Galt's Gulch

GOP Wants More Control Over 2016 Candidate

Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago to Politics
14 comments | Share | Flag

and that is how we get Jeb Bush as our candidate...
Seriously, on the one hand, Priebus has a point about the debate fatigue and so many candidates sometimes participating in debates, sometimes not. On the other hand, GOP's proposed solution smacks of Beltway politics and shutting out the conservatives in the party. what say you?
SOURCE URL: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-07-11-29-40

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years, 7 months ago
    I agree. It makes me concerned that they may do this to bar the more forward thinkers and usher in the likes of a Jeb Bush.

    I haven't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate for a long time. I prefer to "throw away" my vote on something who won't win. I can't vote for somebody I don't agree with, no matter the party. That's really the way the system was designed - not this two-party scam: two puppets taking turns doing the same dance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
    I don't see this limiting the debate issue. Reince is proposing penalties for those who go to debates not sanctioned, but the first time the preferred candidate does so (and they will) that will fall by the wayside. It will also become increasingly more challenging to keep Iowa and NH as the first 2 primaries. They are just too irrelevant, and candidates will be able to get donors to wait on SC before dropping out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 7 months ago
    I don't see why they even have the pretense that the citizens have a choice. Just save all the money and hot air, tell us whose turn it is to be the candidate and be done with it. No more smoke and mirrors.

    When the final candidates the party chiefs have picked are announced by the R's & D's and they are scheduling their debates they should include the candidates for all the other parties also.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 7 months ago
    The one change I would like to see is the country split into 4 quadrants. Each state within the quadrant would hold their primary on the same day. The 4 would hold primaries 2 weeks apart and the order would rotate each election cycle. I would also make all primaries closed to party registration only. Beyond that I say fight it out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
      You'd still end up with a very few states determining who moves on, and within those few states, you'd end up with the population centers being the prize (as it is today). I would rather see a proportional allocation of points based on congressional districts. Since congressional districts are roughly the same population size (even if geographically varied), in a state like WI, with 8 seats, 3 of which are high density and 5 not, that would tend to get the candidates to spend time everywhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 7 months ago
        I also would like to see delegates (primary) and electors (general election) allocated by congressional district. The only exception would be the 2 state-wide electors (general) that should go to the state winner (to represent the state's interests). The winner-take-all approach used by most states is unfair and enables candidates to concentrate their resources only in a few swing districts in a few swing states... By switching to congressional districts, the process becomes more competitive. And just like in economics, competition is always better for us...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo