Posted on 08/01/2009 9:56:06 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They need to reconsider who they give money to.
Now how about closing the primaries, so we don’t have dems and the press choosing our candidate!
Does this mean that the Republican Iowa caucus, N.H. primary, etc. would not have to be the same day as the Democrats? I’ve never quite understood how they schedule everything, but I thought all states had Republic and Democrat the same day, since each state has to run and pay for their own elections.
Then, perhaps, can we opt out of having Iowa and New Hampshire being qualifying rounds for the Republican nominees? There’s no reason except tradition that Iowa and New Hamshire have to go first. Arguably you don’t get the best candidates surviving the early rounds in these states.
Unfortunately, the way the MSM influences news coverage, fundraising, attention, etc. goes, only candidates who do well in Iowa and New Hampshire remain viable for the rest of the campaign.
IAFT! Time to cut out RAT strongholds from the lead-in events!
Sadly, the RNC does not have that power.
That would be a State matter.
“They need to reconsider who they give money to”
Among other things.
I say we let Texas go first!
Here HERE!!! No more "Operation Chaos" by the Demonicrats and their propoganda stooges in the MSM!!!
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. And the democrats could easily have their primary schedule the same way, if they wanted.
This way, if a state is 60% republican, there is still incentive for them to get out the vote for 61% republican so they can bump up their state in the primary schedule.
Yes!!!!!!!
And term limits!!!
If they don’t close the primaries, there’s really no point in staying in a rat-infested GOP.
I like it.
No more McCains!
Well, let’s hope it catches on. Guys like Duncan Hunter would smoke jokers like tootyfruityrudy long before there was any ridiculous controversy.
Texas should be first. We are about as reliable a red state as one can be, we have a demographic make up more in tune with what the Country and most voters look like, and were a state every Republican has to carry if they hope to win.
I know by their state constitutions no matter what IA and NH have to be one of the first, but that doesn’t mean a real Republican state can’t have their primaries the same day as they do.
If not Texas, since Texas is a high cost state to campaign in, at least Arizona. It’s reliably Republican, not milquetoast, in a region Republicans need to do better in, and fairly inexpensive to campaign in.
Just no more Blue States choosing our Candidates. It would be like the Democrats letting South Dakota and Wyoming choose their candidates.
So here is your lineup for the 2012 primary
1. Oklahoma (Plains) 65.6% 7 electoral votes, every county in the state voted McCain over Obama, only 2 candidates on ballot
2. Wyoming 64.8% (Mountain West) 3 electoral votes
3. Utah (Mountain West) 62.6% 5 electoral votes (6) in 2012
4. Idaho (Mountain West) 61.5% 4 electoral votes
5. Alabama (South) 60.3% 9 electoral votes
6. Alaska (Pacific Northwest) 59.4% 3 electoral votes
7. Arkansas (South) 58.7% 6 electoral votes
8. Louisiana (South) 58.6% 9 electoral votes (8) in 2012
I think it would be a good thing to allow some of these states early in the Republican Primary process, even though there are only 46 electoral votes in these states, and no states on the east coast, west coast with the exception of Alaska, and the Midwest. The candidates that do well in these states should appeal to the grassroots.
Oh yeah, Iowa, NH, SC and FL are real rat strongholds.
What can I say? The more I see how this would shake out, the more I like the idea. I think Palin would have a lock before the press could say, “boo”. And Duncan Hunter would have the cleanest shot at this. Guys like tootyfruityrudy and McRomney would have an uphill battle, as it should be.
Didn’t read the full article yet, but this is an absolute must. If not changed, we will wind up with a candidate selected by liberal state open primary crossovers, as in McCain. 2008 saw liberal states representing almost 4% of the US population knock out all conservatives running unless you consider the huckster and Ron Paul conservative.
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.