Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP presidential calendar threatened by rogue states
Politico ^ | Sept. 16, 2011 | ALEXANDER BURNS

Posted on 09/17/2011 3:13:44 PM PDT by Clairity

In the final days before states submit their primary and caucus plans to the Republican National Committee, the GOP is sweating bullets over the possibility that a gang of rogue states could still wreak havoc on the 2012 presidential nominating process.

One state, Arizona, has already announced that it will violate RNC rules and hold its primary on February 28 - a full week before joint RNC-Democratic National Committee rules permit states to do so. Michigan's legislature is also moving toward scheduling its vote for the same date.

Then there's Florida, a repeat offender when it comes to calendar mischief, which has empaneled a committee to choose an election date that’s expected to fall before the RNC-sanctioned date of March 6.

The RNC cutoff for states to schedule their elections is October 1—and some states may even blow that deadline.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2012election; 2012primaries; arizona; election2012; elections; gopprimaries; roguestates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
Interesting -- states keep trying to move their primaries earlier and earlier to have more impact.
1 posted on 09/17/2011 3:13:51 PM PDT by Clairity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clairity

If they all had their primaries on the SAME day, we wouldn’t have to worry about it! We have 1 voting day for the FULL election, so why all this whoohaw about different voting days for primaries - Say make it March 1st for EVERYONE! Get it all overwith in 1 day....


2 posted on 09/17/2011 3:20:56 PM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Well, I’ve always wondered why small states like Iowa and Vermont get to have so much power in choosing our candidates. In 2008, did Vermont go for McClame? On the other hand, I worry that if AZ goes first, McClame will get renewed delusions of grandeur and jump into the race, thinking he has a chance.


3 posted on 09/17/2011 3:21:55 PM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

I wonder when SC will have to hold their primary to still be the “first in the South”? It’s going to be an interesting election year......


4 posted on 09/17/2011 3:25:34 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtrott
A single Primary Election date should be used, where rogue fast-Registering busloads of Union Activists pack the ballot box to try to sway key races to weak Republican candidates.

The whole political process is now money-driven, and the funds needed to command control of the propoganda machines in "all 57 States" for ONE date would be prohibitive, and hence, is opposed by the Establishment of BOTH Parties.

5 posted on 09/17/2011 3:26:17 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

And another thing, I kind of blame the whole ethanol boondoggle on Iowa’s early primary. Every politician that wants their support in the caucus has to cow tow to the ethanol folks.


6 posted on 09/17/2011 3:29:31 PM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Ohio is a battleground state but doesn’t have any say on the nominee.


7 posted on 09/17/2011 3:30:13 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
I like your idea but I would hold two "national" primaries. One in March and another in June.

The March primaries would be more or less a weeding-out affair. Candidates with say, at least 20% of the vote, would move on to the June primaries in which delegates will be awarded to candidates accordingly to take to their national conventions for the formal nomination process.

Now when I say "national" primaries, I am really saying 50 separate state primaries - which happen to be held on the same day. This is so we can preserve the Electoral College.

8 posted on 09/17/2011 3:30:46 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (All my replies get posted to AttackWatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
Not only that but how about those states that allow crossover voters. That's how we got McShame in many of those states. The worse one running. Of course dems would like the Reps to have the weakest candidate that way.
9 posted on 09/17/2011 3:30:55 PM PDT by Evil Slayer (Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

Can you make it March 2nd? I’m busy the 1st. Thank you.


10 posted on 09/17/2011 3:34:27 PM PDT by Krankor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

*gasp* states acting like sovereign entities. Heresy!


11 posted on 09/17/2011 3:38:07 PM PDT by icanhasbailout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtrott
In the General Election (all states) vote on the same day. My use of the words "all states" means all the people in this country from every state votes on the same day.

So why not make it the same day for each state to hold their primaries? I think the voting is skewed when a state or several states that are more liberal or more conservative gets to go first. Thus sealing up the outcome before the other states have a chance down the line.

12 posted on 09/17/2011 3:41:16 PM PDT by Evil Slayer (Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Krankor

Yeah, March 1 is my birthday and I’d prefer to not have it sullied.


13 posted on 09/17/2011 3:45:23 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Sounds good to me because with such a system, people in the various states, knowing that the whole country is voting would mitigate the degree to which they might vote for a candidate based mostly on local factors. This would force them to think about the good of the country as a whole.


14 posted on 09/17/2011 3:46:15 PM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

I don’t think it is just to get more impact. By the time Florida had its primary in 2008, it was all over but the shouting. We had a choice between Romney and McCain. Some choice.


15 posted on 09/17/2011 3:48:58 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (So much stress was put on Bush's Fault that it finally let go, magnitude 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtrott
I’ve always wondered why small states like Iowa and Vermont get to have so much power in choosing our candidates.
______________________________________________________________ Do you mean Iowa and New Hampshire?
16 posted on 09/17/2011 4:11:52 PM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clairity
Notice the word "rogue" in the headline?

Could this be Sarah Palin's way of telegraphing what has been her plan all along?

Could she have the "rogue" states all wrapped up, completely outflanking the GOP ruling-class RINOs?

Heh!

17 posted on 09/17/2011 4:13:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Democrats are going to flood the open primaries with Romney votes


18 posted on 09/17/2011 4:15:05 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
We have 1 voting day for the FULL election, so why all this whoohaw about different voting days for primaries...

The ruling-class RINOs have to have way of controlling things, or some "rogue" candidate (anybody come to mind) might outwit and outmaneuver them.

Not mentioning any names, of course.

19 posted on 09/17/2011 4:15:09 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
If they all had their primaries on the SAME day, we wouldn’t have to worry about it! We have 1 voting day for the FULL election, so why all this whoohaw about different voting days for primaries - Say make it March 1st for EVERYONE! Get it all overwith in 1 day....

But...but...what if Sarah hasn't announced by March 1st?

20 posted on 09/17/2011 4:19:54 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson