« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Should the RNC just allow the several states to hold primaries whenever they choose?

By: gawken (Diary)  |  September 17th, 2011 at 10:48 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We’re fast approaching either a resolution or a confrontation as to the final schedule for GOP presidential primaries. Arizona has already moved up its date, Michigan wants to go earlier, as does Florida. The RNC supposedly will penalize ANY state that goes out of turn with a loss of votes at the convention. Since the convention is in Tampa next year..well, the odds that Florida will lose votes are about the same as Buddy Roehmer getting the nomination. And Florida of course provides “cover” for any other state that goes rogue. Since Florida won’t lose delegates, neither will any other state. ( Of course, they can look forward to hotel rooms in beautiful downtown Ocala..)

But seriously..why go through this hassle every four years? Call it states rights..whatever, but maybe it’s time for the RNC to just let the states do whatever feels best for their needs.

This is all about the supposed need for the early three to retain that sequence.: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. But why?  Iowa is a caucus…turnout is much lower than a primary..and many aren’t able to vote because of other demands..like showing up at work. Iowa’s “success rate” as a predictor of the ultimate nominee is better tha Bob Shrum’s winning percentage..but that’s not saying much. Iowa..the straw poll, the caucus..it’s more like spring training for the political chattering class..Yes, it makes mucho $$$ for the Iowa GOP..but that’s not a determinative reason to be first.

New Hampshire is, well..in one word..quirky. Demographically, the state bears little or no resemblance to the rest of the country. And again..well..just look at past winners in NH. Duh?  A small, rural state, the voters there apparently feel it’s their inalienable right to personally have a cup of coffee with each any every person who’s running. But why should the rest of the party, and the country have to defer to New Hampshire’s inflated sense of self importance?

South Carolina is a different story. The GOP base is the south, the solid south, and S. Carolina is the first chance to see which candidate resonates, connects with that core Republican constituency. The state is small enough, and rural enough to provide a forum for retail politics, and the media costs are not prohibitive, so you don’t need a whole lot of $$$ to be a player. It’s the first real test of what the party base thinks.

Of course, if any other states do in fact move their primary dates up,  Iowa and New Hampshire will play leapfrog. So the likely effect is that we’ll be voting in December, maybe even Thanksgiving time. And what would be so bad about that? South Carolina, then Florida would follow, nd if Michigan, Arizona, and a few others, want to jump in also, why not?

We’d probably have a pretty clear idea of the favorite well in advance of Super Tuesday. And that’s a good thing…because Super Tuesday is more about mone and organization than anything else. With an early, accelerated primary schedule, there’s more of a chance for an inspirational conservative, not one of the early conventional wisdom favorites,  to resonate with the voters of a few states, and then run the table. 

Look at the debate in Tampa early this week. We  have far to many candidates still on the stage..no one is culling  the herd. And we have several debates more to endure. We’d be far better served as a party, and a country, if we accelerated the process, picked our nominee sooner, then focused all our resources and efforts on beating Obama.

Also, I should point out that if we had an accelerated process already in place, then Sarah Palin would have had to finally declare, or not, several weeks earlier.  We would all be better off had that occured.

To slightly digress for a moment, rather  than worrying about who gets to go 1st, 2nd, etc..the RNC would be far better served encouraging states to eliminate open primaries. There is nothing “democratic” about  allowing MoveOn.org members to help decide a GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh, in his brilliant 2008 “Operation Chaos” showed that it debases the process of picking our nominee. The primary process is the first beat of the democratic heart..we should encourage all to take it seriously.

So, it’s time for the RNC to let the chips fallwhere they may, let the several states do what they choose…hold their primaries at  they best see fit.  I think it will work out just fine..

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • hweila

    and therefore no state has a “right” to hold their party at any particular time. It’s important that the national party be able to schedule primaries in such a way to make sure the party is able to reach a consensus on a nominee while spending as little money as possible.

    Front loading the primaries with numerous large states makes the process too expensive, wasting resources better used during the general election. It also does nothing to favor upstart or insurgent candidates, quite the opposite it favors those with the most name recognition and money and shuts other candidates out of the process almost completely, whereas the present process gives them some chance to compete.

    The purpose of the Iowa caucus is not to predict the ultimate winner. It’s to winnow down the field and eliminate candidates who aren’t capable of building a strong ground organization. Because it is so comparatively inexpensive to compete there, it allows less known candidates a potential boost in recognition and fundraising. Next, as the campaign moves to New Hampshire, that primary is useful precisely because of it’s odd demographics make it likely to give a result very different than that of Iowa and test the ability of a candidate to compete in swing states, and then in turn South Carolina tests the candidates ability to compete in South, which any modern Republican must carry by a broad margin.

    As group, these three contests mean we’re not going to have any more than 3 candidates once the contest goes national which lowers the chances of something like a brokered convention to nil, and in an ideal year where a candidate sweeps all three we know we have a consensus candidate early and the party can rally around them.

    • gawken

      but feel like we’re talkign about different issues here.

      First, when I wrote “states” I meant state parties, but since the states pay for the cost of the primaries, the two are closely intertwined. And really, since each primary is a separate “State” primary…by your own words..therefore, each state party should ahve the right to hold it whenever it chooses.

      But the main thesis of my article was that the sole objection to a few states choosing to go early is because it would impact the sacred early two. They will never change..they’ll always try to go first…and that shouldn’t be sufficient reason to preclude Arizona, Michigam, and Florida from going early.

      The obvious net effect is that we’d be voting earlier, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

      I do have to take issue with your statement that the Iowa caucus serves as a winnowing process. For the most part, it hasn’t. Occasional a candidate recognizes reality, as did Tim Pawlenty this year, but for the most part, they keep on moving on..

  • bk

    As long as Iowa is first, almost every GOP candidate is afraid to speak out against ethanol subsidies.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    more ticked off than you gawken. I don’t know what state you live in but what are the positions of the State Republican Party Chair, National Committeeman and Committeewomen on the Presidential primary schedule? Aren’t they supposed to be standing up for the voters of your State.

    Don’t ask me to defend “semi-open” primaries, same day voter registration,out of state college students attending college in NH voting here, political activists bussed in from out of state to vote, high voter turn out in an election to send 20 delegates to the national convention.

    The truth is if the Parties punish states for going early the prospective nominee will “unpunish” those states by seating their total delegations at the convention. The powers that be in politics and the media want to keep the status quo in place.