Mitt #@$% Romney has called me

[cordex]

I'd be far more concerned that among the registered Republicans, a liberal liar like McShame actually gets so much electoral success.

That's a huge issue with me too.  So many people say "Oh, but McCain/Romney/etc isn't really a Republican!"  To which, I ask "Then why are they receiving so much support from Republican voters?"

If McStain wins the nomination, I am voting for whomever the Dems nominate. The Repub party is in for a nice sharp kick in the backside. This idea that there can be a compromise with sanfran socialist types must be expunged from the system once and for all, even if it takes the enema of four years of Hillbama. Bush won more decisively in 2004 than in 2000 exactly because he ran harder to the right. Somehow the Repub strategists have not got the message, or am I missing something??

Hold on a second ... I understand not voting or McCain given his political history ... but how does adding a vote to the Democrats help the national Republican party understand that they need to be less leftist?  I've got some experience in conducting and analyzing political polls, and I can tell you for sure and for certain that an increase in support for leftist Republican candidates combined with an increase in votes for leftist Democrats will tell any pollster worth his salt that campaigning toward the left will get more votes.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hold on a second ... I understand not voting or McCain given his political history ... but how does adding a vote to the Democrats help the national Republican party understand that they need to be less leftist?  I've got some experience in conducting and analyzing political polls, and I can tell you for sure and for certain that an increase in support for leftist Republican candidates combined with an increase in votes for leftist Democrats will tell any pollster worth his salt that campaigning toward the left will get more votes.

If right-leaning Republicans refuse to vote for McCain, he won't get more votes.  He'll just lose.

Voting against McCain has other advantages, too. 

It prevents the moderate/liberal wing of the Republican Party from co-opting the party. 

It's much easier to oppose the President's policies when the President is of the other party. 

If McCain wins the Presidency, it'll be at least 8 years, probably more, before Republicans get another chance to nominate a candidate for Prez.  If Hillary wins we'll get another chance in 4 years. 

If McCain is Prez, he becomes de facto leader of the party and it's unlikely that any other Republican leaders will emerge.  If Hillary wins there's a good chance that a strong conservative leader, a new Newt Gingrich, could emerge to oppose her.

[Perd Hapley]

  Political parties can have any kind of exclusive, elitist, private organization they want.  When they enter into the public electoral process, however, they shouldn't get to impose their rules on the electorate.   

You've got that backwards.  You want to impose your rules on the parties, and you want to do it with the force of law.  The current system allows the parties to choose their own candidates, according to their own rules.  How can you object to that?  Why do you insist that independents and Democrats should be able to decide who will represent the GOP in the Presidential race?  (In my state, I could have chosen Democrat right there at the polling place, and "helped" them choose the candidate I would prefer to run against.  But that wouldn't be ethical, would it?) 

As for "imposing their rules on the electorate," who do you think sets the rules?  It's citizens like yourself, except that they are still working within the party, to decide what the party will do. 

Elitism and exclusivity are anathemas to democratic, free and fair elections.

Elitism and exclusivity?  Then we should let foreign nationals vote in our elections for public office.  In principle, it would be the same as what you suggest for your primary.

[seeker_two]

If McStain wins the nomination, I am voting for whomever the Dems nominate. The Repub party is in for a nice sharp kick in the backside.

Why? All that does is tell the GOP that you WANT a liberal candidate.....

If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary/Obama, I plan to do what I did in 2004.....find a conservative candidate in a third party who most closely represents my views. That way, if the Republicans want my vote, they know where they have to go to get it again.....

Check out http://www.constitutionparty.org/ .  You might find an idea or two that you like....

[cordex]

If right-leaning Republicans refuse to vote for McCain, he won't get more votes.  He'll just lose.

He's getting enough votes to be far and away the frontrunner in getting the nomination.  Worse, the current running alternatives are either little better or unelectable for their own reasons.  True?

However, if you do as CAnnoneer was saying he planned on doing and vote for a Democrat, you are (whether they win or lose) lending support to the idea that Americans want even more leftist leadership.  Is this not obvious?

Voting against McCain has other advantages, too. 

It prevents the moderate/liberal wing of the Republican Party from co-opting the party.

It depends on how you do it.  If you vote for a more conservative candidate (whoever that might be), then you might be right.  If you refuse to vote at all for President, you might be right.  If you do as CAnnoneer suggested, it does the opposite.  It allows the moderate/liberal wing of the Republican party to point to the actual vote counts and say "Look, the candidates who got the most votes were leftist Democrats.  The Republican who won the nomination was a leftist Republican.  The voters are moving left, thus we must market ourselves to that audience."

Of course, that's not the only factor, but as I said I've got some experience with political polls on a state and local level.  I've seen how the statistics are figured and how they impact the direction of races.  By voting for the Democrat opposition to the bad Republican candidates, you are giving apparent support to them that doesn't take into account the reality of your position.

CAnnoneer's vote won't make a difference, but a movement to actually vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican would be noticed and not in the way you intend.

It's much easier to oppose the President's policies when the President is of the other party.

Abso-friggin-lutely true.  The Republicans in the legislature haven't acted Republican since Bush took over.  They  have passed and supported things that most would sputter and scream about if a Democrat proposed.

If McCain wins the Presidency, it'll be at least 8 years, probably more, before Republicans get another chance to nominate a candidate for Prez.  If Hillary wins we'll get another chance in 4 years. 

If McCain is Prez, he becomes de facto leader of the party and it's unlikely that any other Republican leaders will emerge.  If Hillary wins there's a good chance that a strong conservative leader, a new Newt Gingrich, could emerge to oppose her.

I don't disagree with you, but the answer is to "throw away your vote" by either withholding it entirely or applying it to another, more conservative candidate, not lend apparent support to the Democratic candidate.  Even if you really want them to win for the reasons you laid out.

[RocketMan]

From CAnnoneer:
The Repub party is in for a nice sharp kick in the backside.

The Republican Party got one of those in 2006.  They hardly noticed it.
In my opinion the Republican Party cannot be salvaged.  It's too far gone.

[Perd Hapley]

If right-leaning Republicans refuse to vote for McCain, he won't get more votes.  He'll just lose.

He's getting enough votes to be far and away the frontrunner in getting the nomination.  Worse, the current running alternatives are either little better or unelectable for their own reasons.  True?

I think he was saying that McCain will lose the Presidential race, not the nomination. 

However, if you do as CAnnoneer was saying he planned on doing and vote for a Democrat, you are (whether they win or lose) lending support to the idea that Americans want even more leftist leadership.  Is this not obvious?

If it is discovered that large numbers of Republicans are voting for the Dem candidate in the general election, that would be obvious.  However, if we're simply looking at a Democrat win, your conclusion is not obvious to me, at all.  If I were Mr. Republican Strategist, the elections since Reagan would indicate to me that "moderates" don't energize the base.  Conservatives do. 

[Paddy]

If I were Mr. Republican Strategist, the elections since Reagan would indicate to me that "moderates" don't energize the base.  Conservatives do.

OK.  Name a conservative who has 'energized the base' since RR. 

[Perd Hapley]

That's the point, Riley.  In terms of presidents, I can't.  Bush I was finished once the Reagan mantle had fallen off, and he broke his tax pledge.  Dole was a non-starter.  McCain lost the 2000 nomination to a slightly more conservative Bush.  Bush II managed to win twice by being kinda sorta conservative. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If I were Mr. Republican Strategist, the elections since Reagan would indicate to me that "moderates" don't energize the base.  Conservatives do.

OK.  Name a conservative who has 'energized the base' since RR. 

Newt Gingrich.

[Scout26]

RR greatest failing was in not groooming successors.   I think had he named Jack Kemp as VP in his second term, Kemp would have also gotten two terms and continued the Reagan Revolution.  But alas, we got Bush I which lead to Clinton. 

[Phyphor]

  He said "what are you going to do, vote for Kerry?  You have nowhere else to go".  Well, people who don't have anywhere to go just stay home, don't they?   

And that, good sirs, is exactly what is so damned infuriating about both parties.  Neither one of them seems to give a damn what their constituents want, instead they prefer to just do their own thing and to hell with the people.  Oh sure, both will throw you a bone once in a while, but when threatened with being thrown out, they say stuff like the above.

[Paddy]

If I were Mr. Republican Strategist, the elections since Reagan would indicate to me that "moderates" don't energize the base.  Conservatives do.

OK.  Name a conservative who has 'energized the base' since RR. 

Newt Gingrich.

Agreed. And he's quite likely the only one.  I have a story to tell about Mr. Newt.  I'd bought his book, "To Renew America" and heard he was coming through San Luis Obispo on the train and was scheduled to make a whistlestop. (I think it was the mid term election of 1998, and he was with a couple of local Republican politicians).  Anyway, there were a bunch of leftist protestors with some kind of derogatory signs (I don't remember what they said).   The train stopped and the politicians got out on the platform and made short speeches.  I wanted him to autograph my book, but I was stuck behind about 6 rows of angry lefties.  So I walked behind the platform near Newt and said "Mr. Speaker"  Newt turned around and I raised the book up toward him and asked him to sign it.  The motion of my arm raising and pointing toward him really alarmed him, to the point he was in the process of ducking.  When he saw the book and realized I only wanted an autograph, he scowled at the guy who was presumably his bodyguard, and signed my book.

Some of the protestors saw what had happened and began razzing me.  I walked back around the platform, and holding the book up like a cross in front of vampires, I waded through the crowd back to my car.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If right-leaning Republicans refuse to vote for McCain, he won't get more votes.  He'll just lose.

He's getting enough votes to be far and away the frontrunner in getting the nomination.  Worse, the current running alternatives are either little better or unelectable for their own reasons.  True?

However, if you do as CAnnoneer was saying he planned on doing and vote for a Democrat, you are (whether they win or lose) lending support to the idea that Americans want even more leftist leadership.  Is this not obvious?

Not true.  McCain won for one simple reason, his opposition was divided among several other candidates.  There wasn't a single candidate who could unite all conservatives.  The national poll numbers show it: 40% for strong national defense (McCain), 30% for economic conservatism (Romney), and 20% for cultural/moral/social conservatism (Huckabee).  A candidate who could have captured two of those three would have won handily.  A candidate who could have captured all three would have secured the nomination in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Even after his big win on Tuesday McCain still isn't polling above 50%.

Check out some of the exit poll data from Tuesday.  McCain did best among non-Republicans.  He did best among independents.  They were enough to earn him the nomination, but they won't help in the general election, since most of the independents will probably go for the Democrat.

Look at the states McCain won in.  His big wins, the ones that put him over the top, were all blue states like New York or California.  He won the Republican nomination in those states, but he won't win any electoral college votes in those states.

Look at the way McCain has been campaigning lately.  His recent campaign strategy has been to lie over and over again.  He lied about Romney's support for the war.  He lied about his record onimmigration.  He lied about not understanding of the economy.  He lied because he knew the truth wouldn't get him the votes he needed, and because he knew his media allies would let him get away with it.  But those media allies will turn on him the moment the Democrat nominee is decided.

Over and over again, I hear people say that we should all get behind McCain because he can beat Hillary.  Well, this is flat out wrong.  Hillary will trounce McCain.  It'll be a landslide loss for the Republican.  The reason will be obvious, it'll be because the right stays home on Nov 4. 

The Republican elites will see the results in the November exit poll info, and hopefully they'll have the good sense to heed the message.

[roo_ster]

Some of the protestors saw what had happened and began razzing me.  I walked back around the platform, and holding the book up like a cross in front of vampires, I waded through the crowd back to my car.

That's priceless.

[Paddy]

Check out some of the exit poll data from Tuesday.  McCain did best among non-Republicans.  He did best among independents.  They were enough to earn him the nomination, but they won't help in the general election, since most of the independents will probably go for the Democrat.

I generally agree with your assessment.  However, I'm wondering how Independents (or DS, Declined to State) could have voted a Republican primary ballot.  That's not allowed here (CA), we can only vote Dem or AI ballots.  Other states are different?  IOW, Republicans have open primaries elsewhere?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Most states have open primaries.

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, when I voted on Tuesday, I was asked whether I wanted a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian ticket.  I could have easily, legally, voted in the primary of any one of those parties.  That's how it works in Missouri.

[cordex]

Not true.  McCain won for one simple reason, his opposition was divided among several other candidates. 

Not necessarily true.  See chart below.

There wasn't a single candidate who could unite all conservatives.  The national poll numbers show it: 40% for strong national defense (McCain), 30% for economic conservatism (Romney), and 20% for cultural/moral/social conservatism (Huckabee).  A candidate who could have captured two of those three would have won handily.

That depends entirely on the poll.
For instance: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Currently shows:

Poll	Date	McCain	Romney	Huckabee	Paul	Spread
RCP Average	01/30 to 02/03	43.3%	24.6%	17.8%	6.0%	McCain +18.7%
CNN	02/01 - 02/03	44%	29%	18%	6%	McCain +15.0%
Cook/RT Strategies	01/31 - 02/02	39%	24%	18%	6%	McCain +15.0%
Pew Research	01/30 - 02/02	42%	22%	20%	5%	McCain +20.0%
CBS News/NY Times	01/30 - 02/02	46%	23%	12%	9%	McCain +23.0%
ABC/Wash Post	01/30 - 02/01	48%	24%	16%	7%	McCain +24.0%
FOX News	01/30 - 01/31	48%	20%	19%	5%	McCain +28.0%
Rasmussen (Thu)	4 Day Tracking	39%	29%	18%	7%	McCain +10.0%
Gallup (Thu)	3 Day Tracking	40%	26%	21%	3%	McCain +14.0%

Note that before Romney dropped out, the average poll score shows that McCain led him by more than Huckabee's total.  that means, you can't even say with much certainty that Huckabee spoiled it for Romney.

A candidate who could have captured all three would have secured the nomination in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Possibly.

Even after his big win on Tuesday McCain still isn't polling above 50%.

None of the candidates - Republican or Democrat - are.  What's the point?

Check out some of the exit poll data from Tuesday.  McCain did best among non-Republicans.  He did best among independents.  They were enough to earn him the nomination, but they won't help in the general election, since most of the independents will probably go for the Democrat.

Independents who chose to vote in the Republican primary are probably more likely to vote for a moderate Republican than either of the two potential Democrat candidates.  But you're right, it probably won't help in the general election.

Look at the states McCain won in.  His big wins, the ones that put him over the top, were all blue states like New York or California.  He won the Republican nomination in those states, but he won't win any electoral college votes in those states.

Depends ... a real Republican would certainly not win enough votes, but I'd wager if anyone would have a chance in pulling in those regions it would be someone who is as politically left as McCain.  Not that it would help us ...

Over and over again, I hear people say that we should all get behind McCain because he can beat Hillary.  Well, this is flat out wrong.  Hillary will trounce McCain.  It'll be a landslide loss for the Republican.  The reason will be obvious, it'll be because the right stays home on Nov 4. 

I don't think people should back McCain.  I agree with this much of your analysis.  However, my concern is not about Republicans not voting for McCain, rather it is about Republicans voting for the Democrat candidate.  It isn't necessary to ensure a Democrat win and - like it or not - a general movement amongst Republicans to elect the Democratic candidate will affect voting pattern analysis opposite the manner intended to some degree.

The Republican elites will see the results in the November exit poll info, and hopefully they'll have the good sense to heed the message.

You hold more hope than I do.

[ilbob]

no less than 12 times in the last 3 days.  AAAARRRRGGGGH!  I'm no longer a freaking Republican, so I couldn't vote for him if I wanted to.  As  unaffiliated, I voted the Dem ballot.  I should be able to vote for anybody I want, regardless of my political affiliation.  But the Republican party doesn't think so. 

why should people who are not republicans be allowed to participate in selecting the republican party nominee?

[Paddy]

no less than 12 times in the last 3 days.  AAAARRRRGGGGH!  I'm no longer a freaking Republican, so I couldn't vote for him if I wanted to.  As  unaffiliated, I voted the Dem ballot.  I should be able to vote for anybody I want, regardless of my political affiliation.  But the Republican party doesn't think so. 

why should people who are not republicans be allowed to participate in selecting the republican party nominee?

The better question is, why should they be excluded?  And why do so many states have open primaries?

[Perd Hapley]

why should people who are not republicans be allowed to participate in selecting the republican party nominee? 

The better question is, why should they be excluded? 

Because they're not Republicans?  Why is that hard to understand? 

[roo_ster]

no less than 12 times in the last 3 days.  AAAARRRRGGGGH!  I'm no longer a freaking Republican, so I couldn't vote for him if I wanted to.  As  unaffiliated, I voted the Dem ballot.  I should be able to vote for anybody I want, regardless of my political affiliation.  But the Republican party doesn't think so. 

why should people who are not republicans be allowed to participate in selecting the republican party nominee?

The better question is, why should they be excluded?  And why do so many states have open primaries?

Cause it ain't their party.  If they want to vote, they ought to get up off their azzes and register as a member of the party.  The only thing that is holding them back is the velcro on their *expletive deleted*ss & couch.

[Paddy]

Well, you've both given your exclusivist opinions, however neither of you has explained why those opinions are at variance with a number of states open primaries.  IOW, those states political parties don't agree with you.

[Perd Hapley]

IOW, those states political parties don't agree with you.

On what?  They may allow you to vote in a primary without registering, but that doesn't mean they agree with your view of an absolute right to vote in any primary you want, as a non-partisan.* 

I haven't really studied the matter, but I can make a few guesses about why the state parties do it that way. 

It removes a roadblock in the path of those who identify with their party, but haven't registered as such.  Which brings more of their people to the polls, in general.  It probably also gives them a candidate that appeals to more people in their base. 

If you let non-registered folks into your primary, you probably end up with a candidate that has a broader appeal to non-partisans.  If the Democrats only allowed party members to vote, my guess is they would end up with farther left candidates.  But when they let in non-partisans, they are more likely to get a nominee who appeals to the middle and the liberal Republicans.  The same should apply for the Republicans.  If they let non-partisans into their primary, I think they'd get more McCain supporters, not more Romney supporters. 

Now, those are all reasons why it might be smart to open up the primaries, if your first concern is that your party win, regardless how liberal or conservative the candidate.  None of which implies any moral right to vote in a primary. 

*By non-partisan, I mean a person who is not registered with either party.