Romney Shadow State Party in Nevada

[DEGuy]

So.....

Why can't we do the same thing is all the states we didn't win? We'll set up our own GOP party, we'll send delegates to Tampa. We'll nominate Paul and then we can battle this out in court as to who the REAL slimshaddy is?

Not sure how this is even legal. This should be headline news

Because this "shadow group" has the support of the RNC. The best way to fight that is to raise money and support at the local level. Back the local GOP candidates, and then make this "shadow group" look like they don't care about the state elections, only raising money for Romney.

 

[Ivash]

Edit: Should be deleted.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

It potentially disenfranchises voters, something that would be a major problem in the 21st century if it were to occur. People no longer thing of primaries as events that can be controlled by the establishment (as in the old day) or by motivated groups of supporters, but rather as democratic votes where the person that wins the most votes/states wins the primary. To change that perception would incur a major backlash, which is why the changing of the delegate system is extremely likely (though not inevitable- many campaigns like to reward not particularly important supporters with delegate positions).

So if I'm understanding what you're trying to convey, is that you would like the delegate process to bound delegates to the popular vote percentages. If that was the case, the uninformed/manipulated would always seize the power which is a democratic process which undermines a Republic government on which the US was founded.

How is this process different from what the AP is doing with their delegate count?

 

[kathy88]

Time for 2 million signatures on a petition that if he does it we will vote for Johnson and he will lose the general.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Time for 2 million signatures on a petition that if he does it we will vote for Johnson and he will lose the general.

Doesn't really matter who wins between Romney and Obama - both take their marching orders from the same people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

 

[jay_dub]

I posted the article on another forum with this comment:

"Is there nothing these guys won't do? In an even more brazen violation of Rule 11, the RNC and the Romney campaign have set up a shadow party in Nevada in response to the Clark County Republican Party's resolution calling for RNC Chairman Reince Priebus' resignation.

IMO, Republicans everywhere ought to be asking themselves if this is the Party leader and candidate they actually want leading them. They will not be able to try these strongarm tactics on Obama in November and the weakness they are showing vs Ron Paul will only be magnified vs Obama."

That's my take on it. No voter with any sense of fair play should agree with this move. It begs the question as to which is the stronger candidate. Actually, it brings up many more questions, but I'll leave it at the obvious.

 

[hrdman2luv]

Am I the only one who is laughing so hard by this?

People, take a step back.

Look at how pathetic this is from the GOP.

If this isn't proof that we are winning, I don't know what is.

I am legit "lol"ing right now...

You don't know what is. Sorry. But creating their own RNC in this states, means they will stop at nothing to ensure their victory. Read my post on the first page of this thread, where the RP camapaign agreed that Romney will be the nominee and vowed to help Romney beat Obama.

To me, that isn't a sign that we're winning anything. In fact the RP campaign isn't helping us in our fight anymore. But helping the RNC continue their "status quo".

 

[Ivash]

So if I'm understanding what you're trying to convey, is that you would like the delegate process to bound delegates to the popular vote percentages. If that was the case, the uninformed/manipulated would always seize the power which is a democratic process which undermines a Republic government on which the US was founded.

How is this process different from what the AP is doing with their delegate count?

I personally would give each district a certain amount of delegates (perhaps just one, perhaps more based on likely voting population), and a state 'x' amount of delegates (the 'x' would be based on a variety of thing). The districts' delegates would go to the candidate they voted for, while each individual state could decide upon their own process of delegate distribution- it would probably be best if the overall collector of votes in a state won the remaining delegates, but I suppose there could be a caucus process for or something else.

There wouldn't be much controversy if the old outdated primary system was finally put to rest. Aside from a very small group of supporters no one cares about the old Republic-style primary process. That is why everyone just accepts the AP delegate count- since it reflects the will of the voters. That is what the system has already become. Eventually the rules will change to reflect that reality.

 

[jay_dub]

I personally would give each district a certain amount of delegates (perhaps just one, perhaps more based on likely voting population), and a state 'x' amount of delegates (the 'x' would be based on a variety of thing). The districts' delegates would go to the candidate they voted for, while each individual state could decide upon their own process of delegate distribution- it would probably be best if the overall collector of votes in a state won the remaining delegates, but I suppose there could be a caucus process for or something else.

There wouldn't be much controversy if the old outdated primary system was finally put to rest. Aside from a very small group of supporters no one cares about the old Republic-style primary process. That is why everyone just accepts the AP delegate count- since it reflects the will of the voters. That is what the system has already become. Eventually the rules will change to reflect that reality.

The process is designed with several layers to blunt the effect of money on a campaign and to ensure a popular candidate doesn't get plowed under by a moneyed candidate. That's exactly why we're winning delegates. RP supporters are dedicated enough to endure the process. Romney supporters....not so much. What you seem to be advocating is more pure democracy, which is essentially mob rule.

 

[sailingaway]

I personally would give each district a certain amount of delegates (perhaps just one, perhaps more based on likely voting population), and a state 'x' amount of delegates (the 'x' would be based on a variety of thing). The districts' delegates would go to the candidate they voted for, while each individual state could decide upon their own process of delegate distribution- it would probably be best if the overall collector of votes in a state won the remaining delegates, but I suppose there could be a caucus process for or something else.

There wouldn't be much controversy if the old outdated primary system was finally put to rest. Aside from a very small group of supporters no one cares about the old Republic-style primary process. That is why everyone just accepts the AP delegate count- since it reflects the will of the voters. That is what the system has already become. Eventually the rules will change to reflect that reality.

when things are going well, you can get away with disenfranchising such a large part of the country, because no one's pain is severe enough to take on the establishment edge on control. Now that the pie is shrinking and people are fighting over shares, it is going to be a very different dynamic, I predict. We, and the tea party, are just the beginning.

THAT is the reality.

 

[Ivash]

The process is designed with several layers to blunt the effect of money on a campaign and to ensure a popular candidate doesn't get plowed under by a moneyed candidate. That's exactly why we're winning delegates. RP supporters are dedicated enough to endure the process. Romney supporters....not so much. What you seem to be advocating is more pure democracy, which is essentially mob rule.

I'd say the biggest 'blunting' layer is that not all states vote at once- which would really make it impossible for lesser known candidates to compete. A rotating primary system where the first two or three states have to be small, scarcely populated states would ensure that less well known candidates would have a chance to make their name known and gather up momentum.

when things are going well, you can get away with disenfranchising such a large part of the country, because no one's pain is severe enough to take on the establishment edge on control. Now that the pie is shrinking and people are fighting over shares, it is going to be a very different dynamic, I predict. We, and the tea party, are just the beginning.

THAT is the reality.

The 'establishment' isn't some monolithic block, but I digress... your post makes little sense. You are advocating a process that could potentially disenfranchise millions of voters and yet are arguing that the days of large scale disenfranchisement are over due to a shrinking economy. There is a different dynamic, but it is one that promotes extremism rather than moderation. Democracy in America has already overthrown the system of Republic- there is a reason why the person who wins the most votes has won the primary for God knows how many years. Eventually that will be codified in rule as it is in reality.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd say the biggest 'blunting' layer is that not all states vote at once- which would really make it impossible for lesser known candidates to compete. A rotating primary system where the first two or three states have to be small, scarcely populated states would ensure that less well known candidates would have a chance to make their name known and gather up momentum.

not if the only media is local and the other states don't hear of them, except as caricatures, as was done to Ron.

 

[Ivash]

not if the only media is local and the other states don't hear of them, except as caricatures, as was done to Ron.

Dr. Paul almost won Iowa- had his campaign reacted more swiftly to the racist newsletter scandal he might have pulled it off.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

The process is designed with several layers to blunt the effect of money on a campaign and to ensure a popular candidate doesn't get plowed under by a moneyed candidate. That's exactly why we're winning delegates. RP supporters are dedicated enough to endure the process. Romney supporters....not so much. What you seem to be advocating is more pure democracy, which is essentially mob rule.

So glad I wasn't the only one who thought this way.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd say the biggest 'blunting' layer is that not all states vote at once- which would really make it impossible for lesser known candidates to compete. A rotating primary system where the first two or three states have to be small, scarcely populated states would ensure that less well known candidates would have a chance to make their name known and gather up momentum.



The 'establishment' isn't some monolithic block, but I digress... your post makes little sense. You are advocating a process that could potentially disenfranchise millions of voters and yet are arguing that the days of large scale disenfranchisement are over due to a shrinking economy. There is a different dynamic, but it is one that promotes extremism rather than moderation. Democracy in America has already overthrown the system of Republic- there is a reason why the person who wins the most votes has won the primary for God knows how many years. Eventually that will be codified in rule as it is in reality.

I'm not 'advocating' anything. First this way we are doing it doesn't disenfranchise anyone because the rules were already in place, second we are RESPONDING to disenfranchisement of all who don't want establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans, a group I approximize by the number of independent registered voters, but frankly think we should add all those who don't even bother to register but are eligible on top of that. What about THEIR disenfranchisement, given the barriers to entry by the two parties controling the debate entries and getting strict ballot access rules in many states?

If parties are open to other influence that is different, but they pretend they are, to activists willing to get involved to get worker bees, but if the worker bees vote for someone they don't like, they do this as Romney is doing. Regarding the popular vote, they changed the voting rules to massage them DIFFERENTLY in states to benefit Romney. In the south where he wasn't expected to win they made them proportional. In states Ron was expected to win, they made it 'fall back consensus' where the lowest vote is thrown out and people go to their second choice etc. In Maine it would appear they outright cheated. And in every election, if your state votes against the establishment ultimate pick, their vote will be switched to vote by 'acclaim' at the RNC as anti-mccain states voted McCain, and anti-Romney states like GA will end up voting for Romney, as would Louisiana were it only the primary half of the delegates we were talking about. (Ron WON the caucus there.) THAT ignores voters. And then their voice isn't even heard at RNC to change policies going forward.

So I don't see how the primaries were less disenfranchising.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Hmmmm. If the establishment GOP were actually trying to cause a schism resulting in the destruction & replacement of the Republican party, they couldn't be doing a better job of it ...

This is a perfect example of the head of the beast discovering that it is no longer in control of the body.

It is also a perfect example of why we need to be doing everything we can to take over state parties (by becoming precinct committeepeople, winning delegates, etc.).

 

[sailingaway]

Dr. Paul almost won Iowa- had his campaign reacted more swiftly to the racist newsletter scandal he might have pulled it off.

but all the work he did there wasn't reflected in national media and the next states came grouped too swiftly to campaign that way everywhere unless you have TONS of money and you already need the recognition to get that. And media wasn't accepting responses on the newsletter. This is hardly the first time it came up, they know the truth of it, but they play it out the same shock and surprise way every time.

 

[Ivash]

I'm not 'advocating' anything. First this way we are doing it doesn't disenfranchise anyone because the rules were already in place, second we are RESPONDING to disenfranchisement of all who don't want establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans, a group I approximize by the number of independent registered voters, but frankly think we should add all those who don't even bother to register but are eligible on top of that. What about THEIR disenfranchisement, given the barriers to entry by the two parties controling the debate entries and getting strict ballot access rules in many states?

If parties are open to other influence that is different, but they pretend they are, to activists willing to get involved to get worker bees, but if the worker bees vote for someone they don't like, they do this as Romney is doing. Regarding the popular vote, they changed the voting rules to massage them DIFFERENTLY in states to benefit Romney. In the south where he wasn't expected to win they made them proportional. In states Ron was expected to win, they made it 'fall back consensus' where the lowest vote is thrown out and people go to their second choice etc. In Maine it would appear they outright cheated. And in every election, if your state votes against the establishment ultimate pick, their vote will be switched to vote by 'acclaim' at the RNC as anti-mccain states voted McCain, and anti-Romney states like GA will end up voting for Romney, as would Louisiana were it only the primary half of the delegates we were talking about. (Ron WON the caucus there.) THAT ignores voters. And then their voice isn't even heard at RNC to change policies going forward.

So I don't see how the primaries were less disenfranchising.

As I noted above, most 'independents' aren't anything of the sort, and adding people who simply don't vote on top of them is disingenuous- while a portion don't vote because political parties don't represent them, others don't because they don't follow/care about politics, or they have more important things to do on voting day, or any number of a million different reasons.

And how is 'following the rules' a defense against disenfranchising voters? Of course if you throw out millions of votes in favor of just a thousand or so it is disenfranchising the majority.

The reason that the RNC is able to change the way that state's primary vote is counted is a direct reflection of the delegate process- in a simpler 'this way is always the way' system the rules could not be changed to suit individual candidates.

One more thing- the 2008 primary is actually a pretty good example of how the system doesn't ponder to the richest candidate. Romney was still the richest, and used his vast wealth to build up leads in New Hampshire and Iowa. Huckabee, like Santorum this year, was able to inflame the passions of voters in Iowa to beat Romney then, and McCain (after revamping his idiotic 'inevitable' campaign doctrine) was able to do the same in New Hampshire- and then the two of them squared off in North Carolina. And the establishment didn't exactly love McCain or Huckabee- I'd say a majority supported Romney, or Thompson, or Giuliani, particularly after it looked like McCain had no chance to win.

but all the work he did there wasn't reflected in national media and the next states came grouped too swiftly to campaign that way everywhere unless you have TONS of money and you already need the recognition to get that. And media wasn't accepting responses on the newsletter. This is hardly the first time it came up, they know the truth of it, but they play it out the same shock and surprise way every time.

I don't disagree- the primary process should be spread out a bit further so that it is easier for candidates with less money to compete.

 

[randomname]

WTF. How does the RNC get away with this?

 

[jhk07]

I know you guys might not even think of this as a 'plus side', but at least it means the delegate system will likely be changed for next time...

I hate the delegate system. It is far too complicated and unnecessary.

while the "system" does have it's downfalls, we need it. Delegates are what differentiates our Republic vs. a Democracy.