Posted on 12/11/2013 8:58:49 AM PST by kobald
A handful of Republican Party officials is quietly advancing a new batch of rules aimed at streamlining a chaotic presidential nominating process that many party insiders viewed as damaging to the their campaign for the White House in 2012, multiple GOP sources told CNN.
In a series of closed-door meetings since August, handpicked members of the Republican National Committee have been meeting with party Chairman Reince Priebus in Washington to hash out details of a sweeping plan to condense the nominating calendar, severely punish primary and caucus states that upend the agreed-upon voting order and potentially move the party's national convention to earlier in the summer, with late June emerging as the ideal target date...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Big money and established candidates would be the only ones with a chance in a one day national primary.
I’m from CA, but would be perfectly fine with having primaries in FL,GA,OH,MO,CO,and AZ decide the whole thing. They would provide a good mix. IA and NH are not indicative of anything nation-wide.
What they need to do is throw the name of every state in a hat, and draw them out for assigned dates. This will keep the GOPe from frontloading liberal states.
Well, lets see how this little battle plays out. GOPe is trying desperately to not be removed from positions of influence. Yes, baby, we are coming for you soon.
I don’t know if I like the hat idea, but anything would be an improvement over what we have now I suppose….
If we conservatives would stop screwing around, and vote for one person, they would have no ability to do anything.
Bingo.. Who in the Hell ever thought that an open enrollment was a good idea..? Geeez
GOPe had better be careful continuing to tease the tail of the Dragon. It could burn down the entire mansion they inhabit.
RINO incumbent protection program.
Could the process be better? Sure. Does it really matter? No. The conservative champion who can’t beat Christie in at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire under the current rules is not going to be able to beat Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in Ohio or Florida.
Uh, oh. Hope you have your flameproof pajamas on.
I agree with that, but they didn't invite me or ask my opinion this time.
I'd like to see totally closed primaries -- where absolutely NO independents, libertarians, democrats, or other space aliens get to vote in Republican primaries.
I'd like to see Republican debates wherein the moderators have to be TEA Party conservative Republicans. No commie interference.
Will they finally close gOp primaries to ‘cross-dressing’ democRATS too?
I don't find it tiring at all. There's nothing more important in primaries than debates. Should we just watch all the cheesy, misleading ads instead? Not to mention, debates level the playing field between big-money candidates (RINOs) and upstarts (conservatives).
We should start the debates now and have them non-stop until the primary's over. There's almost no better way to get a feel for a candidate and preview how they'll compete on the national level. Romney wouldn't have even won his first debate with Obama if not for the practice he had in the primaries, so the debates not only help the voters, they help the candidate.
The debates last time were incredibly useful and revealing, and allowed lots of good candidates to make progress with their campaigns. Without them, Romney would've marched right in on his money. With them, we came close to beating his useless RINO butt.
He still lost..................
NH “first” needs to be gutted and abandoned.
It is a meaningless race and only serves to further anti-republic democracy.
I would agree with something like that. Only getting to choose one candidate in a multi-candidate election means that one wing of the party can split the vote and make the least-preferred candidate come out the winner. If you run 4 Ted Cruz clones who each get 19% of the vote and a Romneybot gets 24% of the vote, the Romneybot wins, even though 76%, the vast majority of the voters would’ve ranked him last choice on their list. A multi-candidate election where you can only pick one name is an utterly stupid, meaningless and counterproductive exercise.
I would agree with something like that. Only getting to choose one candidate in a multi-candidate election means that one wing of the party can split the vote and make the least-preferred candidate come out the winner. If you run 4 Ted Cruz clones who each get 19% of the vote and a Romneybot gets 24% of the vote, the Romneybot wins, even though 76%, the vast majority of the voters would’ve ranked him last choice on their list. A multi-candidate election where you can only pick one name is an utterly stupid, meaningless and counterproductive exercise.
What’s your point? He was an awful candidate who only won the primary by outspending his more popular opponents 20 to 1. We need primaries that do not favor the big-money candidates. Big money Republicans means RINOs, amnesty, pro-abortion, pro-corporate welfare, pro-bailout...
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.