Ignorant outrage over Colorado caucus vote

[JoeB131]

The convention will be great entertainment!!!

The ironic thing is, this isn't even about issues anymore.

Trump and Cruz are pretty much on the same awful page when it comes to issues. Heck, Kasich is 90% of the way with them. If the GOP Electorate were smart, it would get behind Kasich who would STILL give them 90% of what they want in the very small window of the first two years of a Presidency (the only time ANY president really gets anything done) because he has a better chance of beating Hillary than Cruz or Trump do.

This has become about cults of personality. Neither of these guys can beat Hillary. Their negatives far outweigh their positives.

The GOP Establishment has figured this out, and has concluded that if they nominate Cruz, and he loses, he will do it without beclowning the whole party AND will finally put an end to the whine that if "you only elected a real conservative, you'd win."

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, you're the one who's ignorant.
After all of these years of lying and corruption in Washington, a state decides to ace the voters completely out of the process......it sends the wrong message. The optics are really bad, especially at this time. Another year, nobody would care. This is not the election to be trying stunts like this.

It doesn't matter if they can make up any rules they want. They should be smart enough not to.

I think they should have had a popular vote.

But Trump also should know the rules of the game before he started playing.

Of course, my running theory is that Trump never expected to STILL be the Frontrunner at this point. I think he thought he was j ust going to go in, make a spectacle of himself, and then have a season of "The Apprentice" in 2017 that would have boffo ratings.

Now he can't back down, and he can't win.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, you're the one who's ignorant.
After all of these years of lying and corruption in Washington, a state decides to ace the voters completely out of the process......it sends the wrong message. The optics are really bad, especially at this time. Another year, nobody would care. This is not the election to be trying stunts like this.

It doesn't matter if they can make up any rules they want. They should be smart enough not to.

I think they should have had a popular vote.

But Trump also should know the rules of the game before he started playing.

Of course, my running theory is that Trump never expected to STILL be the Frontrunner at this point. I think he thought he was j ust going to go in, make a spectacle of himself, and then have a season of "The Apprentice" in 2017 that would have boffo ratings.

Now he can't back down, and he can't win.

Obviously, you're nuts.
You're still operating off of the false assumption that Trump was never serious about being president. That's like saying that a First Lady would never, ever, be a serious presidential candidate.

 

[Mac1958]

The state of CO has it's rules. Cruz made the effort to learn the rules and play by them. Trump apparently did not.

This really does seem like the bottom line here. Cruz played the rules as they exist, he didn't break any, and that's that.

The rules look pretty dumb, of course, and the theory that they've been created to favor people against the spirit of the democratic process seems pretty solid, too.

Politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans. Dependably dishonest.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if the rules are corrupt it's OK? No, people didn't get to vote for a candidate, CO was different. Should have Trump's team knew how corrupt it was? Sure. But that doesn't make it smell any better.

And here's an example of that ignorant outrage.

 

[mudwhistle]

The state of CO has it's rules. Cruz made the effort to learn the rules and play by them. Trump apparently did not.

This really does seem like the bottom line here. Cruz played the rules as they exist, he didn't break any, and that's that.

The rules look pretty dumb, of course, and the theory that they've been created to favor people against the spirit of the democratic process seems pretty solid, too.

Politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans. Dependably dishonest.
.

You assume that the rules aren't dishonest. And you also assume that Cruz hasn't already been caught cheating in this election more than once.

 

[Mac1958]

The state of CO has it's rules. Cruz made the effort to learn the rules and play by them. Trump apparently did not.

This really does seem like the bottom line here. Cruz played the rules as they exist, he didn't break any, and that's that.

The rules look pretty dumb, of course, and the theory that they've been created to favor people against the spirit of the democratic process seems pretty solid, too.

Politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans. Dependably dishonest.
.

You assume that the rules aren't dishonest. And you also assume that Cruz hasn't already been caught cheating in this election more than once.

Sure, I'm making assumptions.

What do you mean by rules being dishonest?
.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The state of CO has it's rules. Cruz made the effort to learn the rules and play by them. Trump apparently did not.

This really does seem like the bottom line here. Cruz played the rules as they exist, he didn't break any, and that's that.

The rules look pretty dumb, of course, and the theory that they've been created to favor people against the spirit of the democratic process seems pretty solid, too.

Politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans. Dependably dishonest.
.

"Rules"

The elitists / establishment want this narrative perpetuated to blindly ignore that the party eradicated the caucus (primary) so that they could handpick anybody but Trump. The Republicans are making a mockery of the process and every day people in their party have been silenced. It doesn't matter what nonsense they use to justify this. They've fucked over the people; disenfranchised them.

I've been saying for months that super delegates are a sham designed to water down the votes of the people who really ultimately should be deciding. But as bad as that is, at least the people had watered down votes. In this, the Colorado GOP has basically told the members, 'You're such children; we'll decide for you.'

 

[Mac1958]

In this, the Colorado GOP has basically told the members, 'You're such children; we'll decide for you.'

That might be the case (I don't know a state's rules inside and out), but my point is that if you don't like the rules they have to be changed. If that can't happen, then I don't know what you do.

If (a) the current rules were followed correctly, and (b) everyone knew the rules (two admittedly big "if's"), then there's nothing that can be done unless and until the rules are changed.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

So if the rules are corrupt it's OK? No, people didn't get to vote for a candidate, CO was different. Should have Trump's team knew how corrupt it was? Sure. But that doesn't make it smell any better.

And here's an example of that ignorant outrage.

You see outrage from the confines of your ass? You need some air.

 

[blackhawk]

As I understand it Trump didn't have any people on the ground in Colorado until a week before the vote, caucus whatever you want to call it that's no ones fault but his and tells you serious he was about Colorado.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

In this, the Colorado GOP has basically told the members, 'You're such children; we'll decide for you.'

That might be the case (I don't know a state's rules inside and out), but my point is that if you don't like the rules they have to be changed. If that can't happen, then I don't know what you do.

If (a) the current rules were followed correctly, and (b) everyone knew the rules (two admittedly big "if's"), then there's nothing that can be done unless and until the rules are changed.
.

The rules are always changing, basically. In many cases, the "rules" are very subject to change at a moment's notice. Again, the parties would love for you or I to say, well that's rules, tough luck. No, I'm sorry; but we know they're scamming. A democratic vote is not meant to be murky or unfair (or not held!). Really, if a party is not applying cut and dry standards, they are letting down their members. If a party has to say, well look at the fine print, they've failed. They're not inclusive; they're elitists. And those types of people who exercise power without regard to democratic principles should not be running a party that is ultimately trying to win a grand democratic trust. It's counter intuitive.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As I understand it Trump didn't have any people on the ground in Colorado until a week before the vote, caucus whatever you want to call it that's no ones fault but his and tells you serious he was about Colorado.

It tells you he realized the fix was in, dill hole.

 

[mrbojanglezs]

Cruz did nothing wrong but the current system lends itself to corruption.

Also the outrage of this may just be a political move as it further pushes Cruz towards establishment status making Trump the only outsider. The average citizen who doesn't follow politics closely will think this is ridiculous, no matter how long the rule existed which benefits Trump.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Cruz did nothing wrong but the current system lends itself to corruption.

Also the outrage of this may just be a political move as it further pushes Cruz towards establishment status making Trump the only outsider.

Cruz is the system, dude. Yes, he wasn't their first choice. But he's their main cog now.

 

[Mac1958]

In this, the Colorado GOP has basically told the members, 'You're such children; we'll decide for you.'

That might be the case (I don't know a state's rules inside and out), but my point is that if you don't like the rules they have to be changed. If that can't happen, then I don't know what you do.

If (a) the current rules were followed correctly, and (b) everyone knew the rules (two admittedly big "if's"), then there's nothing that can be done unless and until the rules are changed.
.

The rules are always changing, basically. In many cases, the "rules" are very subject to change at a moment's notice. Again, the parties would love for you or I to say, well that's rules, tough luck. No, I'm sorry; but we know they're scamming. A democratic vote is not meant to be murky or unfair (or not held!). Really, if a party is not applying cut and dry standards, they are letting down their members. If a party has to say, well look at the fine print, they've failed. They're not inclusive; they're elitists. And those types of people who exercise power without regard to democratic principles should not be running a party that is ultimately trying to win a grand democratic trust. It's counter intuitive.

Yeah, can't argue. This to me is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty that has so polluted and distorted our political "system", top to bottom.

I'm guessing that after November there's gonna be some serious auditing of GOP state systems from coast to coast. If a party can't operate transparently, it's slitting its own throat.
.

 

[Freewill]

Ignorant Outrage Over the Colorado GOP Caucus Vote

As a Colorado Republican who had caucused in prior years’ elections, I was a bit disappointed back in August when I learned that the state’s GOP executive committee was cancelling this year’s presidential preference poll.

As a matter of curiosity, it would have been nice to find out which candidate my state was leaning toward on March 1. As a matter of pride, it would have been pleasant to hear the results reported on the national news, and discussed by national pundits. As a matter of practicality, however, it wouldn’t have served any meaningful purpose to either the voters or the candidates — something that’s been true for many years in this state.

You see, contrary to the impression that many people have been left with over the past couple of days, Colorado’s traditional caucus-night poll had never been a binding, primary-like election. That’s not how it worked. It was a simple straw-poll — nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t the process used to distribute delegates to the candidates.

The nomination procedure in this state has been driven by the election of representatives for over a hundred years (except for from 1992 to 2002). It starts with grassroots caucus attendees from local precincts voting on congressional-district delegates (their neighbors) to represent them, and ends at the state convention a few weeks later when the representatives finish selecting national delegates to back a candidate at the national convention.

People have only ever voted by participating in caucuses, which they did.

Lots of Trump supporters and even several in the media have signed on to the deceptive narrative. The Drudge Report was perhaps the worst culprit, running a series of breathtakingly misleading, customized headlines:
Headline: “SHOCK: Republicans cancel presidential election in CO…”
Reality: It was hardly a shock, being that the rules were first reported eight months ago. It also wasn’t an “election” that was cancelled. It was a non-binding straw-poll.

Headline: “1 MILLION REPUBLICANS SIDELINED…”
Reality: The only people “sidelined” were those who didn’t (or couldn’t) show up on caucus night (which has been the case for several years). Those in attendance got to vote for people who shared their voting preference. And if they didn’t find such people, they had the option of running themselves.

Main Headline: “FURY AS COLORADO HAS NO PRIMARY OR CAUCUS; CRUZ CELEBRATES VOTERLESS VICTORY”
Reality: Colorado state law doesn’t allow for a primary. Colorado absolutely didhave a caucus this year. And no, Ted Cruz’s victory was not “voterless.” It came from Colorado voters who were elected by other Colorado voters to represent them.

Now, I don’t expect facts and rational explanations to pacify a lot of the people who are upset with the results of Colorado’s delegate distribution. Like I said, I’m not a fan of the process either. But rules do matter, and they must be followed.

Trump supporters in Colorado had the same opportunities as the other candidates’ supporters to make their voices heard in the nomination process. As best I can tell, they largely chose not to pursue them.

When I showed up at the state convention last Saturday in Colorado Springs, I was surprised by the lack of identifiable support for Trump. Every now and then, I’d see someone walk by wearing one of those red “Make America Great Again” trucker hats, but the overwhelming majority of attendees were proudly displaying “Ted Cruz” stickers on their shirts. From the conversations I had with a number of other delegates that day (from different parts of the state), I began to understand why the GOP front-runner was fairing so poorly.

Each of them relayed the same story: Last month, shockingly few Trump supporters showed up on caucus night to vote for district delegates. And of those who did show up, hardly any of them offered to run as delegates to make their voices count at the state convention. They just weren’t interested in the job. Cruz and Rubio supporters, on the other hand, were very engaged.

Taking that into account with Trump’s embarrassingly disorganized (and seemingly clueless) ground-game in the state, a big Cruz victory made perfect sense. It almost seemed as if Trump were less interested in winning Colorado than his supporters were

Stop spreading lies. Cruz won because hisn supporters showed up to caucus and then stuck around to be Colorado convention delegates. Trump lost because he didn't care about organizing in Colorado.

No faux outrage will change that. Nor should it.

It comes down to this.

Was there a vote by the Republicans in the state? Yes/No?

 

[OldLady]

Ignorant Outrage Over the Colorado GOP Caucus Vote

As a Colorado Republican who had caucused in prior years’ elections, I was a bit disappointed back in August when I learned that the state’s GOP executive committee was cancelling this year’s presidential preference poll.

As a matter of curiosity, it would have been nice to find out which candidate my state was leaning toward on March 1. As a matter of pride, it would have been pleasant to hear the results reported on the national news, and discussed by national pundits. As a matter of practicality, however, it wouldn’t have served any meaningful purpose to either the voters or the candidates — something that’s been true for many years in this state.

You see, contrary to the impression that many people have been left with over the past couple of days, Colorado’s traditional caucus-night poll had never been a binding, primary-like election. That’s not how it worked. It was a simple straw-poll — nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t the process used to distribute delegates to the candidates.

The nomination procedure in this state has been driven by the election of representatives for over a hundred years (except for from 1992 to 2002). It starts with grassroots caucus attendees from local precincts voting on congressional-district delegates (their neighbors) to represent them, and ends at the state convention a few weeks later when the representatives finish selecting national delegates to back a candidate at the national convention.

People have only ever voted by participating in caucuses, which they did.

Lots of Trump supporters and even several in the media have signed on to the deceptive narrative. The Drudge Report was perhaps the worst culprit, running a series of breathtakingly misleading, customized headlines:
Headline: “SHOCK: Republicans cancel presidential election in CO…”
Reality: It was hardly a shock, being that the rules were first reported eight months ago. It also wasn’t an “election” that was cancelled. It was a non-binding straw-poll.

Headline: “1 MILLION REPUBLICANS SIDELINED…”
Reality: The only people “sidelined” were those who didn’t (or couldn’t) show up on caucus night (which has been the case for several years). Those in attendance got to vote for people who shared their voting preference. And if they didn’t find such people, they had the option of running themselves.

Main Headline: “FURY AS COLORADO HAS NO PRIMARY OR CAUCUS; CRUZ CELEBRATES VOTERLESS VICTORY”
Reality: Colorado state law doesn’t allow for a primary. Colorado absolutely didhave a caucus this year. And no, Ted Cruz’s victory was not “voterless.” It came from Colorado voters who were elected by other Colorado voters to represent them.

Now, I don’t expect facts and rational explanations to pacify a lot of the people who are upset with the results of Colorado’s delegate distribution. Like I said, I’m not a fan of the process either. But rules do matter, and they must be followed.

Trump supporters in Colorado had the same opportunities as the other candidates’ supporters to make their voices heard in the nomination process. As best I can tell, they largely chose not to pursue them.

When I showed up at the state convention last Saturday in Colorado Springs, I was surprised by the lack of identifiable support for Trump. Every now and then, I’d see someone walk by wearing one of those red “Make America Great Again” trucker hats, but the overwhelming majority of attendees were proudly displaying “Ted Cruz” stickers on their shirts. From the conversations I had with a number of other delegates that day (from different parts of the state), I began to understand why the GOP front-runner was fairing so poorly.

Each of them relayed the same story: Last month, shockingly few Trump supporters showed up on caucus night to vote for district delegates. And of those who did show up, hardly any of them offered to run as delegates to make their voices count at the state convention. They just weren’t interested in the job. Cruz and Rubio supporters, on the other hand, were very engaged.

Taking that into account with Trump’s embarrassingly disorganized (and seemingly clueless) ground-game in the state, a big Cruz victory made perfect sense. It almost seemed as if Trump were less interested in winning Colorado than his supporters were

Stop spreading lies. Cruz won because hisn supporters showed up to caucus and then stuck around to be Colorado convention delegates. Trump lost because he didn't care about organizing in Colorado.

No faux outrage will change that. Nor should it.

Actually, you're the one who's ignorant.
After all of these years of lying and corruption in Washington, a state decides to ace the voters completely out of the process......it sends the wrong message. The optics are really bad, especially at this time. Another year, nobody would care. This is not the election to be trying stunts like this.

It doesn't matter if they can make up any rules they want. They should be smart enough not to. These rules were made up last August when they discovered that Trump was going to be a viable candidate. They eliminated the voters just to ace out an outsider.

Trump has never lost a state yet that he didn't holler "cheat," "I'm suing" or "not fair." It's what he does; gets his supporters all riled up. If the people of Colorado didn't like the rule change, it was up to them to protest it. As has been pointed out, Trump could have competed just as aggressively to get delegates as Cruz, but he didn't. So tough beans, boys. Nothing corrupt about it. President is not elected by popular vote. If Coloradans are too stoned to care if they vote in a primary, it is not our place to change it.

 

[blackhawk]

As I understand it Trump didn't have any people on the ground in Colorado until a week before the vote, caucus whatever you want to call it that's no ones fault but his and tells you serious he was about Colorado.

It tells you he realized the fix was in, dill hole.

It tells me he got caught unprepared and instead of being a grownup and admitting he would rather whine about it.

 

[Wildman]

I find it amazing that you fit right in.

why do you find it "amazing" ? it's the norm for her kind.