1st GOP Primary Election

[davsel]

Who would you vote for if the primary was held today?

ALL VOTES ARE SET TO PRIVATE - NO ONE KNOWS WHO YOU VOTED FOR
YOU CAN VOTE WITHOUT POSTING BELOW

[Zundfolge]

Who would you vote for if the primary was held today?

Keeping in mind that Colorado Republicans are not going to be allowed to have any voice in who the candidate is because the new rules would mean that who we picked in the caucuses would actually get the CO delegates instead of being hand picked by the GOP leaders (fucking CO-GOP idiots).

[alan0269]

Keeping in mind that Colorado Republicans are not going to be allowed to have any voice in who the candidate is because the new rules would mean that who we picked in the caucuses would actually get the CO delegates instead of being hand picked by the GOP leaders (fucking CO-GOP idiots).

Actually, my understanding is that Colorado Republicans will have a voice. There is no straw election for a presidential candidate at this year's caucuses because of the rule that states that for any caucus held before March 15th the delegates MUST vote in the 1st election at the primaries for the candidate selected in the caucus. By not voting in the caucus for a candidate, it allows the Colorado delegates to vote for any candidate at the primaries in the 1st election instead of potentially being tied to a candidate that may have already dropped out prior to the primary.

Example if we selected a candidate at the caucus:

"Candidate A" is selected in the caucus.
"Candidate A" drops out of the election prior to the primaries.
Colorado's delegates would still be bound to vote for "Candidate A", which would basically equate to not voting because the candidate is no longer running.

By not selecting a candidate, this is avoided and the delegates can vote for the candidate that most represents what the voters they represent want.

[Zundfolge]

By not selecting a candidate, this is avoided and the delegates can vote for the candidate that most represents what the voters they represent want.

But by not selecting a candidate how will the delegates know what candidate voters want? I'd rather have seen our Caucus moved to after the 15th then.

I still believe that the new rule was meant to prop up the eGOP and whatever Jeb! like creature they want.



I have kind of a radical idea for how I'd like to see primaries/caucuses done:

• None of this "early primary" crap. ALL 51 primaries/caucuses would be held on the same day, either 6, 9 or 12 months before actual election day (I prefer 6 or 9, but I ain't picky).
• ALL caucuses and primaries would be "closed" (no more liberal New Hampshire Democrats picking the Republican candidate).
• I would prefer no more caucuses. All be primary elections (but I'm a states rights kinda guy and if some states want to caucus instead of vote let 'em have it). I'd also prefer these primary elections be done as "preference voting" since you'll generally have more than 2 candidates.

[cstone]

No primary in Colorado. Neighbors across the street host one of the GOP caucus meetings. I should take pictures of the attendee's vehicles and post them in the People Can't Park thread.

Unaffiliated voter, so I will be voting in November (or October when the early voting begins).

[Zundfolge]

No primary in Colorado. Neighbors across the street host one of the GOP caucus meetings.

Yes however we won't be picking a presidential candidate.

[blacklabel]

I'm unaffiliated as well but have liked what Carson has had to say.

[fitz19d]

Too bad Carson had a case of the serious crazies. (Pyramid grain silos, his magic medicine, et al)

I blame trump having as much of a popular lead as he does precisely because yet again the GOP options are mostly shit. I know some on the board feel this way, been the spats before. But extreme zealots like Cruz scare/turn off the middle ground voters. While most hard D and R's will vote party lines. The younger generation and independants are what matters. (That and turn out.) Running on a platform of social issues that have been decided for some time now and are not about to change in the foreseeable future is not a winning platform.

Even if trump is full of shit, I do at least like someone acknowledging the rage among us about the growing PC turned SJW extreme crowd. (They are so bad there are even liberals on other forums that are crossing to R because of it) The rage of what's being allowed with foreign policy, be it benghazi, or the whole toppling nations that while not angels has spurred this massive uprising of ISIS which is further fueled by idiots like Merkel putting out beacons of "free shit" causing the current literal and figuritive rape of Europe with fake refugee's. Meanwhile their media downplays and hides what's happening.

Candidates should be focused on really 2 things. Economy (and I put healthcare and the burden of ACA under it) and foreign policy. And a third in a way and part of why Trump/Sanders are both running so hot. Is shaking up this broken fucking system. It's bee discussed elsewhere. Boehner and the rest of the long term R party is barely more of a friend to us than the Dems. They both jack us from different sides and people are ready for a change.

[HoneyBadger]

Awwww, someone felt bad for Kasich and voted for him!

[davsel]

Awwww, someone felt bad for Kasich and voted for him!

Yet, he did beat Cruz in New Hampshire.