Is this the most ridiculous Republican Primary in the recent past?

[Yelnoc]

I'm beginning to think it is.  Let's just say since Ike.

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, when you have the most extreme group of candidates that there's been in a while, it's to be expected.

[Torie]

Yes, quite ridiculous. The sooner it is effectively over, the better.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes. 

With the exception of Newt (but he has other issues).

Buchmann and Santorum are trolls.
Paul wants to burn everything down.
Romney is a turncoat.
Cain doesn't know anything.
Perry can't talk.
Huntsman is a party crasher.

---

18 months ago the GOP establishment considered Obama a lock for a second term, so all the big names stayed on the sidelines (plus...after the spanking of 2006 and 2008, there weren't a lot of big GOP names left running state capitals).

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

2008 Primaries were pretty funny, in fact I think there are some parallels between the 2008 primary and 2012 primary

Romney began his flip-flopping - Paralleled with his continued flip-flopping
Thompson was an uninspiring flame out - Paralleled with Perry
Giuliani always resorted to "noun, verb, 9/11" - Paralleled with Cain always resorting to 9-9-9
Paul was Paul - Paralleled with Paul continuing to be Paul
Huckabee was amusing - Paralleled with Bachmann being amusing (although Bachmann doesn't realize she is being laughed at, not laughed with)

[© tweed]

I actually haven't found it that entertaining.  I'd much have preferred a clash of two titans, a la Ford-Reagan or Clinton-Obama.  maybe it's just that I don't care enough.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's bad to the point of convincing me we should probably do away with the primary system entirely.

[Torie]

It's bad to the point of convincing me we should probably do away with the primary system entirely.

How do you vet candidates?

[© tweed]

It's bad to the point of convincing me we should probably do away with the primary system entirely.

How do you vet candidates?

conventions, party bosses, Hubert Humphey, Estes Kefauver, Marilyn Monroe.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yes. 

With the exception of Newt (but he has other issues).

Buchmann and Santorum are trolls.
Paul wants to burn everything down.
Romney is a turncoat.
Cain doesn't know anything.
Perry can't talk.
Huntsman is a party crasher.

---

18 months ago the GOP establishment considered Obama a lock for a second term, so all the big names stayed on the sidelines (plus...after the spanking of 2006 and 2008, there weren't a lot of big GOP names left running state capitals).

This is the main reason: the Republican bench was really decimated in the latter half of the Bush years. Obama's vulnerability has been evident for well over a year. Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, or Chris Christie could have gotten in up until maybe a month ago, but for whatever reason they've all decided not to.

[redcommander]

It's bad to the point of convincing me we should probably do away with the primary system entirely.

How do you vet candidates?

conventions, party bosses, Hubert Humphey, Estes Kefauver, Marilyn Monroe.

^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Republicans have shown themselves to be too ignorant to be trusted with nominating candidates anymore. 2010 was a perfect example.

[Averroës Nix]

I recommend this Weekly Standard piece by Jay Cost:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cost thinks that it's fair to limit the pool of potential nominees to governors of states with more than 11 electoral votes and senators under 65 years old who have served a full term over the last decade. These two lists are the result:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the field of potential nominees is this exclusive. But it's obvious from this list that Mitt has been absurdly lucky.
   

[Frodo]

Yes.  

With the exception of Newt (but he has other issues).

Buchmann and Santorum are trolls.
Paul wants to burn everything down.
Romney is a turncoat.
Cain doesn't know anything.
Perry can't talk.
Huntsman is a party crasher.

---

18 months ago the GOP establishment considered Obama a lock for a second term, so all the big names stayed on the sidelines (plus...after the spanking of 2006 and 2008, there weren't a lot of big GOP names left running state capitals).

This is the main reason: the Republican bench was really decimated in the latter half of the Bush years. Obama's vulnerability has been evident for well over a year. Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, or Chris Christie could have gotten in up until maybe a month ago, but for whatever reason they've all decided not to.

Then apparently President Obama is not as vulnerable as the polls would lead us to think -otherwise all these top tier candidates would be falling over each other to run in the primaries instead of these clowns that we're left with (with the possible exception of Romney).  Clearly they know something we don't.

[memphis]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders? The real problem with the primary system is how certain states get better timeslots. It leaves us with crap like ethanol subsidies for Iowa. One nationwide primary. One nationwide general. One man, one vote. Not that complicated.

[Mr. Morden]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders?

Virtually every democracy in the world gets by fine without primaries.  Party leaders nominate candidates rather than them being directly nominated by the voters, and no one thinks this is odd.

The American experiment with a nationwide patchwork of state-by-state primaries that's been ongoing since 1972 seems to have contributed in large part to a dumbing down of American politics, and a weeding out of many excellent potential candidates who don't want to subject themselves to a 2 year campaign (in which they first have to pander to the party base, then turn around and appeal to the general electorate).

It's also put us in this bizarro world in which at least half of even the first and second tier presidential candidates are running for president more to sell books and get offers for their own TV show, rather than to actually win the office that they're nominally running for.

[Jacobtm]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders?

Virtually every democracy in the world gets by fine without primaries.  Party leaders nominate candidates rather than them being directly nominated by the voters, and no one thinks this is odd.

The American experiment with a nationwide patchwork of state-by-state primaries that's been ongoing since 1972 seems to have contributed in large part to a dumbing down of American politics, and a weeding out of many excellent potential candidates who don't want to subject themselves to a 2 year campaign (in which they first have to pander to the party base, then turn around and appeal to the general electorate).

It's also put us in this bizarro world in which at least half of even the first and second tier presidential candidates are running for president more to sell books and get offers for their own TV show, rather than to actually win the office that they're nominally running for.

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention

[ingemann]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders?

Virtually every democracy in the world gets by fine without primaries.  Party leaders nominate candidates rather than them being directly nominated by the voters, and no one thinks this is odd.

The American experiment with a nationwide patchwork of state-by-state primaries that's been ongoing since 1972 seems to have contributed in large part to a dumbing down of American politics, and a weeding out of many excellent potential candidates who don't want to subject themselves to a 2 year campaign (in which they first have to pander to the party base, then turn around and appeal to the general electorate).

It's also put us in this bizarro world in which at least half of even the first and second tier presidential candidates are running for president more to sell books and get offers for their own TV show, rather than to actually win the office that they're nominally running for.

Other countries compare really badly with USA, two party republic with a president as strong as the American are quite rare. As long as the American political structure de facto keep third parties from being a real alternative, it would be rather disasterous for American democracy, if USA made the real access (as Democrat or Republican) to the presidental ballot even more limited.

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention

Yes we all know how UK, Netherlands and Sweden have to deal with coup attempts after coup attempts.

[Mr. Morden]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders?

Virtually every democracy in the world gets by fine without primaries.  Party leaders nominate candidates rather than them being directly nominated by the voters, and no one thinks this is odd.

The American experiment with a nationwide patchwork of state-by-state primaries that's been ongoing since 1972 seems to have contributed in large part to a dumbing down of American politics, and a weeding out of many excellent potential candidates who don't want to subject themselves to a 2 year campaign (in which they first have to pander to the party base, then turn around and appeal to the general electorate).

It's also put us in this bizarro world in which at least half of even the first and second tier presidential candidates are running for president more to sell books and get offers for their own TV show, rather than to actually win the office that they're nominally running for.

Other countries compare really badly with USA, two party republic with a president as strong as the American are quite rare. As long as the American political structure de facto keep third parties from being a real alternative, it would be rather disasterous for American democracy, if USA made the real access (as Democrat or Republican) to the presidental ballot even more limited.

Obviously, there are tradeoffs, and I'm not saying it's a slam dunk one way or the other.  But the modern primary system has some pretty serious side effects that need to be grappled with, and need to be recognized as side effects in the first place.

If you agree that it's absurd that we have all these candidates running for the purpose of increasing book sales, or that we're lacking good candidates who might have run because they don't want to put up with the 2 year campaign, then it must be recognized that these are absurdities that exist because of the current system for nominating candidates in the US.  Which is cause for at least asking some questions about the desirability of the current system.

[ingemann]

I find the lack of support for primaries in this thread repugnant. How dare people get to select their own leaders?

Virtually every democracy in the world gets by fine without primaries.  Party leaders nominate candidates rather than them being directly nominated by the voters, and no one thinks this is odd.

The American experiment with a nationwide patchwork of state-by-state primaries that's been ongoing since 1972 seems to have contributed in large part to a dumbing down of American politics, and a weeding out of many excellent potential candidates who don't want to subject themselves to a 2 year campaign (in which they first have to pander to the party base, then turn around and appeal to the general electorate).

It's also put us in this bizarro world in which at least half of even the first and second tier presidential candidates are running for president more to sell books and get offers for their own TV show, rather than to actually win the office that they're nominally running for.

Other countries compare really badly with USA, two party republic with a president as strong as the American are quite rare. As long as the American political structure de facto keep third parties from being a real alternative, it would be rather disasterous for American democracy, if USA made the real access (as Democrat or Republican) to the presidental ballot even more limited.

Obviously, there are tradeoffs, and I'm not saying it's a slam dunk one way or the other.  But the modern primary system has some pretty serious side effects that need to be grappled with, and need to be recognized as side effects in the first place.

If you agree that it's absurd that we have all these candidates running for the purpose of increasing book sales, or that we're lacking good candidates who might have run because they don't want to put up with the 2 year campaign, then it must be recognized that these are absurdities that exist because of the current system for nominating candidates in the US.  Which is cause for at least asking some questions about the desirability of the current system.

I agree, but the question is whether this is the most pressing change, or if you look at other changes first. If you just decide for business as usual just without the primaries, you risk that the presidental election become dominated by party apparatchik and people with connection in party.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fixed.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, you need to keep in mind that American democracy is on its last legs. So of course we're going to see some ridiculousness as the whole thing comes crashing down.

[Simfan34]

Do we get a rightist dictator after this?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

2008 was the first primary race I observed. Back then, it was exciting. I was rooting for Romney then. There was the whole "Mitt vs. Huck" thing going on that I loved, there was the Iowa caucuses where McCain came in fourth behind Paul and then suddenly **WHAM** where the Hell did he come from? McCain takes New Hampshire. By then, it's a three-way race. I remember my Dad and I coming home the night of the Michigan primary hearing people talk about it on the radio.

Now? This is gonna be one stupid primary. One horribly fuckin' stupid primary. Okay, some randomass Conservative, just insert a name please, wins Iowa. Romney takes New Hampshire. Randomass gets South Carolina. From there on out it's Romney all the way. How dreadfully un-exciting. 2016 better be some good sh**t otherwise I should just call this entire politics thing quits.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I recommend this Weekly Standard piece by Jay Cost:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cost thinks that it's fair to limit the pool of potential nominees to governors of states with more than 11 electoral votes and senators under 65 years old who have served a full term over the last decade. These two lists are the result:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the field of potential nominees is this exclusive. But it's obvious from this list that Mitt has been absurdly lucky.
    

Well, of the individuals on your list:

Coburn, Crapo, Murkowski and Sessions don't have presidential ambitions
Vitter is badly tainted
Collins and Snowe are too liberal
Graham, even if his isn't actually gay, is pretty much a caricature of a closeted gay man.
Crist is no longer a Republican
Jeb Bush's last name is Bush
Taft and Pataki are damaged goods
Schwarzenneger is ineligible

Perry and Romney are running. That leaves Daniels, Perdue, DeMint, and Thune. All were talked about as potential candidates, but none of the m stepped forward.

[Mr. Morden]

There was the whole "Mitt vs. Huck" thing going on that I loved, there was the Iowa caucuses where McCain came in fourth behind Paul and then suddenly **WHAM** where the Hell did he come from?

McCain came in 4th behind Thompson in Iowa, not Paul.  Paul came in 5th.