo chamber, and settle their hopes on the next demagogue. 

It was over long before that.  The GOP has been breaking apart for a while now, and long ago lost its principles.  Trump was much more a symptom than a cause of the party's collapse.

Should Hillary win, mark my words they will be down right giddy over the prospect of 'stopping' another Clinton and reliving their glory days. Expect much saber rattling from the keyboard warriors full of sound and fury signifying nothing. These people love being in turmoil.

[beandog]

A dysfunctional candidate like Trump will likely end up with near half the vote.

Thats half of the voting public or close to it that Hollywood, Lady Gaga and Andrea Mitchell are calling racist anti-semitic mysoginysts.

Does anyone really think this will be over if Trump loses?

I don't know.  It's hard to tell what will happen.  I think if he loses, there will be a lot of depression among them.  Can't say as I blame them.  The idea of the Beast in the White House depresses me as well.  I'm also concerned how bad they will be if he does indeed win.  Some of them are many french fries short of a Happy Meal. 

In the end though, I think the country will be better off if the Donald wins.  Nothing better than watching Rats cry.  Particulary the Rats in the media.  I can hope that the Donald kicks it and Pence takes over.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I disagree.  If you get that many candidates (which is in itself a serious problem) you need a way to rationally distinguish between them, and that takes time.  A one-day national primary would even more strongly favor a candidate like Trump.

The real complaint is that later states effectively have no say in selecting the candidate.  Primaries spread over months is good, if at the same time you allocated the delegates differently. 

 - Introduce a rule: no more than 5 primaries on any given date.  States will be assigned primary dates at random, no later than 18 months prior to the convention.

Like.

- Introduce a method whereby the party can offer a slate of "vetted" candidates.  This would reduce the number and probably increase the quality of candidates.

Don't like.

- Primaries should be closed: they are for selecting party candidates.

Like very much

- No "winner take all" primaries.  Delegates should be assigned on a proportional basis.

Also like very much

- Allow any bound delegate to abstain from supporting the candidate to whom he is assigned.

No issue with that if candidates get to select their own delegates in the first place.

[r9etb]

- Introduce a method whereby the party can offer a slate of "vetted" candidates.  This would reduce the number and probably increase the quality of candidates.

Don't like.

Understandable.  There's peril in this, especially as it could be used to favor the in crowd, and to filter out "change" candidates.  But at the same time it would prevent candidates with no serious chance from cluttering up the primary field.

The French actually have a pretty good system for this: to be eligible for the election, each candidate has to get signatures from something like 500 elected officials (mayors, I think).  That process tends to favor known quantities over newcomers; which in presidential politics is I think a good thing.  Obama showed how dangerous it can be to elect amateurs.

[Resp3]

I doubt it.  More likely, they'll sink ever deeper into their paranoia, strengthen the walls of their echo chamber, and settle their hopes on the next demagogue. 

I dunno. I remember when you dared not even think a bad thought against Sarah. Or Ann Coulter. Or a good thought about Rudy. But the slightest flip flop from Fresno sends them all in a different group think at any time.

It was over long before that.  The GOP has been breaking apart for a while now, and long ago lost its principles.  Trump was much more a symptom than a cause of the party's collapse.

True. You made a great point.

[r9etb]

I dunno. I remember when you dared not even think a bad thought against Sarah. Or Ann Coulter. Or a good thought about Rudy. But the slightest flip flop from Fresno sends them all in a different group think at any time.

For details, see the published works of Mr. Orwell ....