Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa’s G.O.P. Fears Its Role in Presidential Selection Is Diminishing
The New York Times ^ | 8-24-2013 | JONATHAN MARTIN

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.

...

“You’re going to see conservatives probably not play as much in New Hampshire, and you’re 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 ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: gop; iowa
Nope, no though given to how to reform a system that allowed McCain and Romney to get the nomination.

Now that Conservatives appear to have the upperhand, only now do they want to change things to further screw over conservatives.

1 posted on 08/26/2013 3:37:10 AM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP
Gee whiz, it ain't like the establishment big gubmint Republicans actually want to win a Presidential race.
2 posted on 08/26/2013 3:40:32 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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.


3 posted on 08/26/2013 3:50:05 AM PDT by Sporke (USS Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Well, establishment republicans are gutless idiots, and not just in Iowa.


4 posted on 08/26/2013 3:50:57 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sporke

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.


5 posted on 08/26/2013 3:56:47 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sporke

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.


6 posted on 08/26/2013 4:00:12 AM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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.


7 posted on 08/26/2013 4:04:54 AM PDT by Hoodat (BENGHAZI - 4 KILLED, 2 MIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

You’re right and that’s one major reason the GOP is truly the STUPID PARTY!


8 posted on 08/26/2013 4:06:28 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
It’s time to stop Iowa and New Hampshire from being the first primaries.

Amen. If you MUST have states from the midwest and east setting the table; let those states be Oklahoma and Tennessee.

9 posted on 08/26/2013 4:07:31 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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...


10 posted on 08/26/2013 4:18:50 AM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

All States should have their primaries on the same day.


11 posted on 08/26/2013 4:21:45 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP; onyx; cripplecreek
Let's See:

Iowa-Democrat State.

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.

12 posted on 08/26/2013 4:22:34 AM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sporke
Exactly! The entire system is a farce, with NH, Iowa and SC deciding who is going to be the nominee!
13 posted on 08/26/2013 4:22:37 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

I sure hope they lose influence. They get it wrong most every time.


14 posted on 08/26/2013 4:22:49 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

+ any state with an open primary just isn’t serious about selecting the best Republican candidate.


15 posted on 08/26/2013 4:33:43 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; campaignPete R-CT; BillyBoy

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.


16 posted on 08/26/2013 4:35:37 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

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.


17 posted on 08/26/2013 4:36:00 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sporke

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.


18 posted on 08/26/2013 4:37:37 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

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.


19 posted on 08/26/2013 4:40:00 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

You read my mind.


20 posted on 08/26/2013 4:41:00 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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.


21 posted on 08/26/2013 4:50:56 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Sounds good to me, Couldn't be worse than what we have now.

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.

22 posted on 08/26/2013 5:05:10 AM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sporke
It’s blatantly unfair to the rest of the country.

Given the quality of recent Republican nominees, it's unfair to the rest of the world.

23 posted on 08/26/2013 5:06:31 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Army dad. And damned proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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.


24 posted on 08/26/2013 5:11:35 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP
Iowa is basically run by two groups: the agricultural industry and the government employees. These recipients of government largesse - read "taxes" - are what then trickle money to whatever else remains. I suppose one could make the case that its true condition is a form of fascism camouflaged by cornfields and cow pies.

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.

Mr. niteowl77

25 posted on 08/26/2013 5:13:35 AM PDT by niteowl77 ("There's nothing a vulture hates more than biting into a glass eye.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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.


26 posted on 08/26/2013 5:22:15 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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)


27 posted on 08/26/2013 5:23:26 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

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!


28 posted on 08/26/2013 5:46:38 AM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion
Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine.

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.

29 posted on 08/26/2013 6:06:40 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
All States should have their primaries on the same day.

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.

30 posted on 08/26/2013 6:19:04 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Lets see,
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


31 posted on 08/26/2013 6:41:54 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) ( Hey Rubio, eat pooh pal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

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.


32 posted on 08/26/2013 10:04:41 AM PDT by Sporke (USS Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP
The thrust of the article is how the moderate candidates Rubio and Christie, whom the NY Times favors, should avoid the Republican grass roots.
33 posted on 08/26/2013 2:12:42 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; PhilCollins; campaignPete R-CT

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.


34 posted on 08/26/2013 4:02:33 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; PhilCollins; campaignPete R-CT

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.


35 posted on 08/26/2013 5:11:48 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

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.


36 posted on 08/26/2013 8:13:40 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

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.


37 posted on 08/26/2013 10:16:02 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson