You guys still haven’t figured it out. The reason: Romney already has sewn up the election all the way to the White House. Game over. He’s pitched the perfect game, and we all love winners, and has demonstrated to the right he’s the only one that can give the presidential trophy to the Tea Party and Republicans. He’s shown to the center he will fix America. He has shown to the left the writing on the wall and that they shouldn’t have used the stolen golden vessels of our children’s future for their dinner parties. Obama is scared and is already showing it. The 75% from the right care about one thing, electability, and Romney is the only electable candidate with no one else coming. Cain, Perry and all the others lose to Obama in double digits except Romney who’s been tied statistically all this year. Now if you don’t want a strong America, you should be sad along with the Democrats, because your weak President will be leaving the White House come 2012.

why should we care what Rino states like new hampshire and Iowa think they let rabid socialists and communists help decide who the republican nominee should be and that tilts every election to RINOS hey heres an idea lets boycot iowa and new hampshire

…and I agree that it was out of line on Spagnolo’s part, but you don’t need to thread-jump telling everyone in sight. The moderators will surely address this in due time.

So I don’t know what’s going on, and I’ve passed this over to people who can assess the situation.

I don’t blame any state for trying to have more influence. I suspect that if we let nature run its course, we would have a nationwide primary the day after McCains lose and we would pick real conservatives as a consequence. Go Nevada!

nothing else needs to be said about him.

“Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said the former Godfather’s CEO will boycott the Nevada caucus, scheduled for Jan. 14, if the state GOP does not move the event back at least three days, …

Cain will still appear at Tuesday night’s debate in Las Vegas and will not cancel his scheduled campaign events Wednesday in the state, Gordon said.”

got that from politico but its also on fox and a couple other sites. . The politico link is down below. Not sure Nevada is getting this right, but Nevada swears up and down its Florida’s fault.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66013.html#ixzz1as0d51uv

My active GOP friend in FL is upset about the FL GOP mechinationss and fears this could lead to a 3rd party in FL (especially because they will likely lose 1/2 of their convention delegates).

Because the Holy Bible says that the following four states must and shall always determine, with practically zero input from the rest of the country, who our nominee should be.

1) A state where every vote is bought by whoever promises the most corn subsidies, stolen from the pockets of the other 49 states.

2) A state with what is basically an open primary (independents can vote in either primary, so practically everybody is an independent), and is populated with hundreds of thousands of transplants from ultraliberal Massachusetts. The (true) locals have a name for those folks, which can’t be used in deference to site rules.

3) A state that sent Harry Reid to the Senate for 25 years — and only included in this list because in 2008 the Democrats thought it would be a good idea.

4) And finally, a state whose political culture is an absolute cesspool — just ask Nikki Haley how she was treated by the RPoSC during her campaign for governor. Or (as much as I despise the man for other reasons) ask John McCain about the (quite real) scurrilous whisper campaign that he (wrongly) attributed to W, rather than to the truly guilty party, the cesspool of the RPoSC. Oh, and did I mention that S.C. ALSO has an open primary, where the Dems get to pick our nominee?
‘
Yes, the Word of the Lord demands that these four states shall now and forevermore choose our nominee (e.g. Fred was out after S.C. last time, as was most everybody else except McCain, Mittens, and Giuliani).

While I’m not too happy that the ripple effect of FL moving up has on the Not-Romney side, I fully support challenging the absurd notion that IA, NH, NV, and SC should be the permanent gatekeepers. Good on FL for challenging THAT, at least.

If IA moves up to Dec 6, all it will really mean is that folks will simply consider it irrelevant. Sure, the winner will pick up a few early delegates, but it will just be too d*** early to really be an actual preference statement for the final result — only barely different than a straw poll.

The states set their primary/caucus dates. The only think the RNC can do is threaten to not seat the delegates.

If the RNC doesn’t seat the FL delegates, then the state will have not been involved in the primary system. Therefore, there should not be a republican in the ballot in Nov.

And New Hampshire’s Secretary of State is complaining about nothing. But if Florida wouldn’t have pushed for such an early date, then the people in New Hampshire wouldn’t have had reason to whine when Nevada’s GOP did exactly what it was expected to do.

And NH can do a primary on the Tuesday before Nevada’s Saturday caucus w/o it hurting NH’s standing as the first primary state.

One other point about boycotting the Nevada caucuses & the Nevada debate: those options are only being put out there by people who weren’t going to win in Nevada anyway in order to try to lessen the significance of a Romney win in Nevada. It’s smart primary political strategy for the other campaigns, but it’s dumb General Election strategy. Nevada is a completely winnable state for Republicans in 2012. But if one of the Republican contenders who boycotts Nevada wins the nomination, the nominee has just hurt his or her own standing with the Nevada General Electorate.

Huntsman’s play on this is the most despicable of all the candidates for his pandering on this issue. First, Huntsman was Governor of a neighbor to Nevada & the western United States in politics is often left out of the national spotlight much like it is in college sports. But Huntsman is trying to make Nevada front-runner Mitt Romney look like he’s anti-New Hampshire in order to lessen the significance of the fact that Huntsman will do so poorly in the first western state contest in a state where he was the neighboring governor.

Once again, why is Jon Huntsman running for President?

If NH goes in December we won’t have enough of a barrage of political ads to drive us batty. LOL.

Good decision for him. He’ll get more airtime explaining why he won’t participate.

The dates are being set for this 2012 cycle.
Next time the RNC needs to set the primary dates and stop this
hopscotch match .
RNC leadership weakness has led to this hullabaloo.

He is bringing his entire HQ of paid staff to NH to stump for independents. He has few volunteers.

He is so low in the polls that he barely makes a ripple. Take a hint, John.

Or that the media does.

Too much time is wasted during these debates with the back-and-forths between the non-Romney/anti-Romney candidates that clearly don’t have a prayer at being nominated. Romney fears Perry, as much as he tries to mask that, and thrives on a diluted, divided conservative field from which he can take his cheap, rhetorical potshots and attempt at some humor with those insipid zingers and one-liners.

As for California, you’re exactly right! We ended up with Meg Whitman (Arnold in a dress) due to a divided conservative field that couldn’t commit to one, realistic candidate, and that 60s re-tread liberal ended up winning.

Being that all Romney has to show for is his cherished “debating skills,” and no real conservative record, Obama, who is a far superior debator with charm and charisma to boot, will run circles around “Mr. Roboto” Romney.

The fault lines are drawn clear to those who don’t succumb to the paralysis of analysis and the mental gymnastics so indicative of it.

What does that mean?

you actually find good analysis in the discussion forums, instead of rhetoric and diatribes.

Good job.

half their delegates by moving their dates ahead of February. The RNC offered the February carve out to those four states. NH is looking like we get 10 delegates, if we lose any more we become a beauty contest.

A lottery for the primary order could actually work.

(cat imagines a glass column full of air and ping pong balls, with Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a couple assistants tabulating the primary order as each ball is drawn)

The main problem, of course, is that the GOP and Dem primaries tend to take place at the same time, thus my lineup above.

Any move to change the primary order would just about have to be bipartisan.

Mew

That would be worth looking into. Allowing a state to be “first” just because it always has been, seems elitist. Much like thrusting a candidate out there because its their “turn” it is to be speaker, or president, or chairman of something or other.

If a state didn’t want to be in the lottery for first or second or third, they could opt out.

The only question I would have would be does a caucus constitute a primary in the lottery scenerio?