A great many of us have been concerned about the presidential nomination system... whether or not we have drifted into a system that simply doesn't work so well any more.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You have had presidential candidates over the last 30 years who would have had a very hard time getting nominated under the old system. One example is John Kennedy.
The main reason we've been the party out of power so long is we haven't had a good nominating process.
I think we have lost track of a core Republican principle of limited government and balancing budgets and restraining federal spending. We have got to change the system.
It is rarely the quick fix that goes the farthest. So don't get tempted by political cycles and the lure of electoral wins.
It seems to be impossible to hold a credible election without reforming the electoral system.
One of the problems we saw in the last presidential election in our party is that our nominee, while winning the election, which we ought never to forget, often lost sight of the difference between strategy and tactics.
Our political system needs changing. It needs to move away from personalities and patronage to a system of party programs and consultation with the people.
I hadn't given much thought to the prospect of a Hugo nomination at the time it happened, but obviously once you're nominated, winning one seems a bit less far-fetched than before.
I think the trend to move towards caucuses and conventions, whether to nominate senators, governors or presidential nominees, I think the move towards caucuses and conventions is a very bad one, and that our party should reward those states that spend the time and money to have primaries.
The U.S. is an optimistic nation. No candidate has ever won the American presidency by speaking primarily to people's deepest fears and by manufacturing a sense of apocalypse - that our leaders 'can't do anything right,' that things are utterly falling apart.