Before I give an answer representing Nixon's views, I want to check my facts and provide links. I don't want to misrepresent Nixon's position — I'm about 90 percent sure of his position, but 90 percent is not good enough.
I feel more comfortable representing the Republican position. The standard Republican position is this is a waste of taxpayer money for no valid reason, and that because of national Republican Party rules, the Missouri primary date would have cost the state a significant part of its delegates. Makes sense to me.
The other side (and this is not necessarily the Democratic Party position, some Republicans make it too) is that these “beauty contest” primaries do have precedents many years ago before our modern nomination process developed. In a lot of states, convention delegates were selected largely by state political machines and direct voter input was not as common as it is today. The “beauty contest” primaries gave political leaders a “heads up” on what the voters thought, and were a factor in keeping political leaders from making decisions contrary to the will of their own people. An added factor is that with Missouri's primary being when it is during a “down time” in the cycle, the vote is likely to carry some influence even with no delegates attached to it.
Hope that is of some help.
It does help. I did know about the penalty for having the primary too early. I just couldn’t see spending the taxpayer money on a non-binding vote.
So, if the Pubbies have the caucus, then there is no penalty right?
Thanks for your help.