Posted on 02/19/2011 3:51:09 PM PST by Hawk720
A deepening standoff between national Republicans and top party leaders in Florida has the potential to blow up the 2012 presidential primary calendar — and do lasting damage to the GOP in the nation’s largest swing state.
At issue is the early date of Florida’s presidential primary election, currently set for Jan. 31, 2012. As of right now, it’s the first primary scheduled.
That’s in blatant violation of Republican and Democratic National Committee rules, which say only four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – can hold primary elections before the beginning of March.
But despite the pleas of GOP officials in Washington, the Republican leaders of Florida’s legislature say they have no intention of shifting the date in a way that could diminish the Sunshine State’s influence in 2012. Key officials signaled they would accept nothing less than going fifth on the primary calendar — not leapfrogging the four early states, but clearly marked off from the other 45.
“Florida’s the most important presidential state and we’d like to keep our current position as one of the early states,” said state Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who called Florida “the first so-called ‘megastate’ in the presidential race.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
[That’s in blatant violation of Republican and Democratic National Committee rules, which say only four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – can hold primary elections before the beginning of March]
Huh? WHY?
Call me clueless, but can someone please explain the rationale behind this rule. And why does the RNC make the rules?
To me its seems that this in inevitably headed in exactly that direction.
We often nominate a strong #2, from the early States.
REALITY does not set in, with some of our folks, until they see real numbers.
It would also eliminate any candidate unable to raise at least $250 million up front.
Seems to me a State can set their primary anytime they want. If a political party has a problem with that, then they do not have to participate.
Now that’s a law I could live with!
The rule is ludicrous and needs to go. If you’re going to stagger the primaries, at least you should rotate the order so that all states eventually get their chance to be near the front.
If the whole primary was at once I believe it would have been Myth Vs Hillary. 0 came on strong late as did McCain
Who else should make the rules for how the Republican Party's nominee is chosen?
This has always made no conservative sense to me. Of course, there are cost savings to be had by having repub and rat primaries on the same day, but still, that day is either good for republican conservatives or its not.. and should not be negotiated with 'rats. This is part of the problem in recent years of giving us a mcPain and the like.
Of course they can; that's not in dispute here.
If a political party has a problem with that, then they do not have to participate.
Or, as in this case, they can reduce or eliminate that state's representation at the party's national convention.
It should a lottery, let all 50 governors meet in Washington and draw from a hat.
>>>>There ought to be one primary day for all fifty states, but that would eliminate the ability of the ruling class to manipulate the outcome.
And primaries should be closed to registered voters for a party who’ve been registered at least 6 months or more with their party affiliation.
SPIN!!!
There’s no problem, here. The states will schedule eventually as follows when funding becomes available:
IOWA TUES JAN 8
NH TUES JAN 15
NEVADA SAT JAN 19
SC TUES JAN 24
FL TUES JAN 31
Problem? What Problem? Looks pretty close to the 2008 schedule if you ask me? I think WY also head a caucus the same weekend as NV.
If there was one primary day for all fifty states, then we would know the winner beforehand.
The candidate with the most money would win the most votes.
The way the primaries are structured now actually makes it possible for a moderately funded/unestablishment type to win. The Iowa caucus is a small state...and the structure isn't susceptible to big ad bucks. New Hampshire is another small state where face-to-face is more important than media bucks.
The current structure allows the less well-funded candidates to compete...and earn themselves a bigger share of the contributions.
Bull-effing-$@#%.
If that were the case, then all elections would be won by Democrats.
You're one of those "we have to get the money out of politics" bozos, aren't you?
20% of our CORN CROP is now Ethanol, despite everyone with a brain agreeing it’s a really STUPID policy; world food prices are through the roof, in part because of this diversion; somewhat friendly governments in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown, in part due to food prices; Saudi Arabia and other big oil producers may be next.
...and why...because of the Iowa Caucuses.
MORE POWER TO FLORIDA!!! Maybe we can start buying real gasoline again if they pull this off.
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.