Southern states to get GOP shaft

Southern states to get GOP shaft

Posted in the Kings Bay Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Ospreyite

Kingsland, GA

#1 Nov 16, 2013
Hunter says, "Looks like we're going to be seeing some changes in Republican strategy for the 2016 presidential race. Hmm.

Most significantly, the party is considering holding a “Midwestern primary” featuring Great Lakes states such as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin that would come immediately after the votes in the traditional early primary states. Also being weighed and thought likely to be approved when the Republican National Committee meets in early 2014 is a plan to shorten the primary season considerably by holding the party’s convention in July, almost as soon as the last primary ballots are cast.

"Shortening the primary season considerably" is code for "the less the public is exposed to the horrific gaggle of nutcases that we expect to comprise the 2016 Republican presidential lineup, the better." But what's the "Midwestern primary" bit about?

The move toward a “Midwestern Super Tuesday” after the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida appears aimed in part at wresting control of the nominating process from social conservatives in the South in an effort to produce a nominee more likely to carry the election in November.

Ah, an attempt to pry back the nomination from the hands of The Crazies. That would only work if primaries in those other states were not similarly decided by The Crazies, which seems optimistic. It also relies on southern states going along with the plan, and there would seem to be little stomach for that. Every state wants their primary to be among the first, hence the ongoing creep towards earlier and earlier dates. Also at issue: Republicans assume that the Democratic nomination process will be a short and simple affair ending with the inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton. The early-as-conceivably-possible July convention date is meant as a means for getting their own, presumably more battered candidate out the door and onto the anti-Hillary campaign trail as soon as possible.

The (correct) lesson the GOP took from the 2012 primary season was that the more Americans heard from the Republican candidates, the less they liked them. Since putting up more moderate and/or less incompetent candidates is not in the cards, the party is currently obsessed with the notion of shortening the process (fewer debates, a tighter primary schedule) so that voters are exposed to them as little as possible. It's a good plan. It's exactly not a plan that will bring a tear to your eye as you contemplate the noble majesty of the American democratic process and our efforts to govern ourselves via an informed electorate debating things informedly, mind you, but it's a good plan. If the public doesn't like your ideas and finds many of your candidates absolutely terrifying, a plan aimed conspicuously at getting those candidates to Shut The Hell Up Already is probably going to be one of your better options."

Bottom line, the Republican Teapublican nominee will be selected well before the southern states run their primaries. That will minimize the time crazies get on the air. Move the convention up as far as possible, limits face time in front of voters which turns them off.

I'd say that nominee will be Christie out of NJ. He's the only non-crazy Republicans have with name recognition and girth to pull it off.

Hunter's article can be found over on the fantastic liberal site Daily Kos. Enjoy.
flip flop

Saint Marys, GA

#2 Nov 17, 2013
Former Republican Woman/NFL Guy: "Osprey Wannabe" would be more believable.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#3 Nov 17, 2013
Ospreyite wrote:
Hunter says, "Looks like we're going to be seeing some changes in Republican strategy for the 2016 presidential race. Hmm.
Most significantly, the party is considering holding a “Midwestern primary” featuring Great Lakes states such as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin that would come immediately after the votes in the traditional early primary states. Also being weighed and thought likely to be approved when the Republican National Committee meets in early 2014 is a plan to shorten the primary season considerably by holding the party’s convention in July, almost as soon as the last primary ballots are cast.
"Shortening the primary season considerably" is code for "the less the public is exposed to the horrific gaggle of nutcases that we expect to comprise the 2016 Republican presidential lineup, the better." But what's the "Midwestern primary" bit about?
The move toward a “Midwestern Super Tuesday” after the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida appears aimed in part at wresting control of the nominating process from social conservatives in the South in an effort to produce a nominee more likely to carry the election in November.
Ah, an attempt to pry back the nomination from the hands of The Crazies. That would only work if primaries in those other states were not similarly decided by The Crazies, which seems optimistic. It also relies on southern states going along with the plan, and there would seem to be little stomach for that. Every state wants their primary to be among the first, hence the ongoing creep towards earlier and earlier dates. Also at issue: Republicans assume that the Democratic nomination process will be a short and simple affair ending with the inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton. The early-as-conceivably-possible July convention date is meant as a means for getting their own, presumably more battered candidate out the door and onto the anti-Hillary campaign trail as soon as possible.
The (correct) lesson the GOP took from the 2012 primary season was that the more Americans heard from the Republican candidates, the less they liked them. Since putting up more moderate and/or less incompetent candidates is not in the cards, the party is currently obsessed with the notion of shortening the process (fewer debates, a tighter primary schedule) so that voters are exposed to them as little as possible. It's a good plan. It's exactly not a plan that will bring a tear to your eye as you contemplate the noble majesty of the American democratic process and our efforts to govern ourselves via an informed electorate debating things informedly, mind you, but it's a good plan. If the public doesn't like your ideas and finds many of your candidates absolutely terrifying, a plan aimed conspicuously at getting those candidates to Shut The Hell Up Already is probably going to be one of your better options."
Bottom line, the Republican Teapublican nominee will be selected well before the southern states run their primaries. That will minimize the time crazies get on the air. Move the convention up as far as possible, limits face time in front of voters which turns them off.
I'd say that nominee will be Christie out of NJ. He's the only non-crazy Republicans have with name recognition and girth to pull it off.
Hunter's article can be found over on the fantastic liberal site Daily Kos. Enjoy.
Just the souther states??
Whereas the democrats have screwed the ENTIRE nation with Obamacare.
The 18 TRILLION dollar deficit which will lessen the quality of life for our kids and grandkids.
The determination of the democrats to have more and more on welfare in addition to the 40 MILLION on welfare now.
The constant lying by the democrats.
Redneck

Kingsland, GA

#5 Nov 17, 2013
Ospreyite, the GOP nominated 2 RINO's McCain and Romney. Neither one of them won. Romney got less votes than McCain which shows me that conservatives, real ones that is, are tired of the RINO's. If they nominate Christie it will be a repeat of the last two presidential elections.

My thoughts are that if people are not provided presidential candidates with distinct differences they will either stay home or will go with the one offering the most goodies. In other words, why vote for the socialist lite (RINO) when a real socialist (DEM)is available and promising you that your ever need will be taken care of.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#6 Nov 17, 2013
Redneck wrote:
Ospreyite, the GOP nominated 2 RINO's McCain and Romney. Neither one of them won. Romney got less votes than McCain which shows me that conservatives, real ones that is, are tired of the RINO's. If they nominate Christie it will be a repeat of the last two presidential elections.
My thoughts are that if people are not provided presidential candidates with distinct differences they will either stay home or will go with the one offering the most goodies. In other words, why vote for the socialist lite (RINO) when a real socialist (DEM)is available and promising you that your ever need will be taken care of.
Redneck- sadly it will not matter who the GOP runs as the democrats are the party of choice of the nonproductive (those on welfare, unemployed, government workers,union members). Those who care nothing about the taxpayer and only want free goodies fron the Treasury.
And, everybody knows that the democrats are the party who buys votes from the unproductive by welfare, extending unemployment benefits, ets etc.
The working taxpayer pays for the benefits to those people
Jack

Woodbine, GA

#7 Nov 17, 2013
Ospreyite--haven't you learned by now that you can't reason or even have a discussion with the above idiots. They live in their own alternate universe and have no idea of "real world" reality.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#8 Nov 17, 2013
Jack wrote:
Ospreyite--haven't you learned by now that you can't reason or even have a discussion with the above idiots. They live in their own alternate universe and have no idea of "real world" reality.
You rerally can't haver an intelligent with an idiot.
As proof one only needs to read your post.
You are the one living in an alternate universe.
Do you deny that the nonproductive are a big bloc of the democratic voter base?
Jack

Woodbine, GA

#9 Nov 17, 2013
bubba131 wrote:
<quoted text>
You rerally can't haver an intelligent with an idiot.
As proof one only needs to read your post.
You are the one living in an alternate universe.
Do you deny that the nonproductive are a big bloc of the democratic voter base?
Are you as stupid as you write?

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#10 Nov 17, 2013
Ospreyite

Kingsland, GA

#11 Nov 17, 2013
Redneck wrote:
Ospreyite, the GOP nominated 2 RINO's McCain and Romney. Neither one of them won. Romney got less votes than McCain which shows me that conservatives, real ones that is, are tired of the RINO's. If they nominate Christie it will be a repeat of the last two presidential elections.
My thoughts are that if people are not provided presidential candidates with distinct differences they will either stay home or will go with the one offering the most goodies. In other words, why vote for the socialist lite (RINO) when a real socialist (DEM)is available and promising you that your ever need will be taken care of.
Redneck: You're correct that neither McCain nor Romney won; in fact, it wasn't even close either time. But I think that was due to Obama's popularity and record of successes as opposed to either of them not being conservative enough.

The old-school Republicans are not going to let the new-school Teapublicans anywhere close to picking a nominee that can't win in 2016. Towards that end, they'll do as the article said, keep everything out of the Southern states until it's all but settle.

As far as Christie, the biggest bucks and Republican organizations are lining up behind him right now. His biggest plus is he's not a crazy Teapublican conservative. He has reasonable, modern thinking that will appeal to most all classes, except the crazies. In any case, Republicans have absolutely no other candidate that can complete on a national level, so Christie it shall be.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#13 Nov 17, 2013
Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you as stupid as you write?
Typical post of one who cannot argue or except the facts.....they resort to name calling...
Typical
Ospreyite

Kingsland, GA

#14 Nov 17, 2013
bubba131 wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical post of one who cannot argue or except the facts.....they resort to name calling...
Typical
No sane poster responds to you because you're an idiot. I was replying to Redneck.

FYI, the word is accept. It is not interchangeable with except.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#15 Nov 18, 2013
Jack wrote:
Ospreyite--haven't you learned by now that you can't reason or even have a discussion with the above idiots. They live in their own alternate universe and have no idea of "real world" reality.
So you think its a good thing to be 18 TRILLION in debt?
So you think its a good thing that 4-5 million people have lost their medical insurance?
Shows how much you care about the American people doesn't it.
Redneck

Kingsland, GA

#16 Nov 18, 2013
Ospreyite wrote:
<quoted text>
Redneck: You're correct that neither McCain nor Romney won; in fact, it wasn't even close either time. But I think that was due to Obama's popularity and record of successes as opposed to either of them not being conservative enough.
The old-school Republicans are not going to let the new-school Teapublicans anywhere close to picking a nominee that can't win in 2016. Towards that end, they'll do as the article said, keep everything out of the Southern states until it's all but settle.
As far as Christie, the biggest bucks and Republican organizations are lining up behind him right now. His biggest plus is he's not a crazy Teapublican conservative. He has reasonable, modern thinking that will appeal to most all classes, except the crazies. In any case, Republicans have absolutely no other candidate that can complete on a national level, so Christie it shall be.
Respectfully disagree. GOP cannot win the presidency with out the south which is conservative country.

If Christie wins the nomination I will vote for him but it will be a wasted vote. Held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. McCain was in line to win until he muzzled Palin and quit pointing out the socialist leanings of Obama. Romney was doomed to lose because the hard shell Baptist's would not vote for a Mormon. Check the stats. Romney got 3 million votes less than McCain and I am betting they were mainly from the south.
bubba131

Saint Marys, GA

#17 Nov 18, 2013
Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you as stupid as you write?
Answer my question posted before..
However you would probaby lie or resort to more so whats the use
Ospreyist

Kingsland, GA

#18 Nov 18, 2013
Redneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Respectfully disagree. GOP cannot win the presidency with out the south which is conservative country.
If Christie wins the nomination I will vote for him but it will be a wasted vote. Held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. McCain was in line to win until he muzzled Palin and quit pointing out the socialist leanings of Obama. Romney was doomed to lose because the hard shell Baptist's would not vote for a Mormon. Check the stats. Romney got 3 million votes less than McCain and I am betting they were mainly from the south.
Ok, we then, we respectfully agree to disagree. While perhaps the GOP can't win without the south, I say they'll be enough conservatives who, like you, will hold their nose and vote for Christie regardless, making it a true contest. Not being a Baptist, I was unaware of the impenetrable nature of the Baptist's feelings re Mormons. Both odd and interesting. What's that about? False gods and all?

With that all said, I am curious, if not Christie, who to you see winning the Republican nomination? And who will they be up against? My bet there is Hillary if Joe Biden decides not to run, but Joe if he chooses to run.
Jorge

Saint Marys, GA

#19 Nov 18, 2013
Joe? Just say no. He can't walk & chew gum because foot is always in mouth. Otherwise agree.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#20 Nov 18, 2013
Yes, please nominate Joe Biden. I think even McCain could beat him.

As for who besides Chris Christie, whom I DON'T WANT, I'll take almost anyone who actively courts the TEA Party vote and the GOPe don't like.

“Unions are still scum ”

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#21 Nov 18, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
Yes, please nominate Joe Biden. I think even McCain could beat him.
As for who besides Chris Christie, whom I DON'T WANT, I'll take almost anyone who actively courts the TEA Party vote and the GOPe don't like.
Exactly.
Anon

Kingsland, GA

#22 Nov 19, 2013
You all are underestimating old Joe Biden.

At the ripe old age of 29 he was the youngest Senator ever in 1972. He's been in Washington for 40+ years now. He's been reelected more times than I can count. You don't get that record by being a slouch, ineffective or unpopular. He's done just about everything up to and including the VP. He knows where all the bodies are buried having dug quite a few holes himself. He knows all the power brokers and can raise mountains of money. Don't underestimate Joe is my advice.

Do I think he'll run, yes. Will he if Hillary decides to run, no. He's at the top of his game, got a great wife and life, and he won't hurt the Democratic Party by going up against Hillary. Will he win if he runs, absolutely, Republicans have no one on his skill level or recognition/popularity level to compete against him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kings Bay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
T&G Letter Scorches Jay Moreno 16 min Laughing Bob 72
To Donald Trump: You have sacrificed nothing 17 min Lucy 3
Judy Thurner Running For Council 27 min Doug S 1
Democratic National Convention summary 39 min Truth 2
2016 City Council Election 51 min LMAO 78
You have to vote for me. No I don't. 57 min Larry 1
Republican site tell truth re Trump 1 hr Joseph 3

Kings Bay Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kings Bay Mortgages