« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Six weeks until the primary starts?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  October 13th, 2011 at 01:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If so, the luxury of taking one’s time with picking a favorite GOP candidate is about to go away:

In a bombshell this afternoon, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner raised the strong possibility of a December first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

In a statement entitled “Why New Hampshire’s Primary Tradition is Important,” Gardner, who has full authority under state law to set the date of the presidential primary, called Dec. 13 and Dec. 6 “realistic options.”

New Hampshire is blaming Nevada, which has decided to move its GOP primary up to January 14th, largely because Nevada is tired of having Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina always be first in the primary schedule. New Hampshire wants Nevada to push it back to January 17th, and Nevada’s saying that it won’t, and at least one candidate – who isn’t Mitt Romney* – is totally taking New Hamphire’s side, and… OK, look, it’s high school all over again, you understand? God help me for having to describe this dispute in such terms, but it’s the best analogy that fits.

So. This means that the nomination process may start in six weeks, not ten. Mind you, ten weeks is also too early – but we’ve been watching the process stretch out for some time now. The primary season in 2008 started at the beginning of January; in 2004, it started in mid-January; in 2000, late January; and in the halcyon days of the Eighties and Nineties the whole thing started up in February. I have not noticed that the Republic has been notably improved by having the dates get pushed back earlier and earlier; I have noticed that we’re not exactly adding new states to the Union these days, which means that there tends to be longer and longer times each election cycle between the last primary contest and the national conventions that traditionally remind the American people that, right, we’re electing a President this year.

I’m not going to tell you how or who to vote for in the Republican primaries, folks: but if you’re planning to be strategic about it then I have to tell you that you’re almost out of time to play strategist. If you want Candidate X – or, more likely, you just don’t want Candidate Y – then you need to be dispassionate about what that entails, and you need to not assume that the Lord will provide. The Lord has already provided; what you see is what you’ve got to work with. And you have a tighter deadline than you think.

On the bright side, if you’re supporting Candidate X for ideological/philosophical reasons, you could care less when New Hampshire has its primary anyway. Lucky you.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Let me just forestall a likely response: yes, it would undoubtedly be better all around if Candidate Z conceded the inevitable and dropped out of the race now. Candidate Z will not drop out. The problem still remains.

*Mitt Romney benefits from early primaries, mostly because his primary… primary… strategy is to offer Republican voters an echo, not a choice. Actually, his primary primary strategy is to offer as many echoes as possible and hope that Father Unemployment Rate wins Romney’s war for him in the general election.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://thecorruptworld.blogspot.com/ wayneinnh

    That way I can turn my phone back on. The endless phone bank and robo-calls make NH a miserable place to live every four years. When I do answer, I usually tell the person on the other end that I’ll vote for the candidate who calls me the least.

  • NeoKong

    Because a state employee in New Hampshire has his shorts in a bunch the whole damn party is supposed to turn on a dime and move everything up…?

    I mean seriously…do I have to take care of this myself ?

    Can someone with a little more clout than me make a phone call please?

    Do these people answer to anyone….?

  • Kyle-MI

    If this keeps up we will be having the primary vote the day after the previous general election.

    Time to take the decision away from states and give it to the parties. Also, way past time to give states other than Iowa and New Hampshire first vote in the primaries.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    the crazy “establishment” conspiracy theories.

  • snowshooze

    They should push them back to the about 2 months ahead of the General Election.
    Romney has a very great advantage with an early primary, I am certain he wished they could just have the General Election right now before he has been subjected to any real scrutiny.
    But this isn’t about Romney, it is supposed to be about a well fought out selection process, and getting to know our Candidates.

  • oldbird77

    I saw this idea somewhere, I don’t know where, but I liked it. Bundle states together into however many (5? 10?) regional groups that all hold their primaries on the same day and then rotate the schedule of what region gets to go 1st. So one cycle maybe FL, GA, MS, SC, AL, TN all go 1st and the next cycle OR, WA, CA, ID, MT all go 1st.

  • Common_Cents

    And we couldn’t have that!

  • mkghayes

    every election cycle. The author of this article says that New Hampshire and Iowa will come to their senses and end up keeping the voting in 2012 because they want to stay relevant. I hope she’s right.

    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/10/12/thanksgiving-caucuses-lets-talk-turkey/

  • mkghayes

    I didn’t post that link right… Here it is again.

  • joecollins

    Someone fill me in . . who is Candidate Z?

  • clowngirl

    Why not also change it so that no candidate can be declared the winner unless he or she gets a plurality of at least 40% ? or even a majority? Failing that threshold, they could hold a run off between the top 4, and then, if necessary the top three, then the top 2.

    I fail to see any advantage in nominating someone that the majority of the party doesn’t want…

  • onemovoter

    Robert Stacy McCain is reporting on this story with details.

    http://theothermccain.com/

  • macphisto96

    I think. Really the best thing for the Not Romneys would be for everyone except Cain or whoever the Tea Party movement likes best at the moment to drop out and hope all the support will consolidate around that person.

    But we know Paul won’t drop out. Perry’s not going to now. Nor will Bachmann. If Newt bails then I’d guess most of his support would got to Romney.

  • ljy55

    Institute a lottery system and a start date, i.e. the last Tuesday in Jan or the first one in Feb.

  • macphisto96

    In the GOP circles here in Florida, the talk is that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio both are privately supporting Romney. They just refuse to endorse during primaries. Jeb also liked Romney last time but did not want to endorse, even though his endorsement would have won it for Romney here in Florida.

    I’m sure the Romney camp would LOVE to have Jeb and Rubio publicly endorse him. I think that would pretty much end it.

    And he’s hoping that Governor Scott does not endorse him because that’s the kiss of death here right now, even in the GOP primary. Word is that Scott leans towards Perry and is leaning more towards Cain right now. He would provide the opposite effect of Crust’s endorsement of McCain back in 2008 because he had nothing near the popularity Crist enjoyed at that time. Crist’s popularity collapsed after the endorsed the stimulus and appeared with Obama.

  • jomo2009

    Mon., Jan. 23 Iowa caucus

    Tues., Feb. 21 New Hampshire primary

    Sat., Mar. 3 Nevada caucus, South Carolina primary

    Tues., Mar. 6 Southern and border states (primary or caucus)

    Tues., Apr. 3 New England, Mid-Atlantic states (primary or
    caucus)

    Tues., May 1 Mid-West and Upper Plains states (primary or
    caucus)

    Tues., June 5 Rocky Mountain and far West states (primary or
    caucus)

    As numerous people have suggested rotate the states on the last four dates every four years.

    There, problem solved. (Crosses fingers)

  • texabama

    New Hampshire’s population is only 1.3 million. Texas has at least 3 cities with a greater population than the whole state. Not to mention—Texas (and the rest of the South) will probably actually vote Republican. Why do we continually let states like Iowa and New Hampshire become the first “stamp” in our process. Neither is a population center of Republican voters.

  • texabama

    Well there goes that whole conservative icon status he had going for him.

  • thirstyboots

    If you’re going to make the support for Perry a litmus test. Just saying.

    Plus, after the support he got from Karl Rove to be elected Senator, it was obvious Rubio wouldn’t support other candidate.

  • texabama

    I would hope for Rubio’s sake that his allegiance is to the people who voted for him (lots of tea party folks) and not to Karl Rove. And I guess you made the assumption that I’m a Perry supporter just because my screen name is “texabama”?

  • paladin1

    insignificant in the election process. For years, if ever, the people of New Hampshire have not reflected the general population of the United States, yet it continued to be able to play kingmaker with its “first in the nation” status. Now, however, in its insistence in maintaining that tradition, it has finally gone too far. By December, the standing candidates will still be undergoing the vetting process, the general public will be paying no attention, and yet New Hampshire will force voters to pick a candidate. We can only hope that the big contributors still looking for a candidate will not be stampeded into funding the winner and the process will continue as though New Hampshire’s primary never was. Moving up the primary season to annoint Romney is such an obvious ploy by the Romney campaign and the Establishment Republicans, that it must be exposed for the sham that it is. New Hampshire and all the other “me first” states that set the primaries and caucuses every earlier must stop the nonsense. There is no need to choose a candidate so far ahead of the party primary.

  • Scope

    I take everything the other McCain says with a grain of salt, or less. I’ve read some of his articles at AmSpc and he is so over the top, and actually dishonest at times. He carried the Radtke RedState story, and so disgustingly bashed RedState it was awful. He didn’t have any of the details, only what Radtke told him, and he just wrote all her lies.

    I just last night read a comment elsewhere where they asked what was going on at his site. Supposedly someone wrote something negative about Romney, but was true, and McCain went after him in a reply up to and including telling the poster that he was going to change his post to reflect what he wanted it to say. Can you imagine if the mods here just went and changed peoples posts to what they wanted them to say?

    I believe nothing he says, and unless there is something actually in quotes, or on record, I assume it isn’t true.

  • thirstyboots

    his constituents, voters, donors (especially Rove) and early boosters (namely Jeb Bush).

    And Romney is beating Perry amongst FL Tea Partiers, so why wouldn’t Rubio endorse him?

    [There's this meme in Red State that Karl Rove and the Tea Party are enemies - basically because of his staunch opposition to Christine O'Donnell's nomination. It's just a bizarre and pathetic theory: Rove was the largest booster of most Tea Party candidates. From Mike Lee to Rand Paul, from Rubio to Sharron Angle. And many Tea Party congressmen. As he will be in 2012.]

    I’m sorry for my assumption.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    His ilk was content to ride the Tea Party wave to a return of Republican majorities.

    All he cares about is 50+1.

  • Scope

    and that is what the poster said in his post, “talk here is.” Unless you hear it from them, or have a credible source to prove the fact, don’t believe it.

    Think about this for a minute. How many times have you seen Perry/Rubio 2012 as the winning ticket. Rubio said again that he won’t be anyone’s VP, but that looked like an unbeatable ticket that many many liked. I will eat my shoes if there was ever a Romney/Rubio ticket. I will fall of my chair if Rubio ever endorsed Romney. Rubio will never destroy his conservative credentials, and the fact that he is seen as a rising star for Republicans, to turn around and endorse Romney.

    Jeb Bush is another matter. All the Bushies are against Perry.

  • Scope

    be stupid enough to destroy his valid conservative credentials to support the liberal Romney. Never.

  • texabama

    I’m a fairly new reader here at Red State. Thanks for the back fill on Rove and the perception. I have to admit, I don’t think he’s a particular supporter of the Tea Party. Wasn’t he part of the whole Scazza(whatever) fever also?

  • avagreen

    here.
    Is he even eligible for VP.

  • avagreen

    http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/09/marco-rubio-eligible-for-president-or-vice-president-inquiring-minds-want-to-know/

  • thirstyboots

    I mostly agree. Rove will support electable republicans with little regards for ideological purity. If it’s a Jeb Bush conservative like Rubio, an insurgent like Mike Lee, a Tea Partier like Rand Paul (who is as anti-Bush as they come) or a moderate like Scott Brown is of little importance to him.

  • texabama

    What you’ve said is more in keeping with what I’ve read. I don’t know if Perry and Rubio actually have a working relationship, but I do know supporters of each candidate have linked them. Perry did get a Florida endorsement before that debate. Can’t remember who though.

  • drothgery

    They’re small and not reliably Republican or Democratic, so proving ability to win there may have some affect on the general election (Nevada and New Mexico are also in that mix, not sure who else without doing more research).

    You don’t want to start in big states – media is much too expensive. And you don’t want to start in solidly Republican or solidly Democratic states because it doesn’t matter who the nominee is, Texas is going GOP and California is going Dem and if either is even remotely in danger of not happening you know how the election is going.

  • rightwingmom52

    is here.

  • acat

    when they made it very easy for candidates to get on their first-in-the-nation ballot, with the intent of attracting attention.

    They managed to carry on their predictive streak for another couple decades, but .. as the primary has gained in attention, it seems that its’ value as a predictor has decreased. Badly.

    I see no reason to keep them from sinking back into obscurity.

    Mew

  • thirstyboots

    I have no idea of American Xroads being involved in that election. It’s possible, but I don’t really remember it. The only thing I can find in the net is Rove criticizing the process that nominated Scozzafava.

  • avagreen

    at all.

    If a child who is born of parents in the U.S. but not U.S. Citizens at the time of birth can be considered a eligible for President or VP.

    I’m looking further.

  • avagreen

    I thought I wrote: “If a child who is born of parents in the U.S. but not U.S. Citizens at the time of birth can be considered a eligible for President or VP, then anchor babies are eligible”.

  • rightwingmom52

    doesn’t do it for you, you might try searcing the site to see what you can find, I know it was discussed here at redstate a while back, and the consensus was that Rubio is absolutely eligible. Just trying to help.

  • Scope

    definitively. I personally believe that Rubio is eligible because his parents were not foreign nationals and were not looking to go back to Cuba once the Castro regime took over. There have been many different interpretations including that when Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba, it was still a US protectorate. There have been all kinds of SC decisions on natural and native born citizens, but I really don’t believe that the question has ever been sufficiently and definitively resolved.

    Another source I’ve read said that Rubio is a natural born citizen simply because he was born in Miami Fla., and therefore is a natural born citizen, hence the anchor baby thingy.

  • texabama

    Since we’re choosing the candidate for the Republican nomination, I’d think you’d want the candidate that appeals to the most Republicans. I know people are going to talk about “independents”, but they have to choose to be Republicans or Democrats if they want to vote in a primary. Our present system seems flawed to me when the majority of Republicans vote a much smaller slate just because “someone” determined that Iowa and New Hampshire should have the honor of determining the front-runner.

  • Scope

    up this year by various states should scream to the RNC that people have been screaming to change the entire primary system. We have gone through this election cycle after election cycle. The majority of Republicans want a major change to something much more fair to the candidates. Most states don’t even have the whole field of candidates to vote for or against.

    Iowa wants the money that the “first in the nation” caucus brings. Not only the party gains bucks, but all of the businesses in the state gain big bucks. Look at the straw poll event? Same with NH being the first primary. Wouldn’t most states love to have that same opportunity to gain money from being first? Unfortunately the Republican’s have been living with the dinosaurs with the primaries. It really needs to change. Just look at the ethanol subsidy challenge for R’s.

  • Raven

    In which case anyone can vote in it.

    But his point still remains, republicans in Texas are not the same as republicans in New Hampshire or Iowa or Pennsylvania. You get a different breed of republicans in those places.

    That said, I happen to agree with you. Get the hell out of those places as the first primary every time. Squishy republicans tend to be more common in those places and we want good Conservatives to be having the first say in which candidate goes on to the nomination.

    Of course, that’s exactly why it’ll never happen, barring more success in the ColdWarrior Project.

  • sethellis

    I keep hearing the fact that Romney has a ceiling at 30%. However, what I never seem to see accompanying that analysis is the fact that this is perfectly normal if we compare to the 2007-2008 primary. At this time last cycle Rudy was in the lead with 30%. In fact we didn’t see anyone really break out of that range until the primaries started and McCain started to run away with it.

    Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_2008_gop_presidential_race_4_years_ago.html

    However, now the primary schedule is all screwed up. The votes could start happening as early as the first week in December. That puts a little wrench in my comparison because we’ve basically lost two months.

    With this in mind it really puts what Erick said into perspective. The accelerated calendar means that we could start seeing the final breakouts in the next few weeks. The time for fence sitting is over. The candidates have to start breaking out now. If they don’t the worst case scenario for Romney is he splits some of the early states with Perry. That then leads us into a long slog in which Romney has an inherent advantage as a moderate.

    I am of course a Romney supporter, but the message for conservatives that don’t like him couldn’t be clearer. The not Romney is not coming. If anyone is going to beat Romney it has to be based on who they are, and not based on who they aren’t. Fighting for everyone but Romney just helps his inevitability become even stronger. He can still be beaten, but only by a superior vision. If that vision exists then it’s time to stand behind it and convince the rest of us before Romney is a lock.

  • joecollins

    Having thunk on this for a bit . . Ron Paul is Candidate Z. Gotta be. And he won’t go away.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Subject closed.

  • center77

    Bush had 40% by August, 60% by now. No Republican has become president without being at least 40% now. Romney is going to win if the conservatives do not get smart and back the guy with the money and record to create beat Romney. Romney’s camp is pushing states to vote early, and helping others for one reason, to keep the conservatives splintered. It makes me so mad to hear liberal gloat because Romney treats conservatives like dog meat. I’ve read three liberal writers say the same thing, Romney is killing the tea party, and bringing back big government Republicans. The establishment rode the backs of the Tea Party to get out of the mess Bush left the party, and now they want to elect another Harvard grad, blue blood, liberal republican. It just plain make me sick to feel conservatives are doing this to themselves by backing too many people, and not the only true conservative that can win. Romney is now that.

  • tommyfrisco

    that is behind the early primary push? This sounds like the work of Karl Rove to me. Of course, he’s doing it for Romney’s benefit because he doesn’t want to lose control of the GOP to the conservative movement.

    I’ll say it again, folks. As with Governor Palin, Governor Perry’s enemies are our enemies. We didn’t give her the full support she deserved. We shouldn’t do the same with Rick Perry. Otherwise, we’ll be sitting here next March wondering how another John McCain (Romney) ended up as our candidate again.

  • tommyfrisco

    our most experienced, most conservative candidate who has the best chance of winning the general election.

    Looking at the past winners, none were from the House, and only two Senators got in. Obama was one of the lucky Senators. No one has ever won the general election without any political experience except for General Eisenhower. Considering that, who does that leave us with?…Gov. Romney and Gov. Perry. Forgive me for not including Gov. Hunstman.

    So, are we going to get behind Govenor Perry or are we going to allow McCain (Romney) to win the GOP nomination by spreading our conservative votes around to the other candidates that don’t have a chance of winning?

    You should also consider which of the candidates have the most money in their war chest. Again, we’re left with Perry and Romney. Unless a miracle occurs, all the other candidates will eventually have to drop out during the primaries due to a lack of campaign funds.

    It’s time to choose which of those two guys we want.

  • tommyfrisco

    Romney’s political experience consists of one term as Governor. He could not get re-elected. I assume it was due to the mess he made during his one term.

    Govenor Perry is a three term Govenor here in the great, conservative state of Texas. He has never lost a political race and achieved that record without attacking his opponents, certainly not in the manner in which he has been attacked these last couple of months.

    How should we compare the two?

  • toothpick

    Every four years, the first five states from the previous election become the last five, and every other state moves forward five spaces. Each block of five goes on the same day. 2 weeks between each group of five, total of 20 weeks for primary season. That takes us from March 15 through July 26. Done.

  • angryguy77

    in a conspiracy. I heard that Rubio’s cos lobbied fl to move their primary up. What makes this interesting is Rubio’s guy used to work for Mitt. It’s not hard to connect the dots

  • YnotNOW

    is to start with a randomly-selected small state, approx 5-7 Electoral College votes, as a “first test”.
    Wait a couple weeks to digest, maybe have a debate, then the next state or group totalling 10-15 EC votes goes.
    A couple more weeks, a group of states totalling 20-25 EC votes.
    A break and then a group double the size 40-50 EC votes.
    You get the point – double the amount of EC votes with each subsequent primary date, until the final vote is a large block of votes that completes the country, and clinches the nomination at the same time.

    That way, there is some test-cases to weed out those whose message does not resonate with the party voters, and allow the stronger candidates to slowly build momentum. This makes each voting date “meaningful” toward the nomination, rather than leaving some with no influence at all after the nomination is clinched.

    Just my humble suggestion :)