Skip to comments.Iowa’s G.O.P. Fears Its Role in Presidential Selection Is Diminishing
Posted on 08/26/2013 3:37:10 AM PDT by ClaytonP
Establishment Republicans fear that conservatives have become such a dominant force in the nominating process here that they may drive mainstream presidential candidates away.
Youre going to see conservatives probably not play as much in New Hampshire, and youre going to see moderates not play here, Mr. Santorum said in an interview this month before he addressed the gathering of Christian conservatives here.
That is exactly what senior Iowa Republicans fear. And it is why some in the party are already taking steps to curb one of the more controversial elements of the caucus process: the Ames Straw Poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Now that Conservatives appear to have the upperhand, only now do they want to change things to further screw over conservatives.
I’m about sick and tired of 4 or 5 states deciding who the candidate will be anyway. It’s blatantly unfair to the rest of the country.
Well, establishment republicans are gutless idiots, and not just in Iowa.
What’s worse is that it’s these states that usually don’t vote Republican deciding. NH has voted once for the GOP candidate in 2 decades (2000). Iowa has voted once for the GOP candidate in 30 years (2004). Letting those states lead off and have a winnowing process on the field is absurd. It would be like the Democrats relying on Utah or Oklahoma to determine their nominee.
Amen to that Brother.
Whoever New Hampshire and Iowa pick we have to stay away from.
The leadership of the Republican party always goes for the losers.
It’s time to stop Iowa and New Hampshire from being the first primaries.
Good news. I am sick and tired of Democrat states like Iowa and New Hampshire picking our Presidential candidates. In each of the last two elections, the candidate that the Democrats wanted to run against ended up being the GOP nominee.
You’re right and that’s one major reason the GOP is truly the STUPID PARTY!
Amen. If you MUST have states from the midwest and east setting the table; let those states be Oklahoma and Tennessee.
1984 - 2012 = 28 yrs
Reagan won Iowa in the ‘84 landslide over Mondale, within your stated 30-yr timeline.
But your point is well taken because from ‘88 on, Republicans lost Iowa except for once.
The candidacies of GHW Bush twice, Dole, GWB/2000, McCain and Romney were bad news from Iowa.
And for decades the two Iowa Senators have been Grassley and HARKIN - the latter being a far Left, near insane HACK. Talk about your “split personality” state, that’s Iowa.
With the clear presidential election advantage going to DEMS...
All States should have their primaries on the same day.
New Hampshire- Democrat State.
South Carolina- Conservative State (And remember Mittens big loss there?)
Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine.
All Democrat States!
I am sensing a Pattern Here, putting your Primary in Progressive States first tend to produce progressives candidates and is why our people in the GOP never get a shot.
I sure hope they lose influence. They get it wrong most every time.
+ any state with an open primary just isn’t serious about selecting the best Republican candidate.
Since the next Presidential election is in 2016, that’s where I was counting from (hence after 1984, just in 2004). I count 1988 as the last year that the Republicans were still competitive in every state.
Beginning with 1992, essentially the start of the polarized modern era of national politics, there are roughly 18 states (and DC) that simply won’t vote GOP in a Presidential race (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA & WI). Add in 8 more that have moved to difficult or “rare” (CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NM, OH & VA) and you now have half the states dubious or hostile to our candidates.
Of those 26, none should have any substantial input in the choice of our nominee. The remaining 24 should have far more weight, and there should be rotating primaries/caucii so that no one state gets the “first” primary every 4 years.
I personally like the idea of 10 primary dates in a regionally diverse rotation of 5 states per date. 1 eastern, 1 western, 1 southern, 1 northern, and 1 central state per date. States voting first in one primary year would be excluded from voting first 4 years later but could be in the rotation for the second date.
Alternatively 5 10 state dates.
It’s like a state beauty pageant where judges are diddling the winning ‘beauties.’
I say if you want to get a quick feel of the mood for GOP, have all the states vote their primaries on the same day. At least then, we’d have a shorter time period and fresher memories to be able to gauge the conflicting statements these RINOs make in different states.
As it is now, a Rubio or a Bush or some other elitist can make a good showing in Iowa or New Hampshire and garner a treasure of contributions they could use to play tricks in Virginia, West Virginia and elsewhere as has been done.
Bad idea, as that would simply favor the candidate who could shower the most money on a state. The states should be clustered in groups (say, 5 primaries per week over 10 weeks and move them to late spring/early summer, none of this winter nonsense almost a year ahead of time), and must rotate every 4 years. NH’s reign has to end (ditto Iowa).
Besides, what’s the worst those two can do to the GOP ? Threaten not to vote for us ? As I cited above, voting once for us (NH 2000, IA 2004) since after 1988 and 1984 respectively isn’t much of a bargaining chip.
You read my mind.