RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

[S.J.]

The reason the lefties are saying "don't change the rules, man" is that they know the Dem candidate will hammer to pieces any Trump candidacy.

Sure, dumbass, that's why the Dems are running against him before he even gets the nomination.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Regarding the caucus process in Colorado-

The Republican Party decided to not hold a straw poll vote this year.

The state 24-member GOP executive committee unanimously voted to abandon the straw poll after the national party amended its rules to bind the state's delegates to the caucus winner. Party leaders who supported the move said it would give Colorado delegates the ability to support any candidate eligible at the national convention, rather than one who may not make it to the end.
-Dog whistle for wait for the highest bidder.

• p.m. to register ahead of the 7 p.m. start. Any person in line at 7 p.m. will still be allowed to participate. Democrats expect less than the 120,000 who attended the record-setting 2008 caucus to show up this year. Republicans anticipate about 20,000 to 60,000 people to participate, less than the 70,000 estimated in 2008.
  
  
  
• - dog whistle for unless you are one of us, we don't need your opinion

The final slate of GOP delegates are picked at congressional district level — three for each of the state's seven districts — and the state convention, where 13 are chosen. The list is often filled with elected officials and well-known activists. The presidential campaigns — as well as local and state candidates — will try to get their supporters into these posts to win delegates.
-Dog whistle for power bartering.

A Republican delegate elected to the national convention can commit to support a candidate on their intent to run form, or can remain unbound. Three more top GOP officials are automatic delegates, or superdelegates, free to support any candidate.
-Dog whistle for political whores.

Will Colorado know the party winners on caucus night?

No — at least not definitively. On the Republican side, no delegates selected are bound to candidates and it will prove incredibly difficult to quantify which candidate wins the most delegates among the thousands selected at the precinct level.
-Dog whistle for we haven't decide which canidate you want yet.

p.m. to register ahead of the 7 p.m. start. Any person in line at 7 p.m. will still be allowed to participate. Democrats expect less than the 120,000 who attended the record-setting 2008 caucus to show up this year. Republicans anticipate about 20,000 to 60,000 people to participate, less than the 70,000 estimated in 2008. There are roughly 2.8 million registered voters, Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated/other are about 1/3 each, or +/- 900,000.
- The precinct participation level for Republicans is 2-6% which is less than half that of the Dems...and falling.

My decision to leave the GOP just keeps getting confirmed, but my conservative values remain intact.

Being a Republican comes with responsibility, not anyone can wear the red elephant pin. You have to be willing to spend some time, perhaps put in some late nights away from home on party business.

But it can be very rewarding. For instance, in Colorado if you can do the responsible things like be a precinct leader for a couple of years, and then serve as delegate to the county assemblies, you could ultimately become a state delegate.

Once you are a state delegate you have become a political power broker. Many people will want to be your friend, and they will do nice things for you. Because you have reached level where you have a vote that will actually be counted.

900,000 registered Republicans in Colorado of which
20,000 - 60,000 participated in the precinct process at over
2900 precincts where
0 votes cast for any republican nominee for president.

What's your point?

THERE WAS NO VOTE For the presidential nominee. Please direct me to anything which describes such a vote at a precinct caucus.

You have made it clear, being a Republican with any representation requires more time and effort than some people can muster. The process is long and cumbersome. So we will have to accept our differences.

I believe a party should invite, encourage and request input; and provide a process in which all people can cast a respected vote for who they prefer as the nominee.

How do you interpret the following passage? It is from the Green Papers of the Colorado Republicans.
-

• There is no formal system applied in the Precinct Caucus to relate the presidential preference of the participants to the choice of the precinct's delegates to the Colorado County Assemblies and District Conventions; (NOTE: It is the District Conventions and the State Convention that will actually elect Republican National Convention delegates to presidential contenders).

-

I already DID direct you to something that described such a vote: I provided a link to an article written by someone who attended a precinct caucus. What more would you like? You either believe it, or you decide to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative, in which case, anything I provided would likely be subject to the same dismissal.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that responsible citizenship sometimes requires some effort. As it should, as most things worth doing do. I feel utterly no compulsion, nor even any interest, in making it easier, because people do not value what they do not have to work for, and there is no benefit to the country in encouraging people to treat their citizenship responsibilities as a not-very-interesting hobby, the equivalent of doodling on a desk blotter while talking on the phone.

Look at you, for example. First you're outraged, spitting mad, because you think you've been denied your sacred, precious right to vote (which doesn't even apply in a primary, but never mind). Then, when you find out you COULD have voted, you're upset and incredulous that someone actually expected you to put forth some effort to do it, instead of - presumably - someone coming by your house, taking you by the hand, and leading you through it. If it's too much trouble for you to get informed and be aware of what's happening and what you need to do to vote, then what the hell are you screeching about?

From what I understand of the process, that paragraph means that the printed information from the party doesn't inform you of who the delegate candidates are leaning toward supporting. It just tells you their name, or - in the case of the ballot at the state convention - their assigned number, which you coordinate with the name through the program or from a slate of delegate names provided by the campaign of your choice. Once again, it is up to the people exercising their highly-valued "rights" to value them enough to put some effort into them.

The party DOES invite input, but they're not bound by it, and they're not going to pick you up, drive you to the polling place, and give you a carton of cigarettes as a bribe the way the Democrats do homeless people on Election Day. And they DID provide a system by which you could vote. You apparently just don't like that it involved you PROVING that you value your participation, rather than just running your gums about it.

Personally, I verified my voter registration and polling place, PLUS those of my husband and adult children and any special instructions that might be necessary, MONTHS prior to my state's primary, even though it's been a fairly simple, straightforward primary for as long as I can remember. You know why? Because I don't think of voting as a right "owed" to me by society or the universe or whoever. I think of INFORMED voting as a responsibility I owe to my community.

I hesitate to continue this back and forth. But I will keep trying. I listen to a lot of local talk shows here in Denver. It's entertaining, like this forum. There was an absolutely epic show this morning, I think it's a 2 hour show, it's on 710 AM KNUS, runs from 9-11 AM MST.

I am sure you can guess the topic this morning. The host is a well know outspoken local attorney. He was born in Chicago, went to CU Law School, he is a card carrying GOPer (reformed democrat btw). He has spoken in front of GOP audiences, has been openly encouraged to seek office. He Attends a lot of political events. He is devoutly Catholic. He is a respected, successful Colorado family man. I can't imagine a better person to run against our incumbent senator Michael Bennett-D.

Steve House is the Colorado Republican Chairman, he has been on the show with the host. They know each other, and by all accounts are friends (that may have changed).

The host gave his opinion, made his case, presented evidence. And by the time he had signed off the air, Steve House had declared "don't ever call me again, I won't come on." I believe he communicated this by text.

I don't know how to express the mood here in Colorado. Listening to the entire 2 hour show would only give you a snap shot, but a real sense of what has occurred and how it is being perceived. There are somethings that can't be accurately understood by simply doing searches on the Internet. I wouldn't research what it's like to birth a child and then tell a mother I know what she experienced. I honestly hear all your explanations of the process, the requirements, the responsibilities, etc. But there is so obviously something wrong.

Donald Trump is leading in Delegates?

An ostrich with his head in the sand sees nothing.

Something is very wrong, but have you considered the possibility that you're looking for it on the wrong end?

I'm giving you reality, and you're countering with "feelz". You're telling me that reality is and should be determined not by facts, but by what people FEEL it should be.

Look, I'm not saying it's not a half-assed and complex system they stuck in place. Like I said, it appears to have been a compromise because they couldn't come up with a suitable system in time. And there were arguments and controversy back in August, when it was announced. All perfectly valid and understandable.

But the anger you're seeing now actually isn't based on the problems with the system they put in place. It's based on the spoiled laziness that people have come to think is some sort of ordained right in and of itself, and the false, charged, and dangerous rhetoric that's being cynically used to manipulate people who've already proven themselves uninformed, gullible, and prone to thinking with their glands.

You had a vote, and while it was not the direct mobocracy many lazy-minded people have battened onto as the only "proper, fair" way to do things, it was actually pretty in keeping with the representative way things are mostly done in this country. Clearly, the system that Colorado used WAS accessible and functional, because thousands of people DID manage to access and use it.

Furthermore, you ARE being manipulated and used, by a man who is himself spoiled and lazy-minded. Donald Trump knew about Colorado back in August. His own staffers said he CHOSE to blow it off because it didn't favor his "be outrageous and inflame people's anger" methods (and would have required him to actually hire professionals and work at campaigning), and instead planned with malice aforethought to pitch one of his famous hissy fits for the publicity. The staffers didn't say that last part, of course, but if sacrificing Colorado and its delegates was intentional, then his "spontaneous" anger and groundless accusations had to have been, as well.

When it comes right down to it, it's easier and so much more fun to stomp around and have rallies and shout slogans and vent than it is to use logic and reason to assess what you have to work with, make a plan, and follow it through. But the reality is, the second will get you what you want, and the first won't. Short of re-enacting the French Revolution, complete with guillotines, you're not going to smash the system or sweep away the people who've built careers around it. You just aren't, no matter how much Donald Trump tells you otherwise. You can throw the GOP into chaos for this election cycle and put Hillary Clinton in the White House; maybe you can even permanently cripple the Republican Party. But the system will still be here. Another political party will just replace the old one, and all too soon, it will fill up with people who have more time and training to focus solely on political games than regular people like you or I do, and it will be "meet the old boss, same as the new boss".

The alternative is to find people who can and will understand the system and make it work. That's what the Tea Party was trying to do when it sent Cruz to the Senate. That's what grassroots movements usually try to do. It's not as fast, and it doesn't have the movie-ending emotional payoff, but it IS more effective.

And for God's sake, above all, we have GOT to stop sitting back in our Lazyboys all fat, dumb, and happy, and assuming we know how things work because someone shouted slogans at us that we enjoyed hearing. Whatever else happens, people have to start either getting informed, or at least acknowledging that they aren't. Instead of getting your panties in a bunch in April because, "What?! I don't get to vote?! I didn't know that! How dare they?!" ask yourself, "WHY didn't I know that?"

I notice, by the way, that you not only didn't answer my first question of, "So who did you vote for in the precinct caucus?" which I have assumed meant you didn't bother to find out about them and go, you also didn't answer my question of, "When was it that you found out about the system the Colorado GOP planned to use?" I'm guessing from your avoidance of THIS question that the answer is, "On Sunday when the newspapers told me it was over, and that I should get my balls in an uproar about it."

 

[my2¢]

Interesting interview I heard going to work this morning:

GOP Delegate: Trump Primary Wins 'Absolutely Irrelevant' At Convention

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting interview I heard going to work this morning:

GOP Delegate: Trump Primary Wins 'Absolutely Irrelevant' At Convention

He may or may not be technically correct, but realistically, the GOPe itself is very unlikely to let delegates get the idea that they can wander off the reservation whenever they like and do whatever they like.

 

[easyt65]

The election process on both sides reeks to high heaven.

Both the GOP and DNC are like 'clubs'. You can join, but you really don't have a say in what happens. They will give the appearance that you and your opinions matter, but when it all boils down the people are really just along for the ride.

As another thread pointed out, 2016 is the year the American people finally got smacked in the face with this reality, that their vote really doesn't matter like they thought it did.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The election process on both sides reeks to high heaven.

Both the GOP and DNC are like 'clubs'. You can join, but you really don't have a say in what happens. They will give the appearance that you and your opinions matter, but when it all boils down the people are really just along for the ride.

As another thread pointed out, 2016 is the year the American people finally got smacked in the face with this reality, that their vote really doesn't matter like they thought it did.

Yeah, well, it's long past time America woke the hell up and learned some civics, instead of just making assumptions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reason the lefties are saying "don't change the rules, man" is that they know the Dem candidate will hammer to pieces any Trump candidacy.

Sure, dumbass, that's why the Dems are running against him before he even gets the nomination.

The Dems are going to run against the presumptive nominee as early as possible, S. J. And they are hoping it is DT, because he now looks like he will lose more than 60% of the popular vote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

You mean the Democrats and their SuperDelegates, right?

 

[S.J.]

The reason the lefties are saying "don't change the rules, man" is that they know the Dem candidate will hammer to pieces any Trump candidacy.

Sure, dumbass, that's why the Dems are running against him before he even gets the nomination.

The Dems are going to run against the presumptive nominee as early as possible, S. J. And they are hoping it is DT, because he now looks like he will lose more than 60% of the popular vote.

If they were hoping it was DT, they wouldn't be attacking him before he gets the nomination, dummy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you continue to chase

Is it the booze or the drugs, S. J. The Dems are figuring it is going to be Trump, whom they know they can beat. They know that Kasich would be a tougher candidate. So they are quiet.

 

[S.J.]

And you continue to chase

Is it the booze or the drugs, S. J. The Dems are figuring it is going to be Trump, whom they know they can beat. They know that Kasich would be a tougher candidate. So they are quiet.

Sure, stupid, that's why they're trying to prevent him from getting the nomination in the hope that Kasich will reap the benefit and steal the nomination so he can beat Hillary in the general. Only a moron like you would have that kind of logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

 

[S.J.]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

If that's all there is to your world, keep on drinking.

 

[S.J.]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

If that's all there is to your world, keep on drinking.

If that's the best you've got, you should give up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

If that's all there is to your world, keep on drinking.

If that's the best you've got, you should give up.

You are relentlessly stupid; not that you can't learn, you simply won't. The polls are against you. 60 o 65% of the citizens will not permit Donald to be President. Focusing on Donald keeps people from looking at the person who can beat HRC.

 

[S.J.]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

If that's all there is to your world, keep on drinking.

If that's the best you've got, you should give up.

You are relentlessly stupid; not that you can't learn, you simply won't. The polls are against you. 60 o 65% of the citizens will not permit Donald to be President. Focusing on Donald keeps people from looking at the person who can beat HRC.

You should have taken my advice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual the booze has your brain backwards. By not attacking Kasich and attacking Trump, the Trumpcrazies get even more outraged and with their 35% will take the nomination.

The polls are against you, and if almost all the polls are against you but you don't believe it, then the booze has wrecked you.

Apparently Hillary doesn't believe the polls since she's shaking in her boots that Trump will be the nominee.

If that's all there is to your world, keep on drinking.

If that's the best you've got, you should give up.

You are relentlessly stupid; not that you can't learn, you simply won't. The polls are against you. 60 o 65% of the citizens will not permit Donald to be President. Focusing on Donald keeps people from looking at the person who can beat HRC.

You should have taken my advice.

Critics gonna neg. Donald will lose.