The GOP’s Primary Rules Might Doom Carson, Cruz And Trump


#1


As The New York Times’ Nate Cohn astutely observed in January, Republicans in blue states hold surprising power in the GOP presidential primary process even though they are “all but extinct in Washington, since their candidates lose general elections to Democrats.” This explains why Republicans have selected relatively moderate presidential nominees while the party’s members in Congress have continued to veer right.
The key to this pattern: “Blue-state Republicans are less religious, more moderate and less rural than their red-state counterparts,” Cohn concluded after crunching Pew Research survey data. By Cohn’s math, Republicans in states that Obama won in 2012 were 15 percentage points likelier to support Romney in the 2012 primary and 9 points likelier to support McCain in 2008 than their red-state compatriots. Romney and McCain’s advantage in blue states made it “all but impossible for their more conservative challengers to win the nomination,” Cohn wrote.
Blue-state Republicans have already propelled moderates in the 2016 money chase. According to Federal Election Commission filings, donors in the 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992 have accounted for 45 percent of Rubio’s total itemized contributions, 45 percent of Bush’s, 53 percent of Fiorina’s and 85 percent of Chris Christie’s. By contrast, they’ve provided just 20 percent of Cruz’s contributions and 36 percent of Carson’s. For comparison, blue-state Republicans cast just 37 percent of all votes in the 2012 GOP primaries.[SUP]2[/SUP]
What’s more, an imbalance lies in a nuance of the RNC’s delegate allocation. Although it can be a byzantine process, here are the basics: The RNC allows state parties some leeway in how to award delegates to candidates. In a few states, including Florida, Ohio and Arizona, the primary winner wins all the state’s delegates. In most others, delegates are allocated either proportionally to votes or by the winner in each congressional district.
A total of 832 delegates (about 34 percent of all 2,472 delegates) spanning 23 states will be awarded based on results at the congressional district level. Here’s the catch: According to the RNC’s allotment rules, three delegates are at stake in each district, regardless of the partisan lopsidedness of the seat. This creates a “rotten boroughs” phenomenon in which Blue Zone Republicans’ votes can be disproportionately valuable.

But the bigger boon to Rubio, Bush and other moderates is that the opinions of GOP voters in places like Massachusetts count at all in this process — in an era when the Bay State sends zero Republicans to Congress. It’s a huge factor that many pundits tend to overlook, and it’s why the temperament and qualities that the broader party looks for in a nominee differ so much from those of the loudest and most ideological Freedom Caucus types in Washington.
It’s not that national polls are skewed in favor of conservative, red-meat Republicans. It’s that the Republican Party’s delegate geography rewards their moderate rivals.
The GOP

Don’t be so sure it’s not a “RINO” year.


#2

[quote=“Skeptic, post:1, topic:47843”]
Don’t be so sure it’s not a “RINO” year.
[/quote]Then Hillary will be President. There is no way people are gonna vote RINO, this time. In fact, we could see mayhem if a RINO wins the nomination. If they are content to win nominations, and lose elections, fine. This is just more evidence that the GOP is corrupt, and needs replacing.


#3

If the idiots that support Trump won’t vote for a GOP nominee who’s a moderate-conservative, I chalk that up to idiocy. Let 'em stay home - the nation is safer that way.


#4

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:3, topic:47843”]
If the idiots that support Trump won’t vote for a GOP nominee who’s a moderate-conservative, I chalk that up to idiocy. Let 'em stay home - the nation is safer that way.
[/quote]Oh yeah, the country is WAYYYYYYY safer with Hillary. Spoken like a true Democrat.
I am truly glad this happened this way. For years, I have been telling you that you mirror the Democrats, and you finally get it. See, when you were getting YOUR candidate, you were so happy to call us names and belittle our voting our own minds. NOW that your candidate doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades, you are fine with voting for the most destructive force in American politics.
I guess you can take your ball and go home. Don’t go away mad…!


#5

I suppose that argument is going to win people to your cause, right?


#6

The split between those who call themselves conservative and those who call themselves moderate or liberal is about even

Republican Conservative Base Shrinks

although those who consider themselves economic conservatives without regard to social issues still dominate. The point of the 538 article is that the moderates have a kind of unfair advantage. I wouldn’t count them out.


#7

you are fine with voting for the most destructive force in American politics.

Speak for yourself, Tiny. As terrible as Hillary is, Trump is worse.


#8

I can’t persuade the unpersuadable. Real conservatives will support Cruz, or one of the other candidates not named Trump. But Trump’s supporters are weak-minded, and I as far as I’m concerned, are beneath my concern or contempt.


#9

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:7, topic:47843”]
Speak for yourself, Tiny. As terrible as Hillary is, Trump is worse.
[/quote]:coffee_spray::rofl::howler:


#10

I guess that’s true, if you are pro abortion, anti gun, anti business, and don’t care about part of society obeying laws.


#11

Isn’t interesting how the GOP has managed to snatch defeat from victory by deliberately having a candidate that is nothing more than a democrat lite and then sabotaging that candidate so the democrat wins.


#12

Romney? I think Romney was doomed. The GOP had no really good candidates conservative or otherwise.


#13

Romney doomed himself. He should have never lost to Obozo, but he spoke when he should have kept quiet, and kept quiet when he should have spoken.


#14

And then there was also Bush’s legacy to deal with. It would have taken a better candidate than Romney to get past that.


#15

[quote=“Skeptic, post:14, topic:47843”]
And then there was also Bush’s legacy to deal with. It would have taken a better candidate than Romney to get past that.
[/quote]Bush had nothing to do with Romney. If you had said McCain you might have an legitimate argument but obama had been president so throwing up Bush is a red herring. Point in fact Bush had endorsed McCain.


#16

Well I disagree. People turned against Bush and the GOP at the end of his presidency.


#17

On another subject the GOP wants Trump to sign a loyalty oath, meanwhile they are working to get rid of him. If it were me I would not sign.


#18

I believe he has already signed it.


#19

On this we agree; just that each of us has a different target in mind!

(OOOOOPS - didn’t mean to talk so brutally, calling the recipient of our “AIM” a target - Darn did it again!! Oh Well!!:angel:)


#20

thanks to the lying media. We had a 5% and sometimes less unemployment rate and the media was always knocking it. Now you have in the neighborhood of 20 and i’m being generous here and all the media does it say, ‘it’s better, it’s getting better, it’s heaven, everyone is ecstatic!!’ Meanwhile…drive anywhere long distance and see whole main streets closed and boarded up and falling apart. The economy sucks…we know it…the media ignores it. This president sucks but if you listen to the media you’d think he is still the messiah. I run into strangers and one of the first things out of their mouths is ‘we’ve got to get rid of this guy’ and they AREN:T talking about TRUMP.