ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

oh, i know it's legal. private political party nominating processes need not be democratic at all. caucuses really aren't.

i'm just saying i think it's kind of funny that some ron paul supporters would support (completely legitimate) tricks to change delegates elected in an open primary to one candidate to their guy, instead. they would go apeshit if romney somehow convinced the delegate paul accumulated by winning the texas primary to vote for him, nonetheless. the cries of, "THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!" would be deafening...

I disagree; In some of the districts Romney has won (I was reading about King County in WA yesterday), RP supporters have been willing to admit readily that they were out-organized and that they were outvoted.

Where RP supporters bitch and scream is where they are locked out, the rules aren't followed or are changed at the last minute unilaterally by party leadership and the caucusers aren't allowed to vote to change them to what they want (whether or not RP people win or lose those votes, and a lot of times they lose). The RP people are trying to beat Romney and the Republicans at their own game following the rules already established. When Romney does the same, they basically give him credit for a round well-played and continue on in other areas.

[knuckleboner]

I disagree; In some of the districts Romney has won (I was reading about King County in WA yesterday), RP supporters have been willing to admit readily that they were out-organized and that they were outvoted.

Where RP supporters bitch and scream is where they are locked out, the rules aren't followed or are changed at the last minute unilaterally by party leadership and the caucusers aren't allowed to vote to change them to what they want (whether or not RP people win or lose those votes, and a lot of times they lose). The RP people are trying to beat Romney and the Republicans at their own game following the rules already established. When Romney does the same, they basically give him credit for a round well-played and continue on in other areas.

at the end of the day ron paul (or any other candidate for that matter) either is, or is not the choice of the people. and pulling delegates away from other candidates doesn't make you a real choice of the people.

now, to a large extent, that's the main reason i hate caucuses. yes, it's up to each party to determine their nominee. but so long as 3rd party presidential candidates are near impossible, i think anything that diminishes the ability of the person with the most popular votes to actually win is harmful for encouraging citizen interest and participation.

[Dr. Love]

Caucuses don't bother me ... it's the energized, dedicated people that get others elected. That's what caucuses bring out. Most of the country honestly just doesn't give a shit, as sad as that is.

Ron Paul is trying to change the republican party from the inside. The goal is to become President, but that's not the only goal. The broader desire is to inspire enough people to take over the apparatus and change the trajectory of the party.

On the former goal, it's not going great. On the latter goal, it's going surprisingly well.

[Nitro Express]

I would love to just see an open election with no political parties, caucuses, or delegates. Just have a secure system that anyone who meets the constitutional requirement for president can run in for a few months and then everyone vote their choice on a secure electronic system that backs itself up with paper receipts. We have the technology to do that now. We don't need an electorial college because it no longer takes days on a horse to deliver communications. We could have it where the public votes several times in different election finals. You continue to eliminate everyone until on the last vote you have the last remaining choices. It would eliminate all this party politics nonsense and only having two choices that are more alike than they differ.

[knuckleboner]

Caucuses don't bother me ... it's the energized, dedicated people that get others elected. That's what caucuses bring out. Most of the country honestly just doesn't give a shit, as sad as that is.

Ron Paul is trying to change the republican party from the inside. The goal is to become President, but that's not the only goal. The broader desire is to inspire enough people to take over the apparatus and change the trajectory of the party.

On the former goal, it's not going great. On the latter goal, it's going surprisingly well.

i get that caucuses bring out the dedicated, but overall, the average person hates the process. they always think that they're forced to choose between 2 medicore candidates, neither of whom they really like.

now, that's not just the fault of the caucuses. honestly, there's no reason for primaries to be on different days. as it stands now, the nominating process is over before most people have a chance to get involved. so they don't. there's a reason we have such absymal turnout.

[Dr. Love]

Well, I think doing them all as primaries on the same day would cause a few weird side effects:

1. The expense of trying to compete everywhere would crush many candidates, consolidating more power with the wealthy
2. Some candidates could try different regional strategies to see if they could focus their time and money for the most bang
3. I'm not sure all the candidates would be that well vetted until it was too late
4. Media would become even MORE powerful in the nominating process because they could effectively pick who should win or lose, "report" on the field and then in 1 day, it's all over.

[Nitro Express]

Historically the majority of the society just cruise. They go with the flow. They only get motivated if their comfort zone gets invaded and at that they usually back the guy selling a chicken in every pot. The cruisers can be a dangerous lot actually.

The educated and motivated are actually the minority and let's be honest, the decent, fair ones of this group are the ones you want in power. The only problem is they are damn hard to find.

It's in shitty times that great leaders shine. People in history are remembered for two things. Either how horrible they were or how great they were. The great ones are rare. Very rare. I don't think there has ever been a great leader in the White House since I've been alive. Most just continued to empower the war, oil, and banking establishments. I've watched the country steadily decline my whole life. There was a brief glimmer of hope in the 1980's when some American entreprenures started what became the personal computer industry and that brought in a whole new dynamic that the establishment didn't see coming but in time they outsourced that too. Then the internet happened. But now that is being turned into a spy network for the government.

I would say the last real leader we had in the White House was John F. Kennedy. He issued a challenge to put a man on the moon before the decade was out. We did this. He moved to put the Federal Reserve Bank out of business. He tried to break up the corrupt CIA. When his own generals were screaming to launch a nuclear strike he held off, avoided World War III, and ended the Cuban Missle Crises. He was the leader and he made his own decisions. He stepped on toes trying to do the right thing for the country and that is what probably ended getting him killed. The last great Democratic president and the last great president period.

[Nitro Express]

I actually see Ron Paul as someone trying to break the grip the old oil, banking, and war establishment have over the Republican Party. He's more popular with the the people than the Republican Party or the media in general are admitting to. The establishment are pulling out all the stops to see if they can sink his ship. He still might be able to pull it off and even if he doesn't get the nomination he has shown everyone how the corrupt media and Republican Party no longer follow the will of the people in general.

[knuckleboner]

Well, I think doing them all as primaries on the same day would cause a few weird side effects:

1. The expense of trying to compete everywhere would crush many candidates, consolidating more power with the wealthy
2. Some candidates could try different regional strategies to see if they could focus their time and money for the most bang
3. I'm not sure all the candidates would be that well vetted until it was too late
4. Media would become even MORE powerful in the nominating process because they could effectively pick who should win or lose, "report" on the field and then in 1 day, it's all over.

all valid points.

but at the end of the day, i still say that too many voters don't feel part of the nominating process. and weeding out candiates before most people even have a chance to vote for them i don't think helps. it leaves people with options they don't feel they really had a say in.

[Dr. Love]

Well over half the delegates haven't even been alotted yet in the GOP contests. People still have the ability to make a huge impact in the race. If they want to change things, they should be contributing to campaigns and getting out to vote for who they want (like we are). The only reason Romney is the "presumptive nominee" is because the other campaigns ran out of money (except the Paul campaign) and didn't want to continue for their own political reasons. Romney doesn't even have a hard delegate count that meets the 50% mark of what he needs and the GOP has already sighed, shrugged their shoulders, and given up.

I think if people want a say, they can easily send a message - vote him down in favor of other people. Nominate and elect delegates that aren't bound to him. It would be incredibly easy to change the 'narrative' of this race. And it was incredibly easy to do so state after state so far this year.

They have the power but they've been told by the media so many times that Romney was going to win it (before it ever even started) that they gave up.

I have no sympathy for them.

[knuckleboner]

under the current system, if you lose the first 4 primaries, regardless of whether or not those particular electorates are representative of the overall voters, the media and the money will begin to desert the candidate before most peope ever get the chance to vote.

the current system does not encourage people to get involved. there's fairly ample evidence.

mind you, i'm NOT attacking ron paul's supporters or campaign. they're operating under the current system. i just don't like the current party nominating system.

[Seshmeister]

under the current system, if you lose the first 4 primaries, regardless of whether or not those particular electorates are representative of the overall voters, the media and the money will begin to desert the candidate before most peope ever get the chance to vote.

I'm no expert but is it not true that Iowa, New Hampshire and North Dakota are particularly not representative of overall voters?

[Nickdfresh]

oh, i know it's legal. private political party nominating processes need not be democratic at all. caucuses really aren't.

i'm just saying i think it's kind of funny that some ron paul supporters would support (completely legitimate) tricks to change delegates elected in an open primary to one candidate to their guy, instead. they would go apeshit if romney somehow convinced the delegate paul accumulated by winning the texas primary to vote for him, nonetheless. the cries of, "THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!" would be deafening...

One-hundred percent correct...

[Dr. Love]

under the current system, if you lose the first 4 primaries, regardless of whether or not those particular electorates are representative of the overall voters, the media and the money will begin to desert the candidate before most peope ever get the chance to vote.

the current system does not encourage people to get involved. there's fairly ample evidence.

mind you, i'm NOT attacking ron paul's supporters or campaign. they're operating under the current system. i just don't like the current party nominating system.

I don't know that I agree ... if people believe in a campaign, they will donate time, effort and money to support it.

What you're describing is the tendency to want to "go with the winning team". When people do that, it's not because they believe in a candidate or their platform, it's because they want someone else (in the other party) to lose.

And that's just for voters registered in those parties ... the majority of the population aren't in either party.

The "majority" doesn't bother to wake up and pay attention to the campaign until convention time, when it's well past due for any real choice to go on. They are too complacent and let small portions of the population pre-select the two choices they have.

That's not a result of the primary system, that's a result of a complacent population that does not bother nor care to change things.

I have no sympathy for them. They believe in the fallacy of a two-party system and are willing to accept the consequences too easily.

[Dr. Love]

One-hundred percent correct...

based on what?