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.
Five 10 state primary dates would probably be better. I think it would change the way campaigning is done for the better.
Imagine a primary date of Texas, Alabama, Oregon, Alaska, Maine, New Jersey, North Dakota, Michigan, Kansas and Missouri.
I was also thinking that a better National Capitol System would be to rotated between Two, Two Month Sessions of Congress each year between the different state capitols.
That way you don't have a consolidation of power like we do now.
You would pull a State out of a hat at the end of each session, then it would be removed until all of them have been used, then it starts all over again.
Given the quality of recent Republican nominees, it's unfair to the rest of the world.
The Iowa Caucus population is a tiny and very strange group of people. The New Hampshire voter is also a very strange bird, especially with cross overs. Having these two odd ball tiny groups decide so much is just absurd.
People don’t realize it, but SC, not a big state, has several times the entire Iowa and NH caucus/primary voter populations by itself...and is much more “normal” by national conservative standards. Then you have Florida, which is really a political mess right now, and huge. The race is almost always over by the end of those four states, and really was in 08 and 12.
The small town has been dying since the private transportation network (railroads) disappeared and the concentration of more cropland into fewer owners resulted in school consolidations and regional retailing hubs. In essence, Iowa ethnically cleansed itself.
(Cities such as Dubuque continue to deliberately alter their makeup through systematic importation of urban felons as well as implementation of Agenda 21 items.)
Anyone still want this herd of self-destroying losers picking your candidates? Me either, and I live here. Yes, there are still good people in Iowa, but as a place to live it is about as vibrant as a funeral home unless you have already got yours and can keep hold of it.
Well after they gave Romney artificial momentum into New Hampshire, I hope they lose their influence. I also hope New Hampshire loses its influence in pushing worthless moderates.
As a former resident of the Idiots Out Walking Around state, I’m shocked to learn IOWA had a role in the first place! (/sarc)
they have sold their souls to the Platinum health care and numerous perks of office, it has become aqn adiction for them, and they usually are moderates, like tn’S Alexander and corker, graham, mccain, snowe, etc. even rubio us betraying us with this amnesty reversal, trying to justify it in contorted ways. wolf in conservative clothing, mouthing all the right words, but turning his back once elected!
Colorado does not belong on this list. Our Primaries are so late in the game there has not been a choice for president on our ballot for 3 election cycles. Colorado has closed primaries so we could help a conservative candidate.
If we had a choice on the ballot. If the winner had not been selected prior to our primary. If the republicants had a better choice than Snow White (Bachmann) and seven dwarves.
I propose that we have 4 primary Tuesdays each two weeks apart starting in March. On January 1st all the states for each Super Tuesday are selected at random, so Iowa may be on the first Tuesday one election cycle and the fourth the next and so on. That would stop this nonsens of wannabe candidates trooping to Iowa and New Hampshire 40 months before the next election.
Iowa and New Hampshire with the help of crossover dems voting has given the GOP nominees like romney, dole, mc lame and other boring old fools.
To hell with Iowa and NewHampshire
One thing I find curious about how the system is set up is how the national party will punish a state if it sets up their primary earlier than the party wants.
It should be none of their damn business. The national party needs us, we don’t need them. They should abide by whatever a state decides.
If Texas decided to hold its primary on the same day as Iowa, what would the party do? Punish Texas? Would they REALLY want to go down that road?
Texas won’t do that, of course, because the “powers that be” in the state GOP will go along with whatever the national “powers that be” tells them to.
That is why our nation is doomed. There are the very few that matter, and the great masses of people that just...don’t.
I wouldn’t be so hard on the swing states (Florida, we can’t win without it, it should have no say? Ohio? Those are the keystone states that winner will usually carry)
I still don’t see how it can be fair unless everyone votes at the same time, whatever problems that may cause wouldn’t be worse than the current stupid system. You could have like an electoral college for delegates, states get more delegates the more Republicans they have and award the delegates proportionally, that would weigh it toward the Republican states but wouldn’t screw the millions of decent people in Cali and NY who deserve to have a vote. I don’t like the idea of not having a choice as to who the nominee is (like everyone in the final states to vote every election, it’s over before it gets to them) just cause I live in a bad state.
The delegates can actually serve a purpose by working it out if no one has a majority (in all likelihood no one would most of the time), like the old days. Romney wouldn’t have had a majority.
I agree with Impy, swing states definitely should have a say in who our nominee is. Nominating the local favorite in the Deep South and the Prairies may not be the best way to get to 270 in the general.
As for everyone voting at the same time, that would make insurgent candidacies all but futile, would not allow voters to winnow out those who can’t hack it, and would make candidates who can afford national ads the prohibitive favorites. Perhaps we shouldn’t have a single state go first, but neither should we have more than 3 or 4 states vote on the first primary day.
Frankly, I have no major problem with IA or NH going so early, and don’t believe that such states have given liberal Republicans an advantage. (Heck, if anything, having IA go first pretty much kills off any chance that a pro-abortion Republican could have early momentum, since the IA GOP electorate is vehemently pro-life.) My biggest concern is that states start to pile up rapidly right after SC, making it difficult for an insurgent who rallies conservatives to victory in the early states to be able to fundraise enough to be competitive in all those primaries taking place pretty much on a weekly basis thereafter.
Maybe we could have IA, NH and SC go on the first day, then NV, FL and MI go two weeks later, and then three more states two weeks after that, and so on and so forth.
Of course Santorum actually won Iowa, but somehow that wasn’t declared till a few weeks after.
I live in Iowa now, but miss Nebraska. We were the last state the Clinton visited.
Yeah NH might be somewhat of a problem, not so much Iowa. Unless the issue is farm pork I suppose, the caucus goers in Iowa are a pretty conservative group.
I’d just as soon not see the same states go first every time though just cause of tradition. They don’t want to give it up of course because it’s a boon for the local economies for every to get overrun with people every 4 years. Pretty much racketeering if you ask me.