I'm not sure a lot of people understand what I'm asking. It's not whether or not multiple choices is a good idea, but whether or not the beating they take during the primaries by their own party is good. We saw it during the 2012 primaries when it was "anybody but Romney". It had to sour many GOP voters towards his campaign. Is it a good idea for any party to have so many of their own people trying to destroy their character leading up to the general election?
aaronleland - I would say it depends on how they beat up on each other. As to the "anyone but Romney", that apparently did not keep him from getting his base vote, because Romney still scored the second highest raw vote total for a Republican in all of history, behind Bush 43 in 2004. Actually, I think a part of it was some of the crowd reaction at a number of debates.
Ron Paul (Alien Flouride Conspiracy, TX) was asked at a debate about a health care scenario:
a 30 year old man, independently wealthy, who CHOSE to not buy his own health insurance. Then, he got a catastrophic illness and no one would cover him. The question was: 'should we let him die', to which Ron Paul answered, essentially "yes, he chose to not get health insurance when he could' and the crowd roared 'let him die' and cheered for Paul.
Essentially, on a base level, I think Paul was right. Because Obamacare is not designed for the independently wealthy who can and who should have already gotten a nice private health insurance plan a long time ago.
But the energy that came out of that crowd made the whole thing look very, very ugly. The Left and the press (even the press on the Right) took the ball and ran with it, but during the debate, not one single candidate had the balls to make sure to discern what Ron Paul actually said. I am convinced that they were innerly calculating that the whole thing would make Paul look bad, but at the end of the day, when all was said and done, it made them ALL look bad.
Same thing for the video question mailed in by a very burly US Soldier who was gay. As soon as he indicated that he was gay, the crowd at the debate ROARED ugly noises and NO GOP candidate had the balls to talk it down. They engaged in platitudes, but again, the damage was done.
THIS is why, I believe, that the GOP handlers want to shorten the number of debates and limit the number of participants in each debate.
So, from my point of view, it wasn't just the "anybody but Romney" syndrome (which was real until he actually got the nomination). It was the candidates' lack of finess and discernment during the debates themselves, especially across from an audience that was far more knuckle-dragging than they expected it to be.
