If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   A GOP convention rule changed in 2012 to protect President Romney from a challenge by Ron Paul could end up preventing anyone from being nominated as their presidential candidate in 2016   (forbes.com) divider line 161
    More: Spiffy, Ron Paul, GOP, rank-and-file, Republicans, presidents, political convention, rules committee, RNC  
•       •       •

5905 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 6:30 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-08 04:59:12 PM  
Short sighted, no plan, and scream like a small child.  That's the GOP I know and loathe.
 
2014-04-08 05:01:40 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-08 05:03:33 PM  
Umm that's

RON PAUL
 
2014-04-08 05:07:37 PM  
Generic Republican 2016!
 
2014-04-08 05:08:33 PM  
So, in that case, the GOP primary will be held amongst members of the Fark Politics Tab?
 
2014-04-08 05:12:39 PM  
After reading TFA, the next convention will require endless amounts of popcorn
 
2014-04-08 05:16:10 PM  
While this is hilarious and could very well make for ticket-altering shenanigans, I wouldn't worry too much about this if I were the GOP. Any candidate who couldn't pivot away from a mistake his party bureaucrats made four years ago and get some publicity out of it in the process couldn't be elected to a school board, much less the presidency.

For all the crap that people (including many, many Republicans) gave Romney about being a pretty lousy campaigner, especially in the primaries, he really was their best presidential candidate. "President Romney," as silly as it sounds, was a lot more plausible at every step of the process than President Perry, President Gingrich, President Cain, President Huntsman, or even President RONPAUL!. The real problem for the GOP is that Romney  still be their best presidential candidate.
 
2014-04-08 05:17:05 PM  
*may still be their best presidential candidate.

FTFM
 
2014-04-08 05:18:38 PM  
And maybe they'd get a viable candidate out of it
 
2014-04-08 05:38:05 PM  

semiotix: For all the crap that people (including many, many Republicans) gave Romney about being a pretty lousy campaigner, especially in the primaries, he really was their best presidential candidate. "President Romney," as silly as it sounds, was a lot more plausible at every step of the process than President Perry, President Gingrich, President Cain, President Huntsman, or even President RONPAUL!


Cracked said it best:

If you just sort of pay attention to politics, then the entire 2012 election process would appear to be nothing but a string of embarrassing gaffes by Republican politicians you had never really heard of before this year. If it seems like a ridiculous slapdick affair, that's because it is. In this article alone we're managing to mock no fewer than three of them (Jack picked Donald Trump, Kristi takes on Rick Perry).
The point isn't that the Republican Party has been entirely replaced by crazy people -- it hasn't. To make sense of what happened in 2011, you must understand two things:

A. In America, the sitting president almost always wins re-election;
B. In America, once you lose a presidential election, the party does not allow you to run again -- they cannot bear the shame of you having been mocked by Jay Leno for three months after the election.

So on that first point, we re-elect the current president about 75 percent of the time (see: Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR and FDR again). On the rare occasion that the sitting president loses, it's usually due to something weird, like Ross Perot stealing Republican votes from Bush Sr. in 1992 (Clinton won with only 43 percent of the vote). Even a big loser like Jimmy Carter was tied with Reagan in the polls just weeks before election day. The system is just heavily stacked in favor of the sitting president because, as you have seen, a year before the election he gets to sit there and look presidential while the challengers on the other side play the game of monkey shiat dodgeball known as the presidential primaries.

And losing to the president means your career is over -- even Al Gore, who was still young and only lost by a couple hundred votes and a Supreme Court decision, was never considered for a second try (also see: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole). The point is, if you are a Republican who aspires to be president, you probably don't want to run in 2012. If you are smart, you play the percentages and sit it out to run in 2016. That's why prominent, popular and respected Republicans like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee all stayed on the sidelines.


What was left, unfortunately, was the exceptionally uninteresting Mitt Romney and a ragtag group of goofball fringe candidates. Both the voters and the news media immediately went about amusing themselves by marching these characters out into the spotlight one by one to watch them combust into a flaming ball of crazy.

http://www.cracked.com/cracked-64-top-8-everything-of-2011/Person/

This is not to say that the average Republican Presidential Candidate is any good, but that there's almost certainly going to be at least one "Meh, I can live with him" reasonable white dude, and while Republican primary  candidates tend to be insane, Republican primary winners tend to be reasonable white dudes (Or a bunch of undecided voters head on over and vote for the sanest person they can find in the Democratic Primary).  Heck, the only exception to "Runner-up gets their shot" was Pat Buchanan*, which raises my personal estimate of the average Republican Party voter quite a lot.

*who for some reason occupies the same spot in my brain at Pat Robertson.

/And of course, as a CA voter, my vote doesn't matter.
 
2014-04-08 05:57:32 PM  
Im okay with this.
 
2014-04-08 06:34:16 PM  
In this week's installment of "Republicans Eating Their Own"....
 
2014-04-08 06:41:25 PM  
Chairman Reince Priebus

Doesn't that sound like a Star Wars villain?
 
2014-04-08 06:42:11 PM  
Demonstrating to the world the evils of government.
 
2014-04-08 06:42:30 PM  
It's cute and all, but thinking the Republicans give two craps about this rule is silly.  They will change it at their whim, I'm sure, whatever the "rule book" says.
 
2014-04-08 06:44:27 PM  
RON PAUL 2016
 
2014-04-08 06:44:28 PM  

Corvus: Chairman Reince Priebus

Doesn't that sound like a Star Wars villain?


It sounds like a spoonerism of Prince Reibus, which for some reason has me lollerskating.
 
2014-04-08 06:45:27 PM  
So, a choice between Clinton and LaRouche in 2016?
 
2014-04-08 06:46:06 PM  
Yeah but don't kid yourself. The Republicans will just change the rules again to get whatever outcome they want.
 
2014-04-08 06:46:40 PM  
I'd pay to see them fight it out.
 
2014-04-08 06:47:48 PM  
"So, why not just change the rule to avoid this problem?
According to the GOP rule book, the rule
cannot be changed until the Republican National Committee holds its convention meeting in 2016."


Contrary to author's opinion, this will not be an obstacle for the GOP.
 
2014-04-08 06:48:09 PM  
To meet that goal, Paul was denied an opportunity to speak at the convention unless he promised to allow the RNC to edit his speech.

Oh Lord, there's a missed opportunity of comedy on a galactic scale.

"And let me close by saying the same thing I said to my wife when she aborted the love child of our illegal immigrant butler that I was having a gay sexual affair with: 'The Christian Church is the worst threat to America since Ronald Reagan, and if I have to confiscate every firearm in this country and melt them down into a giant statue of Jimmy Carter to prove that, so be it!'"
 
2014-04-08 06:48:30 PM  
Convention rules carry weight?
 
2014-04-08 06:49:05 PM  

RyogaM: It's cute and all, but thinking the Republicans give two craps about this rule is silly.  They will change it at their whim, I'm sure, whatever the "rule book" says.


Corvus: Yeah but don't kid yourself. The Republicans will just change the rules again to get whatever outcome they want.



I see I'm late to the party.
 
2014-04-08 06:49:10 PM  

Lord_Baull: "So, why not just change the rule to avoid this problem?
According to the GOP rule book, the rule cannot be changed until the Republican National Committee holds its convention meeting in 2016."


Contrary to author's opinion, this will not be an obstacle for the GOP.


Exactly. They will just do it anyway. That's what they do.
 
2014-04-08 06:49:25 PM  
bothsides.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

Step up to the plate, Herm. It's your time to shine.
 
2014-04-08 06:50:48 PM  
cache.thephoenix.com
 
2014-04-08 06:50:50 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: [bothsides.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 460x276]

Step up to the plate, Herm. It's your time to shine.


That's the new "You gonna get raped" face.
 
2014-04-08 06:51:26 PM  

meyerkev: semiotix: This is not to say that the average Republican Presidential Candidate is any good, but that there's almost certainly going to be at least one "Meh, I can live with him" reasonable white dude, and while Republican primary  candidates tend to be insane, Republican primary winners tend to be reasonable white dudes


Except in 1964
 
2014-04-08 06:52:04 PM  
Good.
 
2014-04-08 06:52:39 PM  
And yet they'll still get 47% of the vote.
 
2014-04-08 06:52:56 PM  
Also, much as we're treating this like the end of the world, if I'm reading this correctly, you only need a majority of the delegates from 8 states.

Given that most of the candidates are dead by South Carolina, and there's very rarely more than one or two after Super Tuesday, what are the odds that one or 2 people can't sweep the last 20 or 30 states?
 
2014-04-08 06:54:12 PM  
Serves them right.
www.gallerimagnuskarlsson.com
 
2014-04-08 06:56:16 PM  

meyerkev: Also, much as we're treating this like the end of the world, if I'm reading this correctly, you only need a majority of the delegates from 8 states.

Given that most of the candidates are dead by South Carolina, and there's very rarely more than one or two after Super Tuesday, what are the odds that one or 2 people can't sweep the last 20 or 30 states?


Because if a single candidate doesn't win 50% of the votes in each state, they DON'T WIN THE STATE.
 
2014-04-08 06:58:33 PM  
Good.

Also, Ron Paul is a nutcase.
 
2014-04-08 06:58:46 PM  

Ted Cruz and Ron Paul own you now! Mwah-hahaha!

Warms my heart, it does. There's no way in Hell that, come 2016, they're going to be able to fix this - too many angry states and delegates, deliberately shut out of what should've been a more democratic process, are going to ensure that, for this election, the RNC sleeps in the bed it made for itself last election. It's either that or watch as the GOP "elite" give out concessions in a desperate attempt to build a coalition capable of fixing this situation. Between the libertarians and the teabaggers, the GOP is screwed.
 
2014-04-08 06:59:32 PM  

whidbey: Good.

Also, Ron Paul is a nutcase.


Yeah, but now he's a nutcase with leverage. If he doesn't exploit the situation to his benefit, he's a fool.
 
2014-04-08 07:01:01 PM  

FormlessOne: Ted Cruz and Ron Paul own you now! Mwah-hahaha!Warms my heart, it does. There's no way in Hell that, come 2016, they're going to be able to fix this - too many angry states and delegates, deliberately shut out of what should've been a more democratic process, are going to ensure that, for this election, the RNC sleeps in the bed it made for itself last election. It's either that or watch as the GOP "elite" give out concessions in a desperate attempt to build a coalition capable of fixing this situation. Between the libertarians and the teabaggers, the GOP is screwed.


Quick.... are there any black lesbian democrats? Now is the time!
 
2014-04-08 07:01:16 PM  
So they changed the rules before the convention even started and they are not going to be able to do that again because...?
 
2014-04-08 07:01:46 PM  
FTA: "Dr. Paul"

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-08 07:02:08 PM  
semiotix:

For all the crap that people (including many, many Republicans) gave Romney about being a pretty lousy campaigner, especially in the primaries, he really was their best presidential candidate. "President Romney," as silly as it sounds, was a lot more plausible at every step of the process than President Perry, President Gingrich, President Cain, President Huntsman, or even President RONPAUL!. The real problem for the GOP is that Romney  still be their best presidential candidate.


I disagree. John Huntsman never even got a chance, and I think he would've been a hell of a lot better candidate than Romney was. I'm a liberal so I likely disagree with Huntsman on most of his platform, but he seemed reasonable and honorable, and those traits alone made him better than the rest of the field (and it's also what doomed him, unfortunately).
 
2014-04-08 07:03:37 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: meyerkev: Also, much as we're treating this like the end of the world, if I'm reading this correctly, you only need a majority of the delegates from 8 states.

Given that most of the candidates are dead by South Carolina, and there's very rarely more than one or two after Super Tuesday, what are the odds that one or 2 people can't sweep the last 20 or 30 states?

Because if a single candidate doesn't win 50% of the votes in each state, they DON'T WIN THE STATE.


Using this map:  http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results

Santorum wins 1 (Kansas, missed LA by a hair).
Romney wins 23 if I counted correctly.

And if I'm reading the rule correctly, it's NOT that they don't win the state, it's that they can't appear on the ballot at the convention unless they win a majority in EIGHT states.  But they still get the delegates.

/It's still a stupid rule designed to screw over a more successful than usual little guy, but it's not quite the end of the world.
 
2014-04-08 07:06:02 PM  

meyerkev: Heck, the only exception to "Runner-up gets their shot" was Pat Buchanan*, which raises my personal estimate of the average Republican Party voter quite a lot.


Gary Hart, John Edwards, and if we go back further I don't think it's even a "rule" anymore.  Though I think that just supports your points, since John Edwards self-destructed and Pat Buchanan was just farking terrible, the only reason Buchanan isn't tarred and feathered for some of his more egregious bigotry is that most Americans just straight-up ignore him nowadays.

Another dilemma that your argument raises for me though, is where the front-runners are.  Dubya was anointed pretty early on, and most of the others, as you mentioned, followed the tradition of "whose turn?"  Right now there's a big empty spot people are trying to stick Huckabee and Jeb Bush and really anyone but Rick Santorum (who is as bad or worse than Buchanan).

Now, in the new age of Internet and too much TV and digital cameras so ubiquitous that it is safer to assume you are being recorded than not, two possibilities come to my mind.

1. All the people who would have been contenders have been knocked out of the running by being stupid on camera.

2. The Republicans have actually ADAPTED to technology and media, and the current "chosen one" is HIDING until the last minute so that no one has much time to watch him and catch his racist, misogynist, and/or classist slip-ups.
 
2014-04-08 07:07:41 PM  

FormlessOne: whidbey: Good.

Also, Ron Paul is a nutcase.

Yeah, but now he's a nutcase with leverage. If he doesn't exploit the situation to his benefit, he's a fool.


So are you saying

s25.postimg.org
 
2014-04-08 07:07:54 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
YES!
 
2014-04-08 07:07:59 PM  

pslong009: And yet they'll still get 47% of the vote.



If more normal Americans found a sudden interest in politics & started paying attention, that number would shrink significantly.

who in their right mind would have any interest whatsoever in American politics circus clowns?
 
2014-04-08 07:08:04 PM  
You really think they'll stick to their rules if it becomes inconvenient? That's for little people, subby.
 
2014-04-08 07:09:40 PM  
Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-04-08 07:11:00 PM  
What a bunch of tools.
 
2014-04-08 07:13:37 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report