Iowa GOP: January 3rd caucus date is “set in stone”

posted at 11:25 am on October 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’m not sure which emotion to feel more intensely — anger over having to cover political events over a New Years weekend, or relief that I’m not covering them over Thanksgiving:

Iowa GOP leaders, instead of waiting until they know exactly what date New Hampshire will pick, have voted to rein in the calendar chaos by locking in a date for the Republican caucuses here.

The Republican Party of Iowa central committee voted unanimously Monday night in favor of Jan. 3, with a 7 p.m. start time, Chairman Matt Strawn said. …

Steve Scheffler, a state central committee member and RNC member, said he’s elated.

“The date is in stone, period,” he said. “There is no chance we will reconvene to change the date.”

That shows a little more selflessness than some other states have demonstrated in this cycle, although that’s not saying too much.  Voters in most other states still chafe at the notion that the state that ranks 30th in population plays such an outsized role in presidential politics every single presidential cycle.  Had Iowa and New Hampshire not mule-headedly demanded to be first in the nation in perpetuity, both major political parties might have been able to work out a better, rotating system that allowed all states to play a significant role in the process, at least over time if not in any one particular cycle.

Speaking of mule-headedness, the ball is now in the courts of New Hampshire and Nevada, as CBS notes:

The primary calendar was thrown off-kilter when the Florida Republican Party decided to move its primary to January 31, even though Republican National Committee rules dictate that only four states are allowed to hold nominating contests before March 6 — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. That set off a scramble among the early-nominating states to move up their primaries.

Nevada set its caucuses for Jan. 14, leaving New Hampshire to consider holding its primary as early as December, since a New Hampshire law that requires the state to hold its first-in-the-nation primary at least seven days before the next nominating contest. Iowa laws, meanwhile, say the state must hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses seven days before any other state’s nominating contest, including New Hampshire’s (though in 2008, Iowa held its caucuses just five days before the New Hampshire primary). …

New Hampshire is asking the Republican Party of Nevada to move its caucus back to at earliest January 17. In an attempt to exert pressure on Nevada and to keep all of the primaries in 2012, many of the Republican candidates have pledged to boycott the Nevada caucus if the date does not change. The effort started with former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. Other campaigns have followed suit, including Representative Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum.

So far, Mitt Romney hasn’t joined that boycott — perhaps because he’s the favorite in the race.  He and Tim Pawlenty campaigned in the Silver State yesterday, while their rivals continued to pressure Nevada to retreat three days to the 17th so that New Hampshire could select January 10th and the entire issue could be settled.  If Romney isn’t willing to join his opponents in pressing for a responsible solution, it may cost him with his New Hampshire base, as the influential Union-Leader takes Romney to task in its editorial today:

What this effort suggests: Romney is willing to sacrifice an institution beneficial to the republic (the New Hampshire primary) for his own political advantage. For the Nevada move weakens all 2012 candidates not named Romney and threatens all future New Hampshire primaries. Whether New Hampshire goes in December or in January with Nevada only a few days behind it, the tradition is broken, and other states will be emboldened to move in for the kill in 2016.

Of course, Romney could put New Hampshire voters’ minds at ease about his commitment to the primary and the value of selecting candidates the old-fashioned way. He could join the Nevada boycott.

Or not. Either way, New Hampshire is watching.

Since tonight’s debate takes place in Las Vegas, expect the moderators at CNN to raise the question of the Nevada boycott and the primary scheduling.  That might put pressure on the other candidates to soften their calls for a boycott, but it’s more likely to end up giving them all a way to attack Romney as irresponsible and lacking the kind of leadership to unify Republicans nationally.  And it won’t just be New Hampshire that’s watching, either, but Iowa as well.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You know who this helps? Yep…Palin.

/

csdeven on October 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Better book that New Year’s Eve package in Des Moines RIGHT FREAKING NOW!!

Khun Joe on October 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Florida ruined everything. It was the RNCs fault for not writing the rules to prevent what Florida did from happening.o

ninjapirate on October 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

anger over having to cover political events over a New Years weekend, or relief that I’m not covering them over Thanksgiving:

sheesh…this is going to bite into your BCS championship viewing isn’t it Ed?

ted c on October 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Romney as irresponsible and lacking the kind of leadership to unify Republicans

I know there are lots of tinfoil had conspiracy theories out there, but Romney is not responsible for the primary schedule. NH is his single most important state (duh) and now people are accusing him of marginalizing it. Absurd.

hanzblinx on October 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM

This is just way too early.

Oil Can on October 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Ed: tell the First Mate you’re taking her “south” for New Year’s Eve!

She’ll LOVE it… Until she finds out it is just a couple HUNDRED miles and not a couple THOUSAND miles…

Khun Joe on October 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Crud, another debate, tonight. Well, there’s no baseball. . .

rbj on October 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Des Moines had a photo speed trap on I-236 and 42nd Street.
Why do these states act like that?

No, I wasn’t going that fast.

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

These idiots are setting this up for Paul to do well, unwittingly. His cultic base will be there, no matter the date. They could schedule it for Midnight on New years eve and they would be there.

This is the early primary/caucus he’s trying to do well and win some delegates. They know they can’t compete in a primary, they can over perform in a Caucus. All these straw polls they’ve been stuffing/buying is practice for Iowa.

jp on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I suppose the good news is that the sooner Romney gets thus thing locked up, the longer he can run against Obama.

That’s the one upside.

YYZ on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Since tonight’s debate takes place in Las Vegas, expect the moderators at CNN to raise the question of the Nevada boycott and the primary scheduling.

They can’t and won’t do that Ed, they’re all in the tank for Romney.

Knucklehead on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

this time next yr we are going to be so sick of election campaigning and news.

jp on October 18, 2011 at 11:35 AM

That’s the one upside.

YYZ on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The other upside is reading all the threats to stay home or vote third party so they can watch the country burn to the ground under an Obama 2nd term.

csdeven on October 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM

What this effort suggests: Romney is willing to sacrifice an institution beneficial to the republic (the New Hampshire primary) for his own political advantage.

Whatever.

peski on October 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Iowa in January. Brrrrr! Forget it!

Blake on October 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I keep hearing the Democrats talking about the Republicans committing political suicide…..I just thought it was trash talk.

Dr Evil on October 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

What this effort suggests: Romney is willing to sacrifice an institution beneficial to the republic (the New Hampshire primary) for his own political advantage.

I think the NH and IA voters and their respective S.O.S.’s should get a grip and calm down..

Overheard on FNC this morning: “..the Iowa caucuses going first have been a tradition since 1972..” Jeee-zus! The Dems reliving the Watergate break-in has been a tradition since 1972. This isn’t like it goes back to the post-bellum era.

The War Planner on October 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM

RomneyINC have their hands dirty on this moving the dates up garbage.

portlandon on October 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I’m one of those voters upset with IA and NH

cmsinaz on October 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I didn’t know that war planner

Time for some tweaking

cmsinaz on October 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

If I recall correctly there are three debates scheduled to take place in Iowa. I think at least two of them are scheduled for after this date. It’s not the most important aspect of this, but it looks as if the debates will have to be rescheduled or cancelled.

juliesa on October 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Why not have all primaries on the same day in March? Instead they try to drag out the primary season.

jeffn21 on October 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I didn’t know that war planner

Time for some tweaking

cmsinaz on October 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

..after the first wave hits and we have two-three left standing, expect people to start hyperventilating over the next set and another set of conspiracy theories arise.

I don’t know how old you are (no one is older than I am), but I remember in the 50s and 60s that primaries were mere foreplay. The conventions were where the wheeling and dealing was done — in those famous old “smoke-filled rooms”.

The War Planner on October 18, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I know it’s tradition, but it doesn’t make sense that states like Iowa (6 Electoral Votes) and NH (4 EV) have so much say in the primaries.

Solid conservative states like FL (29 EV), TX (38 EV), GA (16 EV), etc… should be the ones voting in the winner, not IA and NH (or NV for that matter).

Texican Ben on October 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Good times war planner, good times

I’m a gen x’er so I’ve only read about those conventions

cmsinaz on October 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM

” ….. the state that ranks 30th in population plays such an outsized role in presidential politics every single presidential cycle.”

So true. Same goes for New Hampshire. And those caucuses in Iowa are a joke. Reminds me of elementary school games. It’s a circus event put on for the media more than a meaningfull democratic process. I’d rather see a random selection of sequential states each election cycle.

fogw on October 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I’ll stick with anger, along with 90% of the rest of the conservative populace, that we won’t have a say in who the candidate is, letting crap states like Iowa and New Hampshire and their squishy ‘republicans’ continue to pick them for us.

Midas on October 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I’ll remember that when I go to work…thanks..

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I’m still at a loss as to why Iowa and New Hampshire are so special that they have to be the first caucus/primary states. In fact, I cannot think of a reason why ANY state needs to go first.

diditagain on October 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I’m in Iowa, and I dont like this any more than anyone else. Wonder if we could have some kind of concerted effort after this election, and demand that the RNC change the rules? (I know, pie-in-the-sky)

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM

diditagain on October 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Give this man a cigar. But if you are going to have primaries, someone has to be first. And these states seem to have whole industries feeding on the event.

Florida actually makes sense to me.

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire go first is precisely because they’re small… if the large states went first, the nominee would be decided immediately, and those of us in “small” states would have no say whatsoever in the selection of the nominee. As it is, it’s slightly less unfair than that, but I agree that there should be a reorganization of the primary process so that more states’ primaries matter. Still, if we cut straight to letting Florida choose the nominee, a lot of Republican voters in the rest of the country would be disenfranchised.

Midas: What crap state do YOU come from? I bet I can come up with a list of reasons why it’s crappier than Iowa.

TSUGambler on October 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM

New Hampshire Republicans want Romney to join Nevada boycott

From up top headlines. Republicans acting like Democrats….Dogs and Cats living together mass hysteria.

Dr Evil on October 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Dogs and Cats living together mass hysteria.

Dr Evil on October 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

lol

good one

cmsinaz on October 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

We need a rotating blocks of 10 states, 5 super primaries. Set the blocks to contain roughly equal numbers of electoral votes, good spread of conservative and swing states in each group. Closed primaries, all.

RNC should revamp the schedule and toss the votes of any state that doesn’t stick to it. NH and IA will get their turn to be first sometimes just like everyone else, just not every time.

TexasDan on October 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire go first is precisely because they’re small… if the large states went first, the nominee would be decided immediately, and those of us in “small” states would have no say whatsoever in the selection of the nominee.

TSUGambler on October 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM

That’s crap. Regardless of which state we reside in, our primary votes should all matter. Your vote comprises roughly the same 1/umpteenth of an electoral vote that mine does in Texas. And you know what? Big states are far more economically diverse, and therefore much more difficult to pander to. Unlike Iowans and their ethanol subsidy.

TexasDan on October 18, 2011 at 1:38 PM

What to do, what to do? New Hampshire throwing a hissy fit, and Nevada voting proportionally this year, not winner take all. Big decisions. Good luck!

scotash on October 18, 2011 at 3:21 PM

TexasDan, how is that crap? It’s true. If all the primaries were held at once, no candidate would waste their time visiting or even thinking about smaller states. Coming as you do from a large an influential state like Texas, where the candidates (at least Republican ones) would spend a great deal of time and money, I’m sure that doesn’t bother you, but I live in Iowa and I would like to see my vote (or, in this case, my caucusing) to matter at least a little bit.

And if you had read the rest of my comment, you would know that I favor finding a solution so that all states get a bite at the apple, not just the usual few. I actually like your idea of rotating blocks of primaries, although I’m not sure how we could manage to get all states to agree to implement it.

And just for the record, quite a lot of Iowa Republicans do not favor ethanol subsidies. I personally don’t–as a matter of fact, I even avoid putting that stuff in my gas tank unless I have no other choice.

TSUGambler on October 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I’ll stick with anger, along with 90% of the rest of the conservative populace, that we won’t have a say in who the candidate is, letting crap states like Iowa and New Hampshire and their squishy ‘republicans’ continue to pick them for us.

Midas on October 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I second that. I am so sick of having things decided long before they get to Colorado’s primary. The convention system was far better, and least every state could send delegates who had a vote.

Common Sense on October 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM