The Republican Party of Kentucky: A Failure

(Note: This was originally, in part, written before the 2015 elections and after the 2011 elections in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It has been modified accordingly for accuracy) 

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky lost most of the offices it ran for in this election.

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky failed its constituents in electing Republican candidates.

Let me explain these two premises above in this article. While I am a conglomerate of ideals, I locate myself in the Republican party sights. Now I may occasionally veer towards the center or right of this spectrum in some cases--on a rare occasion I have crossed to the other side. Now, setting that aside, let's talk about the real problem of the Republican Party of Kentucky.

As a Republican, it is usually a hard campaign to fight in a trending state that goes Democrat on the state level, but Republican (except for the first term of Clinton) on the national level. However, it is possible for a Republican to attain control of an office. The problem laid with the Chairman and the people coordinating the front for GOP candidates. While the Chairman and the Party attempted to prepare certain people with the fortitude and capabilities to campaign, they failed miserably.

The most important thing for a political party to do in an election is show that their candidate is out there and make the news want to see it. Political advisors, managers, and strategists know all well that one key point is name recognition. In this cycle, c. 2011, the Republican candidate was known. However, he was known for the state pensions debacle and other notorious little things that have slanted the Senate President's chances of taking the Governor's office. Even from the other offices that could easily have been Republican wins, were lost because of ineptitude from the Republican Party of Kentucky.

The only candidate to win the 2011 state election was the Agricultural Commissioner. Granted, the opponent had made disparaging comments about his own constituencies had a dramatic effect on his election chances. Let's be reminded of some of the most important factors for elections, and these factors can be integrated into any cycle of election.

1. Name Recognition and Public Relations: This is one of the most pivotal things in elections besides money. This area is one that needs to be reaffirmed by any candidate of choice by the Republican Party of Kentucky. Even if their candidate did not have any recognition whatsoever, it would have been more profound to do "media bombs" to introduce the new candidate during strategic moments of air time. Further, to make any kind of advance into Democratic territory, we need to move forward in the internet age. If we fail--which we have--we may not be able to gain our momentum in taking what used to be our territory. 
2. Finance: Money is key, but not completely so. Some campaigns have been well planned with low finances. Now, several key Republicans have been able to use their money effectively and garner much needed funds. Now Senator Rand Paul used a style of "money bombing" to effectively recruit supporters to provide random sums of money. This technique proved valuable and useful for his campaign and winning the election. 
3. Technology Revolution: The KYGOP stays in its door to door mentality when most voters are not at home much, they are the epitome of the Techno Era. They log more hours now on Twitter, Facebook, and Vine than ever. To reach max efficiency, the KYGOP must vigorously ramp up its social media arm and attune to its voters. It needs more bloggers, more flash-mob recuritment, and need to enhance the College Republicans to deal with college students on their own campus while the main party must focus on in-state voters who meet the criteria. 
4. Quality Candidates: We need candidate who match the overall electorate, not what the party thinks it needs. We need candidates who are more moderate, yet principled, who can value their assets and yet call on the opposition--when necessary. A Tea Party candidate would not necessarily fair well--except for Rand Paul, inside a state election.We need candidates who can appeal to all the citizens. 

The KYGOP has failed for too many years because it does not look forward, for the near future or even the future! The Party must shed its visage of the decadent past and mobilize working people to rally for a better Commonwealth that makes us better in all aspects. 

Trumps Exit Will Save The GOP

The party is dead. The party needs a unified front. The party needs rebranding. The party is dead.

These phrases have been the pinnacle of the GOP politics since 2008, nearly a decade of disunity and failure, or so the pundits say and yell. Countless weeks and money has poured the media waves with the so called end to the Republican Party. Since 2000, it's been said the Party has died and with it, its power to compel voters to elect them to office. Enter 2006, when Democratic control reigned absolute and without contest. Presiding over it, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), whose neoprogressive politics had absolute authority.

The major theme of the last 8 years of presidential politics and last 6 years of congressional politics has been the Party, meaning the Grand Ole Party/Republican Party, surely must be dead after George W. Bush's term of office and the loss of prestige of power--both soft and hard, to two wars costing nearly $1-trillion. So, let's talk Party politic and what it means for the 2016 election:

Q. IS THE PARTY DEAD?
If the party is dead, shouldn't Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid be in firm control of Congress from 2006-current? The problem with this thinking is that no party can control an area without some reaction force, i.e. Democratic control of the south and Republican Reconstruction. This may seem anecdotal but in 2010, it swept Republicans into Congress and in two years after, Republicans took control of the Senate. Controlling the aspect of the Tea Party movement, the Republicans maintain a solid power, not an overwhelming one but a solid one.

Q. THE TRUMP SHALL END THE PARTY?
Trump is the greatest problem of the democratic system. His wins in the primary season have made for a great error of the Republicans; however, I disagree with the notion that all Republicans disapprove of the Republican Elite. If, every single Republican hated the elite, wouldn't they have already ousted them, regardless of campaign promises and Super-PACs! Here's where I will stipulate that the Party would actually be better if Trump loses the Nomination. If he loses, that means the mainly strong religious and far-right movement would leave because they feel the elite have accosted their ways, when in all actuality, the "RINOs," as the far-right sees it, are saving the party, because it is the more moderate and likely of the old era of Republican dominance. Trumps exit would free the Party to do more, to capitalize on moderates and independents who do not share the same view as the far-right.

Q. WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
We wait and hope that the Party Elite will take Trump and have him nose dive out of the GOP and with it, the arm of the GOP that has hindered the Party's electability for nearly three decades. We must relish in our attempts to stymie Trump and to make this Party stronger and more capable then the fractured DNC. We must fight to stop Trump and in essence Cruz from being the nominee!  

Trump v. America

"In the matter of Trump v. America, this high court...."

This line could easily be from a future lawsuit if he becomes the nominee, and possibly if he becomes the next President.

Like this post assumes, Trump is bad for America. He's bad for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (whom could be affiliated on farther left or right). Here's a man, who is as other pundits say, a Populist. Populism is "a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector."

Populism can be used by any political philosophy and as such Donald Trump has used a national populism against most policies of the Obama Administration and presidency. Trump has made very seemingly derogatory, inflammatory, and degrading words and statements.

I cannot stand as a conservative gay man, in this political discourse, to allow a man, who has no temperament. I cannot stand with or aside Donald Trump. I refuse. I explicitly refuse that I will ever vote for him in the Republican Presidential Caucus of Kentucky.

I will fight, alongside my fellow Republicans and moderate Democrats to defeat Trump, as I have from the very first Republican caucus.

Do not chose Trump. Do not vote Trump. He is, without a doubt a free radical who will do untold damage to the America we know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say George W. Bush would be better than Donald Trump, because we know George W. Bush, but we do not know or care for Donald Trump.

If you agree that Donald Trump will do greatness, Vladimir Lenin, Benitio Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and countless other leaders who did unspeakable things in the name of greatness.

The bottom line is that if Donald Trump wins the nomination, American politics will shatter.