GOP Primary Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopyBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Son_of_Niall said:
That’s what I said. I was agreeing with you.
:confused:
Click to expand...
OK. That is not how I interpreted your comment. I read “It only deals with how the election process is done” to mean you believed the Constitution deals with all elections, which it does not.
 
10gr8kids said:
Right, I think it should be between the two with the most delegates.

In our local elections, if no one gets 51% of the vote, there is a runoff between the two with the highest percentage. I wish we could do this in the presidential primaries. Get it down to two and then let the people pick out of those two.
Click to expand...
Yes agree completely.
 
phil19034 said:
I don’t understand this post. The Democrates are the ones with the super delegates. The Republican Party elects who wins the primaries (unless no one receives enough delegates). PACs give money to people who are winning the primaries.

The real problem that Republicans have is presenting a carismatic nominee.

Also, let’s look at this election Gov K. Is the only one left in the race that has a record of results in Govt. but no one outside OH is votting for him.

I’m a life long Republican, but the party is in BIG trouble if we can’t find a way to attract urban and suburban voters.

In some of our big cities, we don’t even have Republicans running for Mayor on the Republican ticket… You have Democrats switching parties just so they can run against the Democratic Mayor candidate (but they are still really Dems). Mayor Bloomberg is a prime example and the last Philadelphia mayoral election was the same thing.

This nation is quickly become urban/suburban vs rural in the elections. If you look at the county election maps (not state level) the rural counties vote Republican while the urban/suburban counties vote Democrat. As the population centers of the States and nation continues to shift towards the cities, the Republican Party will truely become a minority party.

We need to figure out how to attract the urban and suburban voters without our stance on moral issues.

Transportation is a perfect example. Republicans have a tendency to vote against Amtrak and other public transportation bills. Republicans need to support urban infrastructure enhancements … Many urban/suburban swing voters will vote democrat because of transit or other urban issues.

So I don’t understand this… We have gotten who we vote for.

HOWEVER, the one place I strongly feel the Republicans have had a tendency of screwing up is the VP choice. The Vice President has NO power unless the President dies. The VP canidate is selected after we have a nominee.

So WHY in the world do we pick VP candidates to satisfy the Republican base instead of candidates who would help use win moderate swing voters!!! Sarah Palin hurt John McCain’s chances with the moderates, Dan Quayle should have been replaced by GHW Bush, Dick Channey wasn’t the best choice but GW Bush won anyway. I’m not saying we need a left leaning VP candidate, but we should be picking the best person to balance the ticket and someone people would be comfortable being President. The thought of John McCain dying in office and Sarah Palin becoming president scared too many moderates. I personally know several people who voted in 2008 for the VP and not the president… Meaning they voted for Biden over Palin because they were not sure who would be the better President, but felt Biden be better than Palin if anything even happened to the President.

Point is: we can say whatever we want about the Republican establishment but they are not the reason we have the candidates we vote for.

If anything, the Primary voting order is a little messed up. The parties should adopt the “Delaware Plan” for primary voting which would make for a more fair an balanced Primary system. Right now, if a candidate is weak in the South, they might have to drop out of the race before the Northern and Western states vote. And since the early voting results impact voters, it gives an unfair advantage to the early winner.

God Bless and May God help America find its soul once again.

Amen.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand where anything I said is in conflict with your post.Different approaches to the same result,so I think we are in agreement.🤷
 
Jeanne_S said:
What this is ,is we who identify with the Republican Party,have finally had it up to our ears with the elites cherry picking our nominees.It seems we are having less and less of a say in the process.Trump,who pretty much all of us can agree,is not our first choice,maybe not even an option at all.However,he represents the frustration the electorate are feeling over politics as usual.Now those same elites apparently have found a way around thecTrump phenomenon and will still choose the nominee of their liking.Once again the party will lose to another Dem.We the people are the ones who get to deal with the fallout.Disgusting!:mad:
Click to expand...
I cannot agree with you more!

The primary issue with the debates has circled around the health of the economy. But, hasn’t that always been the primary issue when a campaign season comes along? I personally am tired of hearing candidates tell me how wonderful things are…when they are not. I also see it like; we have a broken window and when we ask the kids who is at fault? We just get finger pointing? Yet, we still have an unfixed window. The worse part for me is those that actually believe that their candidate is going to make a difference…this time. Go on YouTube and watch some old campaign speeches…history does repeat itself.

Both parties have sold out to many of the items that Trump speaks about; trade, low wages, working conditions, etc. Out of desperation, it seems like we are going with the person with the best “market brand” - therefore - go with the guy whose name is on a lot of buildings…maddening.
 
Vanny said:
Agree with this. I’m no Trump supporter either but if he gets the majority of the delegates than he is the nominee fair and square. How would we like it if Cruz (or other candidate of your choice) got the majority of the delegates and they pulled the same thing because they don’t like Cruz? I’m wondering if Paul Ryan would go for it anyway.
Click to expand...
Im on the fence, but I do know, if Trump does reach the 1237 mark and the GOP tries some sneaky tactics to try and stop it, there would be riots and armed mobs in the streets…I dont think they want that.

I have to wonder if the Republican party is not just grasping at straws here, its fairly obvious by the votes so far, the GOP is a dying party, but this has happened to may political parties in history, its nothing new, when the Whigs died out, Im not sure they went to great lengths to keep the party going, it lived its life and then died out, it became obsolete so to speak.

We can be sure though, if one party dies out, another will spring up to takes its place, one that better reflects the people and the times, seems like some of those people in the GOP do not recognize this.
 
estesbob said:
So now we are not competent to pick our own nominee? I am no Trump supporter but whoever has the majority of delegates going into the convention should be the nominee.

There is an even bigger problem on the Democrat side-Hillary could very well receive the nomination because of the support of unelected super delegates ie: Party Bosses
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would be for lack of competency, but if none of the candidates get the amount of delegates necessary, then the candidate would be picked at the convention.
 
queenofheartscv said:
It comes down to trust. I don’t trust Cruz. He borrowed a lot of his positions from Trump so that much of the platform for these two are kind of similar. I believe Trump can work much better with others because he’s street savvy. Cruz has a serious likability deficiency.
Click to expand...
I think Trump borrowed a lot of ideas from Cruz on the other hand, since Cruz has been a conservative, strict, constitutionalist since forever, and Trump not so much.

How do you see Trump as street savvy btw? OK he’s from Queens, New York, but Jamaica Estates isn’t anything like Astoria or Ozone Park. 🤷 I would bet 50 cents he never once took the subway.
 
I think Trump borrowed a lot of ideas from Cruz on the other hand, since Cruz has been a conservative, strict, constitutionalist since forever, and Trump not so much.
Click to expand...
How do you see Trump as street savvy btw? OK he’s from Queens, New York, but Jamaica Estates isn’t anything like Astoria or Ozone Park. 🤷 I would bet 50 cents he never once took the subway.
Click to expand...
I support Cruz but he has been in office only since 2012, so does that even mean since 2013? I thought he, Rubio and Paul all needed some more experience but they all probably have core principles that would see them through.

Anyway, without delving into it, Trump has some good history, he paid for the veteran’s parade to go on when it was about to be cancelled, built that ice rink when it was taking forever for the government to do it. Etc.
 
mikekle said:
Im on the fence, but I do know, if Trump does reach the 1237 mark and the GOP tries some sneaky tactics to try and stop it, there would be riots and armed mobs in the streets…I dont think they want that.

I have to wonder if the Republican party is not just grasping at straws here, its fairly obvious by the votes so far, the GOP is a dying party, but this has happened to may political parties in history, its nothing new, when the Whigs died out, Im not sure they went to great lengths to keep the party going, it lived its life and then died out, it became obsolete so to speak.

We can be sure though, if one party dies out, another will spring up to takes its place, one that better reflects the people and the times, seems like some of those people in the GOP do not recognize this.
Click to expand...
Yes. agree. I just saw an article on MSN.com that Paul Ryan is not interested in being the nominee. but there may be others who are.
 
mary_bobo said:
You do realize that is not possible. Why pose it?
Click to expand...
Why is that not possible? The Speaker of the House does not have to be a sitting member of the House, they can pick whoever they want. I would put it at an infinitesimal chance of happening but there is no rule against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top