Romney Shadow State Party in Nevada

[sailingaway]

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.

I think you are the one being disingenuous about the level of disenfranchisement.

On the second point, richest and rich enough for national media are not the same. And you need special interests to be rich enough. And you shouldn't.

 

[kathy88]

WTF. How does the RNC get away with this?

Because nothing is done about it. Ever.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

I agree this is the best way to fight it. I'd like to do it in Ron's name, maybe as money bombs or when he is doing fundraisers for them, so they attribute it properly to us. for example Ron is doing a fundraiser Saturday for the MN GOP which we do not YET have but might, if people don't think we will scare off needed funding for candidates and operations. It is only $20 and is with Kurt Bills and is obviously also to introduce Bills, however, people who have already seen Ron in MN should still go, imho, because showing we will support the party we take over financially is very important.

 

[Ivash]

I think you are the one being disingenuous about the level of disenfranchisement.

On the second point, richest and rich enough for national media are not the same. And you need special interests to be rich enough. And you shouldn't.

Romney has around 6.65 million votes, Paul has 1.60. (Santorum has around 3.62 and Newt has 2.54). In other words I can factually prove that I am not being disingenuous, and that it would at the very least be disenfranchising 6.05 million voters. If it was the 'for a thousand' part of my post that caused confusion I was referring to the votes of the delegates.

"Disfranchisement: the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters."

As for 'rich enough vs. richest'... Santorum was (and is) disliked by a huge section of the establishment, and before Iowa not backed by any truly large special interest (hell even after he won Gingrich was the 'anti-Romney' until he fell apart) and yet he still won Iowa and made a run of it.

 

[sailingaway]

Romney has around 6.65 million votes, Paul has 1.60. (Santorum has around 3.62 and Newt has 2.54). In other words I can factually prove that I am not being disingenuous, and that it would at the very least be disenfranchising 6.05 million voters. If it was the 'for a thousand' part of my post that caused confusion I was referring to the votes of the delegates.

"Disfranchisement: the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters."

As for 'rich enough vs. richest'... Santorum was (and is) disliked by a huge section of the establishment, and before Iowa not backed by any truly large special interest (hell even after he won Gingrich was the 'anti-Romney' until he fell apart) and yet he still won Iowa and made a run of it.

No, you are using evidence from a system I consider discredited and I posted why previously. In Maine the counting was odd, changed etc. I discount it. In a system where only GOP can vote, and GOP has been only electing unattractive establishment candidates and their system is as corrupt and rigged as I pointed out, many don't bother trying BECAUSE they are disenfranchised. That is the definition of the word. NATIONWIDE polling has Ron comparable to Romney against Obama DESPITE the huge difference in media coverage and ad budgets. THAT is amazing and a point on my side of the argument.

 

[Ivash]

No, you are using evidence from a system I consider discredited and I posted why previously. In Maine the counting was odd, changed etc. I discount it. In a system where only GOP can vote, and GOP has been only electing unattractive establishment candidates and their system is as corrupt and rigged as I pointed out, many don't bother trying BECAUSE they are disenfranchised. That is the definition of the word. NATIONWIDE polling has Ron comparable to Romney against Obama DESPITE the huge difference in media coverage and ad budgets. THAT is amazing and a point on my side of the argument.

We're going to have to agree to disagree then- I don't see how this debate can be meaningful if you want to discount the only real evidence available (the total amount of votes gathered thus far- not to mention the actual dictionary definition of disenfranchised).

 

[sailingaway]

We're going to have to agree to disagree then- I don't see how this debate can be meaningful if you want to discount the only real evidence available (the total amount of votes gathered thus far- not to mention the actual dictionary definition of disenfranchised).

I used the dictionary definition of disenfranchised. Their votes don't matter because the establishment manipulates rules or cheats to make sure if they are in danger of prevailing, it WON'T matter, and they can't reasonbly compete because the two parties passed major barriers to entry.

And the polls of Ron against Obama are 'available evidence'. People who don't care about politics aren't going to sit through a pollster's questions. Yet they aren't voting for Ron. In my view it is because of the barriers in the party system and disenfranchisement leading them to think voting doesn't help, combined with the fact that what little media Ron got was really an advertising campaign that 'he can't win.' So they don't bother reregistering or voting. Or registering at all in many cases.

But we can agree to disagree. I suspect you have an entrenched interest in the two party system, whereas for me, it has failed.

 

[RonRules]

“They are still bogged down in the minutiae of whether Romney will be the presumptive nominee,”

 

[georgiaboy]

my head is spinning.

 

[Paul Fan]

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.).

I agree completely. We must keep going.

 

[georgiaboy]

Any historical precedent for this situation?

 

[shishka]

This measure, counter-measure shit is rediculous. Why doesn't Romney and the RNC simply and blantantly create a shadow state party in every state, therefore negating any Ron Paul delegates past, present and future, and be done with it? Sure seems like they can do anything they want anyways...

 

[dancjm]

This measure, counter-measure shit is rediculous. Why doesn't Romney and the RNC simply and blantantly create a shadow state party in every state, therefore negating any Ron Paul delegates past, present and future, and be done with it? Sure seems like they can do anything they want anyways...

Why don't they just have a contest between Romney & Paul and see who wins fair and square?

Oh...

 

[jay_dub]

I used the dictionary definition of disenfranchised. Their votes don't matter because the establishment manipulates rules or cheats to make sure if they are in danger of prevailing, it WON'T matter, and they can't reasonbly compete because the two parties passed major barriers to entry.

And the polls of Ron against Obama are 'available evidence'. People who don't care about politics aren't going to sit through a pollster's questions. Yet they aren't voting for Ron. In my view it is because of the barriers in the party system and disenfranchisement leading them to think voting doesn't help, combined with the fact that what little media Ron got was really an advertising campaign that 'he can't win.' So they don't bother reregistering or voting. Or registering at all in many cases.

But we can agree to disagree. I suspect you have an entrenched interest in the two party system, whereas for me, it has failed.

...or an entrenched interest in another candidate.

 

[DamianTV]

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.

The Delegate system was impelemnted to prevent Democracy. "and to the Republic for which it stands" Now, just because a person lives in a "Democracy" does not automagically make people smart enough to vote. The Delegates are there so that the Democratic Majority does not have final say in an election. This is a good thing because given the choice between what is Right and what is Easy, too many choose easy and they are usually the Majority. We arent fighting for Easy, we are fighting for what is Right.

 

[juvanya]

This has nothing to do with delegates. Theyre talking about the general election. If we took over the state party and our supporters arent willing to run GOTV or any campaigning for Romney, the RNC and Romney campaign are going to setup another organization to do this.

There are other ramifications sf all this, but Ill not be posting about them here.