I have a big problem with the Republican Caucuses. A lot of people who showed up had no Party Affiliation, or affiliations with parties other than the GOP. If this is a GOP Party Caucus – the only people voting should be members of the GOP, and I’d even go so far as to say Dues Paid, Card Carrying Members.
Letting these Primaries be open like they are – Non-Republicans are picking the Republican Candidates. And no one in the GOP has a problem with this? This is why we had McStain last time!
You’re now just figuring out how wrong this is? The dems are so bold lately that they are doing little to cover the fact that they are skewing nominations. Its like being in a card game knowing what cards the other players have…and then telling them which ones to drop to better your odds in the final outcome.
Yup.
Alaska’s GOP closed their primary a few years ago, which almost resulted in Kansas getting a third senator last time around. But, Alaska is just different, and what’s a bad idea here might actually work in other places where a greater percentage of the conservative leaning people are affiliated with the GOP.
Even so, only about 120,000 even cared enough to vote. There are over 600,000 registered republicans in Iowa. So that’s less than 20% of registered republicans that even cared enough to show up. Heck, if you take all of Iowa’s registered voters (over 2.1 million) that’s under 6%. The problem isn’t with who voted, it’s with the candidates we have to choose from.
I’m registered independent in Iowa. How come I don’t get a say for who I want to run in either party?!
That’s simple. Because you don’t belong to either Party. Why do you think you should be allowed to vote for the Republican Party Candidate if you are not a Member of the Republican Party? If you are not in the Party, you should have ZERO say who the party puts forward as the Party Nominee. Now in the General Election, by all means, look at the different Party Candidates and vote for one of them. But a Party Caucus should be only for the Party. Democrats don’t have nearly as many open Caucuses… so they have fewer GOP Members trying to push a weaker Candidate.
Romney wouldn’t have a chance, if Democrats weren’t voting for him in droves.
Are you kidding? They’d vote for Bachmann or Paul or somebody to ensure the GOP is stuck with an unelectable.
Romney’s unelectable. He’s nominatable, but could not possibly beat Obama in an election.
Paul, on the other hand, is not very nominatable, but would trounce Obama handily in an election.
Not even close. 180 degrees wrong. Mitt can bring in the fence sitters and Ron is divisive.
I like Paul but I have to agree with you George.
Paul is the only outsider which is what makes him divisive.
Establishment GOP hate him for the following reasons.
1. He has never voted to raise taxes.
2. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
3. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
4. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
5. He has never taken a government-paid junket.
6. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
7. He voted against the Patriot Act.
8. He voted against regulating the Internet (SOPA).
9. He voted against the Iraq war.
10. He voted against the NDAA.
11. He is PRO-Israel, PRO-zionist (independence & self-reliance).
12. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
13. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
14. Congressman Paul has introduced numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, most recently a bill for the US to leave the UN. There are zero sponsors.
15. He would cut his Presidential Salary to $39K/yr if elected.
16. He HAS lead the way on the discussion about the Federal Reserve (Audit then end it).
BTW, Paul won Iowa.
Delagates are non-binding and can vote for who ever they want. After everybody voted, they left the polls, except for the Paul voters who stayed behind to elect Pual supporters as delagates. Half of all Iowa delagates are Paul supporters and almost 100% of the alternates are Paul supporters.
Iowa goes to Paul.
Paul is only divisive to those who will vote “R” no matter what. They’ll dislike him, but they’ll vote for him, simply because he’s not Obama.
There are those who are going to vote for Obama, no matter what.
Neither of those two groups needs to be courted by any candidate, because their minds are already made up, and no amount of campaigning will change that.
Among those who are undecided, Romney appeals to those who lean towards Obama (Romney-care, his promise to support an AWB, etc.). But those who want those things are just going to seek out the real thing rather than the imitation, and vote for Obama.
Paul, on the other hand, with his principled stance on military intervention (no more undeclared wars, but a promise to fulfill his duties as Commander-in-Chief if Congress actually declares war), can actually steal supporters from Obama. Obama failed to fulfill his campaign promises to promptly end the wars, close Gitmo, etc., and there are folks who would otherwise support Obama who will switch sides and vote for Paul in protest of that. Those same individuals will /not/ do so if Romney is the nominee.
Romney is definitely a moderate, which typically appeals to fence-sitters, but he’s only moderate in the areas where Obama is strong, so the folks who care about those areas are just going to vote for Obama. Paul is divisive to those who will hold their nose and vote for him, regardless, so that doesn’t matter. And he appeals to fence-sitters in the areas where Obama is weakest. Romney’s trying to out-Obama Obama, and that’s a losing battle. Paul is positioned to flank him and win the day, if he has the chance.
I like Paul as well. I will vote for him as a write-in if he’s not on the ballot, but I’m not going to disillusion myself into thinking he will win over everybody.
Ditto.
From what I read some of those voters in Iowa were from out of state.
Super Tuesday is going to be real interesting.
Man I hope that the gold, guns, food, and ammo stash doesn’t get used this year.
wow thats sure a lot of supposition and hyperbole with no supporting details. Iowa has an open primary – as most states should. That doesn’t mean registered dems can show up and vote, it means independents can. Additionally they allow people to register to vote at the caucus – but this means they cannot register or vote at the caucus as a Democrat. Certainly people are able to change parties at their choice, per election year, but this is the same elsewhere, simply with a different deadline.
Suggesting that voters from out of state were there is just ludicrous and bears no further thought until proof can be offered beyond base speculation.
We’ve had problems in the past with Denver democrats invading Wyoming caucuses.
Your contention that democrats do not cheat is false in my experience.
db, I love your post of 1/4 @ 7:39. Brilliant! Flint, 1/5 @ 8:56, likewise.