Republican Primaries 21% Problem

Filed in National by on June 17, 2009

According to FairVote.org 25 states hold closed Republican Primaries.  That’s 25 states where the GOP 21%ers can rule the day by choosing the candidate.

Moderate Republicans should be concerned because these numbers give candidates like Sarah Palin the edge.  Actually, all of us should be concerned.  Food for thought.

Tags:

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. The Dangers Of A Two Party System | July 12, 2009
  1. jason330 says:

    The GOP’s primary has become a circus. Participants are less concerned with making sense than they are with making inroads as a bankable brand among fringe nutbags. It is all about pumping up the future value of speaking fees and book deals.

    Looking at the futures list from last night, I predict the GOP primary this time around is going to plumb as yet unknown depths of stupidity, loathsomeness and fear mongery.

  2. pandora says:

    Agreed, but the 21%ers will kill any chance for Romney and Jindal (like you said in the futures thread). The Christianists will rule the day, and, I’m thinkin’, they’ll get their guy/gal.

    The litmus tests will be mind-boggling, and the depths they’ll plumb will scare off a lot of people. I predict that the Republican primaries will have more in common with tent revivals than a political process.

  3. anonone says:

    And this is the party you hope will make a comeback? 😉

    We should be concerned that we might stop throwing them anchors.

  4. RSmitty says:

    Agreed, but the 21%ers will kill any chance for Romney and Jindal…

    Romney, yes, your assessment is right, they will kill him. Jindal, I don’t know. Jindal has done a fine job of hurting himself, AKA: pulling a Protack.

  5. pandora says:

    The problem is, A1, that the 2012 election will come down to a choice between a D and a R. It serves all our interests if the R is at least sane.

    Crazy things happen in elections, and we can’t afford letting a Palin that close to the White House.

  6. anonone says:

    It serves all our interests if the R is at least sane.

    I disagree entirely. The more insane, the more it exposes them for who they really are. Best if we get another crazy old nut like McCain or an ignorant uneducated winger like Palin to seal the repubs fate forever.

    If we can destroy their brand with new voters, then they will be history. We should do everything we can to do that.

    Locally, we should all be pulling for Mad Mike Protack to run for any statewide office he can. He is the leader of the Delaware repub party.

  7. jason330 says:

    The problem is, A1, that the 2012 election will come down to a choice between a D and a R. It serves all our interests if the R is at least sane.

    Spot on. The founders never anticipated the possibility that one of two main political parties would be flat out nuts.

  8. jason330 says:

    …They also never anticipated that the national press would be so in the pocket of the crazy party.

    We need sane Republicans. Sorry A1.

  9. pandora says:

    Imagine if Edwards was the Presidential candidate and his affair came out.

    This is the kind of stuff that can derail any candidate and leave all of us saying President Palin.

  10. Geezer says:

    “The founders never anticipated the possibility that one of two main political parties would be flat out nuts.”

    This will sound blasphemous, but they never anticipated most things about our politics, including the idea of “parties.”

  11. anonone says:

    “Sane Republicans” is an oxymoron.

  12. anonone says:

    The founders never anticipated the possibility that one of two main political parties would be flat out nuts.

    Actually, they did. That was one of the reasons for the electoral college.

    pandora, I think even Edwards with an affair would have beaten McInsane/Palin.

  13. RSmitty says:

    This will sound blasphemous, but they never anticipated most things about our politics, including the idea of “parties.”

    Geezer, was it them (the Congress in Philly) or George Washington that spoke out against the concept of parties, or a combination of both? Personally, I thought it was Washington, but I could be mistaken.

  14. jason330 says:

    Whatever. What we have, for better or worse, is a two party system. The checks and balances in place have not only balanced power between branches – but between parities.

    Those check are not designed to contend with crazy bad actors that have no regard for western political traditions and practices.

  15. anonone says:

    What we have, for better or worse, is a two party system.

    It is dying. Both parties are quickly losing their control of the debate. The only voting block growing in size are independents. Repubs and dems are shrinking.

    The times truly are a changin’.

  16. Just remember — according to the most recent Gallup poll, 40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives. Only 21% self-identify as liberals. Seems pretty clear to me who the 21%ers are.

  17. …[The Founders] also never anticipated that the national press would be so in the pocket of the crazy party.

    Jason — do you have any concept of the history of the press in this country? Dring the first couple of decades of this country, there were newspapers that were actually the official mouthpieces of various factions/parties.

    Not to mention that to the Federalists, Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans were “the crazy party”.

  18. RSmitty says:

    What was the poll: are you conservative or liberal? What would it be if it were more complicated?
    Are you Republican?
    …….yes………
    OK, Republican, are you conservative, moderate, or liberal?

    That’s the poll that should be asked.

  19. And for the record, I believe that ALL party primaries should be closed affairs. After all, why should you folks have any say in the selection of the GOP nominees for office? Why should I have any say in the selection of Democrat nominees?

    To hold otherwise is rather like arguing that the parishioners of the the local Baptist church should have a voice in the selection of the pastor of the local UU congregation.

  20. Geezer says:

    Smitty: Polls also consistently show that no matter what they call themselves, on most issues more people agree with the liberal position than the conservative one.

  21. pandora says:

    It’s a self-identifying question. Ask 100 people if they are liberal or conservative and what that means and you’ll get 100 different answers.

    Truth is, the 21%ers are now defining conservatism and purging anyone who doesn’t agree with them. If you’re okay with certain abortions… Out! If gay marriage is okay with you… Out! Believe in global warming… Out! Support a public health care option… Out! On and on it goes.

    Basically, it’s all or nothing with the 21%ers.

    75% conservative = RINO. It’s a purity thing.

  22. Geezer says:

    Of course it is. I”m sorry for answering the troll.

  23. Arthur Downs says:

    Primaries should be closed and open primaries are merely an opportunity for some to muddy the water for the opposition. For many years, Republican primaries in Maryland garnered little interest and a lot of conservative voters registered as Democrats and intentionally voted for the least appealing (in the General Election) candidate. This did a disservice to both parties.

    McCain did best in primaries where Democrats could cross over. They seemed to prefer the real thing in November.

  24. David says:

    I agree with Art. All primaries should be closed or at the most allow non affiliated voters. The reason why primaries should be open to members only is the fact that members are the people who are invested in the party. They are the ones presenting their candidates to the public and their agenda. If you allow non party members to select the nominees, you are violating their right to assemble and affect political change of their choice.

    No other country that I find which offers primaries allow non party members to vote in them. You can choose which party you belong to. Why then would you allow people who choose not to be associated with you determine your agenda?

  25. pandora says:

    Are you deliberately ignoring the point of this post? Hint: It had nothing to do with closed or open primaries.

    Care to try again guys?

  26. farsider says:

    The parties can run their own primaries without government support. Then they can decide open or closed. Most likely closed, why have the government expense of funding the private parties choice of candidate ?

  27. pandora says:

    Another one who completely ignores the point of the post. Your candidates will be selected by the 21%. Now… if you’re part of this group, you’re thrilled, however if you’re part of the small number of sane Republicans you’re terrified.

  28. farsider says:

    I am neither thrilled or terrified by the republican primary. A partys candidate should be chosen by the membership of the party. Any party who sets its rules otherwise is foolish. I simply don’t think that it should be a state by state thing. I don’t understand why a party would allow an open primary. I don’t believe it is or should be legal for a state to mandate it. I really dont understand why open primaries exist at all.

  29. pandora says:

    I’ll put you in the 21%er column then.

  30. farsider says:

    If I understand you reasoning, it is a bad thing for a party to be able to decide its candidate based on the sole vote of it’s members ?

  31. farsider says:

    If a primaries were all open what would the point of the election be ? Why not just write in the guy from your party on their ticket ? If there are more of you then them you can run your guy on both tickets by membership majority. Silly Silly Silly.

  32. anonone says:

    If there are more of you then them you can run your guy on both tickets by membership majority.

    You aren’t from Delaware, are you?

  33. farsider says:

    Mostly raised in Frederica, DE, then on to Dover

  34. pandora says:

    I understand this post requires some analytical thought, but, really farside, you’re being deliberately dense.

    If the 21%ers are all that’s left of the Republican Party then all this talk about rebuilding the party and creating a “big tent” is null and void. It’s over – Palin wins.

  35. RSmitty says:

    It’s over – Palin wins.
    …or Newt (Rush said so – not really)! 😉

  36. farsider says:

    Creating a big tent is as stupid an idea as nominating McCain was. Palin isn’t going to win anything, it is a long time till that matters in any case.

  37. pandora says:

    Really? Who’s voting in your primaries? Just sayin’.

  38. liberalgeek says:

    I wonder who would win if Dick Cheney ran.

  39. RSmitty says:

    I wonder who would win if Dick Cheney ran.

    I’d vote for the tomato can, even if it were Prot…Prot…Pro…*cough*…Prot…*gag*. I can’t even say it.

  40. farsider says:

    Everyone, would win, the more participation the better right all ?

  41. anonone says:

    farsider,

    The reason I asked is because the same candidate can run on multiple party tickets in Delaware.

  42. anonone says:

    It is PROTACK, RSmitty! The Leader of your Delaware Republican Party!

    Salute him and go to bed.

  43. RSmitty says:

    Creating a big tent is as stupid an idea as nominating McCain was…

    Is this David A? Not that I really think you are, but same thought-process. I get what your saying (my words):
    You so-called Republican Moderates over there, yeah, you. Hey, we need your votes. Come to our gaggle and you can hang and cast your vote for Joe Conservative. Rules, though, do not speak unless spoken to and if you are told to speak, the proper response is, “Yes, sir,” or “M’am, yes M’am!” If you should speak beyond your approved script, then you will be labelled a traitorous RINO or Liberal and must apologize to Rush for your sin and be told to leave for the safety of all, including yourself.

    Yup, get it completely. 21%er found.

  44. farsider says:

    That is great, I wasn’t aware of that. It just seems to me that party nomination is and should be a party deal, I mean isnt that the idea of a party ? The primary isn’t a trial run or proxy for the election, it is to chose who best represents that party.
    I think that the balloting and voting system is rigged to favor the party system which is truely unfortunate.

  45. The remaining Republicans are happy with their purity purge. I get it.