RNC Reconsiders Primary Schedule

The Washington Times ^ | August 01, 2009

[Steelfish]

RNC reconsiders primary schedule

Health care, cap-and-trade plans opposed

By Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact) | Sunday, August 2, 2009

SAN DIEGO | Before wrapping up the four-day annual summer meeting of the Republican National Committee, members debated changing the 2012 GOP presidential primary schedule - something for the first time in their history they can actually do on their own, without approval of the more than 2,000 delegates who attend the quadrennial Republican National Convention.

"Any change we make will have to be approved by two-thirds of the RNC members, so there will have to be a solid consensus that satisfies big and small states," said former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, who is a member of the ad hoc "delegate selection committee" that will continue hashing over ways to head off the perceived slide toward a one-day national primary that would, in theory, benefit candidates with more money and greater name recognition.

Last year, members at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., voted to give the RNC power over the schedule.

A final proposal for the primary schedule is expected to be presented for approval at the annual winter RNC meeting of its 168 members in January in Washington.

[staytrue]

in past years, the r delegate count was NOT based on population, but on a complex formula that rewarded percentage of republicans voting in the previous presidential election along with bonuses for congressmen, senators and governors.

[staytrue]

in McCain. 2008 saw liberal states representing almost 4% of the US population knock out all conservatives running

Bull. Care to name names ? Let's see, Duncan Hunter, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo, Paul. Tell me which liberal state knocked out whom ?

[Steelers6]

The other consideration for primary moves is what the situation with Obama will be, if he has no significant challenger it’s pointless to start in Iowa (a caucus state) that the Dems can infiltrate and New Hampshire (an open primary state) where you can have these Blue Dog Republicans run and have the media running to the people saying he’s the reasonable one and having him trash conservative principles on national tv.

That candidate would not be rewarded in the top 8 states I have listed on another post.

[Jim from C-Town]

Exactly CLOSED PRIMARIES ONLY. Please, allow Republicans to elect their own candidate for a change.

Also it is time to change these ridiculous caucus states. Make them hold an election with secret ballots. As a person in a late primary state I am sick of Iowa and New Hampshire deciding who will be the candidates for the election.

[matthew fuller]

"Duncan Hunter, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo, Paul."

I said conservatives. Romney was at the time a listed example of RINO's. If you consider Guilianni conservative, then we differ. Thompson, my choice, took forever to get in, and was out very quickly. Brownback, a true and great conservative, never got out of single digits, same as Hunter, another top conservative choice. Paul, is a libertarian. Tancredo is another good conservative, was out pretty soon, altho seems like he hung in a long time considering his performance. While I'm not sure when exactly they all folded, when it got to Texas in March, there was only McCain, Paul (my choice by then) and the huckster, who did everything he could to throw it to McCain.

[staytrue]

I said name the “liberal” state that knocked out the conservatives.

I say that SC knocked out Thompson, and the rest were either not conservative or never got more than 1-2 percent.

[Kevmo]

I haven’t seen any wide discrepancies in delegate count, just the ORDER in which the primaries take place. Why should Iowa be first? The answer to that question in my proposal would be: because they had the highest r voting percentage. The current answer is some convoluted appeal to tradition and some other baloney that never makes sense.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Now how about closing the primaries, so we don’t have dems and the press choosing our candidate!"

Harumphfff!!!!!

[C210N]

I’ve never quite understood how they schedule everything, but I thought all states had Republic and Democrat the same day...

I don't understand it either, but I've observed that last election dems seemed to pick the primary dates that best suit them, and the republicans just follow suit. It should be seperated, republicans should arrange the dates best for the party (and the right buttons pressed now for that to happen later). Sure, will cost states a few more dollars. A pittance compared to the amount that -8 took in from "campaign contributions".

[staytrue]

a state that has more republicans already gets rewarded with more delegates.

there is no need for them to go first also.

furthermore, trying to rig the game fails, in the end the strongest candidate will always emerge and in 96, that was dole, in 2000, it wa bush and in 2008, it was McCain.

[Rockitz]

If you count through Super Tuesday (first Tuesday in February), the blue state to red state electoral vote ratio is about 2 to 1.

[Kevmo]

there is no need for them to go first also.
***Yes there is. The last few elections proved it.

[staytrue]

If you count through Super Tuesday (first Tuesday in February), the blue state to red state electoral vote ratio is about 2 to 1.

Ok, but if you count the EV's in the 2008 election, the blue/red ratio is still about 2 to 1. And if you count blue/red congressional districts, the ratio is about 1.5 to 1. and if you count governorships, the ratio is about 1.5 to 1, and if you count senators, the ratio is about 1.5 to one.

In other words, you arguement makes no sense.

[staytrue]

Yes there is. The last few elections proved it.

Ok, in 2000, who did you want for the republican nomination besides bush (and McCain finished a strong second) and in 2008, who did you want ?

Bottom line, the primary system worked because Bush and McCain were our best candidates and I dare you to name someone who was running who was better.

[Rockitz]

WAFI!

[Rockitz]

If I ‘splained it to you, you’re head would explode, Lucy!

[lonestar]

Red states go first!

[o2bfree]

Iowa and NH are small liberal states, who suck on the teat of statism.

Better to have conservative states moved up to the front of the line, as well as North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado.

[AuntB]

“Bottom line, the primary system worked because Bush and McCain were our best candidates and I dare you to name someone who was running who was better.”

ANYONE was better than McCAin, but you rino’s managed to keep conservatives out of the running. Be proud!

[kevkrom]

My suggestion was basically to hold the first primary in the state that has the highest percentage of GOP votes in the last election, the 2nd primary in the 2nd highest, and so on. 2 primaries a week for 25 weeks, with the last primaries being the suckup-to-the-democrats.

I've made a similar suggestion, except that the precedence in primaries would be based on the states with the largest trend toward GOP votes, rather than absolute -- so states that are becoming "more Republican" get priority over those becoming "less Republican".

There probably needs to be some formula that takes into account overall strength of GOP, recent trends, size, and geography. I still think it's important to have the earlier primaries demonstrate both "small state" and "big state" strengths and weaknesses, as well requiring candidates to show appeal in disparate parts of the country.