And four years from now, we'll do the exact same thing. It would be simple to fix. We need a system that awards greater weight to delegates from states that voted Republican in the previous election. Until we do this, nothing will change.
At the very least, the first five states that hold primary elections should be the ones that your party carried by the largest margin in the last election.
As it stands now, the only penalty a loser state like Maryland faces is that you sit farther back from the stage at the national convention. And last time that just meant that you got to sit right behind Megyn Kelly on the Fox set, so More of a bonus than a penalty.
Even worse than Maryland, D.C. has less relevance to the Republicans than American Samoa and should get about as many delegates.
Trivia question: Barry Goldwater actually managed to get 14.5% of the DC vote in 1964. Who was the last Republican presidential candidate to exceed this total? Who was the last to crack 10%?
Even worse than Maryland, D.C. has less relevance to the Republicans than American Samoa and should get about as many delegates.
Trivia question: Barry Goldwater actually managed to get 14.5% of the DC vote in 1964. Who was the last Republican presidential candidate to exceed this total? Who was the last to crack 10%?
Both parties probably need to do this. Hillary’s complaint in ‘08 was that Obama was cleaning up delegates in southern states with huge black populations (which happened to be states that no Democrat could win in November) while getting a 55/45 split with her in “blue” states.
The risk is that the only way to do this is to give the RNC even more power and then hope that it uses that power wisely.
I don’t think you can completely up-end the system. Here is my idea.
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina can still go 1-2-3. Iowa is typically a swing state. It’s the best chance for Evangelicals to get an early vote. And, frankly, I like the test that a caucus gives a candidate. If you don’t have the organization to get 10 percent in Iowa, I’m sorry.
New Hampshire is ultimately unimportant and I’m sort of okay with the historical role it plays. South Carolina is very conservative and serves as a good balance to NH.
The one problem is that these three come way way too early. They need to be pushed back.
After those three establish a narrative and let us know who is serious, it’s nut cutting time.
Sometime in early or mid-March, we have a real Super Tuesday with the seven states in which Republicans got the largest share of the vote in the prior election.
That would be:
Oklahoma
Alaska
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Alabama
Arkansas
Then you do the big swing states to make sure that the conservative who emerges is really viable - Ohio, PA, and Florida. (I’m not setting this up to bury Mitt Romney or John McCain. If they can survive and thrive in a fair fight, so be it. You also want to make sure that the candidate can run a national campaign at this point. Because - honestly - the system I’m setting up would give a Ron Paul type a chance to make a lot of early noise).
Two weeks later, it’s Texas and Lousiana - which will more or less decide this, I think. The fact that Texas seemingly has no say in the winner of the GOP primary is nuts.
After that, it’s random. If there is no real winner yet. We get a deserved dog fight. Otherwise, we have a candidate that Conservatives have chosen but who also has some national appeal. I don’t mind New York or California making a final decision. I just don’t want them making the decision.