Rand Paul advisor warns RNC: Getting rid of caucuses in 2016 means “nuclear war” with the base

posted at 6:01 pm on March 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Gonna be a lot of blood on the floor when the next nominee is crowned.

Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: the five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions.

Each of those steps would benefit a deep-pocketed candidate in the mold of Mitt Romney. That is, someone who doesn’t need the benefit of televised debates to get attention because he or she can afford TV ads; has the cash to air commercials and do other forms of voter contact in multiple big states at one time; and has more appeal with a broader swath of voters than the sort of ideologically-driven activists who typically attend caucuses and conventions…

Reaction was swift. Allies of potential 2016 hopefuls Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum, sensing a power play by the establishment-dominated panel, reacted angrily to recommendations they think are aimed at hurting candidates who do well in caucuses and conventions and need debates to get attention…

“Elimination of caucuses would mean nuclear war with the grassroots, social conservatives and [the] Ron Paul movement,” said [a "close Paul advisor"].

Bring it on, said some GOP leaders. “If Paul forces want ‘nuclear war’ over reducing [the number] of caucuses, let’s have it,” tweeted longtime GOP strategist Mike Murphy. “[The] key to [a] stronger party is more open primaries.”

Everyone understands the strategizing, right? I assume 90 percent of the readership does but here’s a quickie primer for that 10 percent that doesn’t watch the primaries closely. Caucuses favor candidates with intensely committed followers, even if their overall base of support is small. The caucus process takes much longer than simple ballot voting does so casual voters stay away while passionate supporters show up. That means overall turnout is way lower than in a primary, which in turn means that a dark horse candidate who lacks money and name recognition can pull a huge upset by mobilizing his fans. That’s how Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum won in 2012, with Ron Paul a close third. Romney could have buried them all in ad money by swaying low-information casual voters in a statewide primary, but in a caucus system those voters simply aren’t going to endure the hassle of caucus night. Obama, who wasn’t quite the longshot that those three were, won the Democratic nomination that way in 2008 too. He pulled the upset in Iowa, which moved the Overton window by convincing doubters that Hillary could be beat. Then, because he was better organized than she was and had stronger grassroots support, he cleaned up in other caucus states, which gave him an ultimately insurmountable lead in delegates.

You can understand, then, why Santorum and Paul are upset at the thought of Iowa moving to a primary. Santorum, in particular, will need another upset in Iowa in 2016 to survive to South Carolina, and the only way he has any chance of that is if they stick with a caucus. Otherwise Rubio, Jindal, or whoever else will spend their way past him in a primary. Paul’s a more interesting case, just because it’s hard to see right now whether he’ll be a dark horse or a top-tier candidate in three years. His advisor reflexively favors a caucus because if there’s one thing the Paul family’s good at, it’s mobilizing a small band of extremely devoted fans to turn out. That’s why Ron was a juggernaut at straw polls, a serious threat in caucuses, and off the map in primaries dominated by casual/centrist Republicans. Rand’s already built more mainstream cred than his dad ever did, though, and is likely to be well funded between support from grassroots conservatives and from the famously generous Paul base. A primary wouldn’t instantly kill his chances the way it would Santorum’s, especially if mainstream conservatives are split several ways between people like Rubio, Jindal, or Christie. On the contrary, a caucus could hurt him by giving a social con candidate like Santorum or Huckabee a fighting chance to upset him, which would be a major buzzkill before New Hampshire. It’ll be fascinating to watch Paulworld’s feelings on the caucuses evolve or not evolve over the next two years depending upon how Rand’s stature in the party grows or shrinks. The more money and mainstream support he’s got, the more dangerous the caucuses become for him.

I prefer primaries, but check back with me if Jeb Bush jumps in, raises a few hundred million from the Bush machine, and looks set to stomp the field in a few weeks. Exit question: Who among the likely candidates would a “regional primary cluster” a la Super Tuesday favor in 2016? That’s a test, essentially, of name recognition and fundraising, as it limits the candidates’ opportunities for direct campaigning and turns things into an ad war to win low-information voters. Assume Jeb doesn’t run.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Go stomp their guts out Rand!

b1jetmech on March 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Who among the likely candidates would a “regional primary cluster” a la Super Tuesday favor in 2016?

The answer is whoever the Media and Democrats (I repeat myself) favor.

weaselyone on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Is this enough to make a third party viable? I think so.

nobar on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

The caucuses are the hardest place for the establishment to cheat because each voter is there in person representing themselves and their vote. It’s much easier for them to manipulate the primary votes because there aren’t so many witnesses.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM

“Elimination of caucuses would mean nuclear war with the grassroots, social conservatives and [the] Ron Paul movement,” said [a "close Paul advisor"].

You have to love Politico and their unnamed sources who are close advisors. These unnamed sources always seem to contribute to infighting amongst the GOP. Odd isn’t it?

weaselyone on March 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM

If there is one thing the GOP is extremely good at it’s alienating everyone and losing elections in spectacular and total defeat. I see we’re in for another banner year.

Bush/Kristol ’16!

Punchenko on March 18, 2013 at 6:10 PM

For the record: Hillary won more primary votes than Obama. But for the machinations of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on 5/31/08 she would have finished with more pledged delegates as well.

Neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to take the nomination. The contest was ultimately decided by the Democratic superdelegates.

Any neutral party who examined what took place in the 2008 Democratic caucuses would favor tossing them out on democratic (small “d”) principles.

Take Texas for example. Hillary easily won the primary but Obama won the caucuses that were held on the same day.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

But it’s Jeb Bush’s turn! We will have no line jumping here.

/GOP Establishment.

rbj on March 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Is this enough to make a third party viable? I think so.

nobar on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

It is.

I just know the GOP is itching to crown Jeb. They’ll settle and crown Rubio with Jeb serving as the gray eminence with the Establishment’s blessing.

And you know what else? I think Jeb is a bit slower than his brother and his old man. He bombed at CPAC.

Rubio/Bush: Because it’s not your country anymore, plebs!

Punchenko on March 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

The Republican Party in VA was and is up to the same chicanery. They have been for over a year and I am sure that it has been going on long before I was paying attention. I was infuriated at their ‘tricks’ at the Convention and frankly I am pretty much done with the current so-called leaders. Bring it on, Rand. The party is tetering on the edge of extinction. Push the old out and usher in a new age. It won’t be with the current ‘leadership’.

BetseyRoss on March 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

They were held hostage by Barry. They couldn’t say no to the First AA Democratic Nominee in History, Evah — not when they’re absolutely and totally dependent on black voters.

Hillary was thrown under the bus with the Kennedy Family politely golf clapping with approval.

Punchenko on March 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM

There are ways to reduce the money advantage in regional primaries, like party-sponsored debates and candidate forums in each region just prior to election day.

But a big money candidate can buy caucuses as well as primaries.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Hmm.. As of now I think this threat hurts Santorum more than Paul.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM

which in turn means that a dark horse candidate who lacks money and name recognition can pull a huge upset by mobilizing his fans. That’s how Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum won in 2012, with Ron Paul a close third.

I believe that’s how Reagan won as well.

The GOP establishment rigged a vote at the Republican Nation Convention in Tampa last year that allows them to change the rules of the Republican nomination on the fly in the middle of the competition. Even after the primary is over they can change the rules and essentially veto any candidate that the GOP establishment doesn’t like.

The GOP establishment is essentially engaged in an multi-stage coup to lock out any possible challenges to their authority. They are the neo-Whig party and unless these rules changes can be undone I think a 3rd party is necessary.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I had hopes Santorum had hung it up. Oh, well….

a capella on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

All states should have primaries – closed primaries at that.

The most republican states, like Texas, should go first in the primaries, the least republican last.

If Texas went first last time, no way Romney could have won.

Rebar on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Man, I seriously hope BUSH III and his great big bag-o-dough stays home.

Seriously, he WILL lose before he starts.

birdhurd on March 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Romney Rule Change Backlash at RNC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ibZIw9P3pc

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:22 PM

They are the neo-Whig party and unless these rules changes can be undone I think a 3rd party is necessary.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Yeah, it is starting to look that way, and not just for this, but the rest of the diddling that’s going on,…say, Rove etc.

a capella on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Bring it on, said some GOP leaders. “If Paul forces want ‘nuclear war’ over reducing [the number] of caucuses, let’s have it,” tweeted longtime GOP strategist Mike Murphy. “[The] key to [a] stronger party is more open primaries.”

Because allowing liberals to vote en masse in so many GOP primaries in ’08 and ’12 — guaranteeing that unelectable squishes like Mittens and McCain came out on top — has worked like an absolute @#$%ing charm, so far.

Turn out the lights. This political party is officially over.

Kent18 on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Apparently, the GOP has insiders at the helm, Fox is helping and the power brokers like it that way.

“You can’t change Washington from the inside.”

That is why our POTUS has his latest group going.

Why don’t they just mirror him and dump $100 million or so on the local militants?

IlikedAUH2O on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I’m torn. I’m in favor of Rand (especially against the establishment types), but the Iowa caucus has produced nothing but abject losers for decades.

Nessuno on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Caucuses favor candidates with intensely committed followers, even if their overall base of support is small. The caucus process takes much longer than simple ballot voting does so casual voters stay away while passionate supporters show up. That means overall turnout is way lower than in a primary, which in turn means that a dark horse candidate who lacks money and name recognition can pull a huge upset by mobilizing his fans.

So, the candidate with the most “passionate” supporters wins over those with a greater number of supporters? How/why is that a good thing?

Syzygy on March 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Let there be blood. We always knew it would come to this anyway.

rrpjr on March 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Exit question: Who among the likely candidates would a “regional primary cluster” a la Super Tuesday favor in 2016? That’s a test, essentially, of name recognition and fundraising, as it limits the candidates’ opportunities for direct campaigning and turns things into an ad war to win low-information voters. Assume Jeb doesn’t run.

I’d say Rubio. If Jeb doesn’t run it will be in deference to Rubio which would make him the beneficiary of the Bush fundraising machine. That’s a guess but I think they’ve been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe we need a Latino to win. They’ll fall in line behind Rubio.

msmveritas on March 18, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Nah,it just means a skirmish with the libertine fringe elementled by the Paul family.Their fanatics can carry a caucus or two,but when larger numbers go to the polls they get crushed,Rand is a little more moderate,but conservative voters will be turned off by his “anything goes” philosophy.Would you care for a side order of legalized drugs with that entree at the gay wedding reception,Mr. Conservative? Don’t think so,freakazoid!

redware on March 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM

More troubling than the reduction of caucuses is the complete reliance of the Northeast and Midwest- the two most ‘moderate’ regions- to ‘thin the field’ in the early primaries. Each region should be given EQUAL WEIGHT throughout the process. More travel for the candidates but a FAR fairer representation of the national support.

michaelo on March 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Caucuses need to go. Period.

MrX on March 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Caucuses are not democratic. This speaks poorly of Rand Paul.

SuperBunny on March 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM

“The Growth and Opportunity Project”

Right…

… I am sure the political elite ruling class will get it right this time.

This is how we will win in 2014 and 2016…

Senator Ted Cruz Gives Keynote Speech At CPAC 2013

Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Mike Murphy: “[The] key to [a] stronger party is more open primaries.”

Yeah, because Dems who vote in our primaries have our best interests at heart. Idiot.

DRayRaven on March 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM

All states should have primaries – closed primaries at that.

Yep. And voter ID laws. Also get rid of “same day” registration.

We need uniform standards and procedures in all 57 states.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM

“[The] key to [a] stronger party is more open primaries.”

Sweet dancing Jesus, just shoot me now.

Curtiss on March 18, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Caucuses are not democratic. This speaks poorly of Rand Paul.

Do you really expect him (or any politician) to favor rule changes that would make it harder for him to win?

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

The RNC has jumped the shark. They’ve just decided their official stance is amnesty for illegal aliens, and now this. GOP, you’re toast. Nothing from from here on.

Time for Operation Whig. Die GOP!

Quartermaster on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

especially if mainstream conservatives are split several ways between people like Rubio, Jindal, or Christie.

Wait…what?

jnelchef on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Sweet dancing Jesus, just shoot me now.

In 2008 the Obama campaign was screaming that Repubs were trying to help Hillary win.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM

myiq2xu — what are you doing here? Aren’t you a Dem in Exile? A former puma?

theblackcommenter on March 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

One thing I really don’t see being discussed very much is the fact that if Rand Paul runs and loses either the primary or the general election in 2016 it is probably the end of his career in electoral politics. He can’t run for Senate and president in the same year under Kentucky law.

Mark1971 on March 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

especially if mainstream conservatives are split several ways between people like Rubio, Jindal, or Christie.

Wait…what?

jnelchef on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Between Christie and Rubio, I’ll be hard pressed to name a conservative. Jindal is a wee bit better but he’s got all the charisma of a speed bump.

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

This is just the second act after the stunts the RNC pulled to enhance the establishment’s power players. They are not in the least bit interested in capturing the base’s voice. They want nothing less than to annoint their chosen as the nominee and use the general election as concurrence of the people.

Keep in mind that what the RNC just put out is an autopsy report. Dr Frankenstein’s prescription for reviving the monster is to be more like the Democrats – to rebrand the GOP as the democratic mini-me party on illegal immigration, entitlements etc.

Interesting that last weekend, Brent Bozell, Phylis & Sarah talked about reiterating and sticking to constitution/conservative principles over the pandering smoke and mirrors that is rebranding. And on cue comes this dreck emphasizing money & rebranding.

The brand doesn’t have a problem vis a vis the product, it has a marketing problem with consultant(s) that don’t believe in the product.

If you want to engage the base, you have to use a primary tally system that best reflects the will of each participant and the only way to do that is a ranking ballot.That means if there are 3, 5 or even 10 candidate on the cacus slate or primary ballot, each voter gets to rank their preference. Let’s use 5 candidates as an example:You’d rank your #1 candidate as a 5, 4 for your second, 3 for your 3rd choice and so on. But you don’t have to assign a ranking for someone you don’t like at all, so if Jared Huntsman and DeeDee Scuzzyfava were also on the ballot, you could assign a “0″ to them.Now when the ballots are tallied up, the person with the most wins – doesn’t matter if it’s winner takes all or proportional. Also no need for an expensive run-off.

So what if we have a scenario where someone mistakenly ranks 2 or more equally. In that case, that tally drops to the lowest average numerator. For example with the above, I mistakenly give two people the same ranking of 4, when it should have been 4 for one and 3 for the other, in that case, the tally drops to the lowest common numerator of “3″. Likewise, if one was to give all 5 a ranking of 5, then the vote value is 1 each.This method ensures that votes are split between two most popular choices while a 3rd so-so runs away with the win, ie Todd Akin.Do that and you will see improved turnout for the primaries as now everyone can see their vote as actually counting for something. This beats any of the systems we have now, to include the current caucus process.

AH_C on March 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Regional primaries would be more efficient – less time and money spent hopscotching across the country and airing TV ads that cover media markets not voting. Primaries are more small D democratic – I don’t care if they favor more deep-pocketed candidates.

Ron Paul never had such a hard time rounding up gobs of cash from his supporters. It’s up to the smaller-pocketed candidates to use new media and the power of ideas to reach & captivate enough supporters to be successful after the early states. I’m sick of good candidates getting blown out in the Iowa caucus because they didn’t do as well as they were supposed to. That whole system favors a) a small cadre of fanatical supporters and/or b) party insiders.

Plus Iowa couldn’t even count the votes properly last time – it took 2 months to find out that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa narrowly. Imagine if he’d had more momentum from a narrow win rather than a narrow loss on the night of that competition….

Jill1066 on March 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Suppose this was coming after what happened at the convention. Can’t find issue with less debates if they’re going to have democrats moderate them, but then the smart thing would be to find some actual conservatives to moderate and keep the number up.

There has to be a good way to get face time for everyone. Was going to say someone smart should be able to figure it out, but this is the GOP so never mind.

kim roy on March 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Nah,it just means a skirmish with the libertine fringe elementled by the Paul family.Their fanatics can carry a caucus or two,but when larger numbers go to the polls they get crushed,Rand is a little more moderate,but conservative voters will be turned off by his “anything goes” philosophy.Would you care for a side order of legalized drugs with that entree at the gay wedding reception,Mr. Conservative? Don’t think so,freakazoid!
redware on March 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Ha-ha!! You really think that’s all it comes down to and that it’s just gonna be that easy, huh?

Rand Paul is seeming to equal cryptonite more and more every day.

Genuine on March 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

The primary season that dragged on endlessly, including the caucuses, and 23 debates was part of the reason that we lost the election. Our candidates savaged one another over the course of that primary season… to the delight of the democrats. Much of the work of the democrats was accomplished by our own candidates in that brutal primary season.

The public was saturated with one liners, sound bites, and continual ads and pleas for cash. Because the primary season was so long our candidates often appeared to be nasty, short tempered, and petty as they removed one another from contention in the race.

I agree that the primary season should be shorter and that we need far fewer debates. How short and how many debates is an issue that needs debate and resolution.

thatsafactjack on March 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Let it burn…and start with the GOP.

This abortion of a political party has become everything it claims to fight against. They win nothing…ever…zero legislative victories of any significance that are not rolled back four years later.

They have done nothing for the conservative citizens. I am absolutely floored that so many conservatives even discuss, much less follow them anymore. They are truly a fringe group of soulless, yes-men types struggling for relevancy and a pay check. Zero conviction or honor. Some of you need to retrain yourselves not to buy into this support the GOP or else doomsayers. Other options can exist.

F the GOP. Bye.

ClassicCon on March 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

I like Rand and see him as a formidable contender, and I see myself as a likely supporter. But I also agree with these changes. The debate schedule was insane and counterproductive, and caucuses are an insider’s game.

Rand can and will perform well in the proposed format.

Jaibones on March 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Just because of the threat alone, the RNC should welcome this fight. If they back down once, they’ll back down twice and the next fight will come at a far less opportune moment (like at the convention itself).

Take him up on it.

MTF on March 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Would you care for a side order of legalized drugs with that entree at the gay wedding reception,Mr. Conservative? Don’t think so,freakazoid!

redware on March 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Whatever…. public opinion is rapidly moving against statist prohibitionists like yourself and up here in my state, Washington State, your view is already the minority, and this trend will continue.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:53 PM

regional primary clusterphuc is a more accurate term.

As long as the RNC can change the rules during the convention, I predict that the tea parties and Ronulans will find something else to do with their political energy.

Whigs, all of them.

platypus on March 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I agree..get rid of them

A damned joke…and could somebody tell the Iowa loons we just don’t give a damn what they think. Nothing but a bunch of liberal loons

Redford on March 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM

and caucuses are an insider’s game.

Jaibones on March 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM

You are totally backwards on this. The caucuses is where the little people are allowed to make sure their votes are counted and can keep an eye on the insiders.

It’s the primaries that are an insider’s game where it is easiest for them to cheat.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Ayatollah’s like the primary system because Dimmocrit voters will jump in to help Socialist GOP candidates (read: WILLARD) win the nomination.

HondaV65 on March 18, 2013 at 6:57 PM

and caucuses are an insider’s game.

Jaibones on March 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Reagan would disagree that he was an insider and if not for the caucuses I don’t think he would have gotten the nomination.

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Man, I seriously hope BUSH III and his great big bag-o-dough stays home.

birdhurd on March 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

You’ saying Christie is going to be his VP pick? Could be.

Fenris on March 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM

myiq2xu — what are you doing here? Aren’t you a Dem in Exile? A former puma?

Roaming the blogosphere, yes and yes.

I’m still politically homeless.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Romney Rule Change Backlash at RNC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ibZIw9P3pc

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Conservative attendee sums it up in her last four words: “It’s a power grab”

Deja Vu all over again.

socalcon on March 18, 2013 at 7:09 PM

The primary season that dragged on endlessly, including the caucuses, and 23 debates was part of the reason that we lost the election. Our candidates savaged one another over the course of that primary season… to the delight of the democrats. Much of the work of the democrats was accomplished by our own candidates in that brutal primary season.

Shorten the ‘season’, then witness the “Shock and Awe” of Rove’s TV blitzkrieg.

socalcon on March 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM

especially if mainstream conservatives are split several ways between people like Rubio, Jindal, or Christie.

Wait…what?

jnelchef on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I think that’s what we call a Freudian slip.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Roaming the blogosphere, yes and yes.

I’m still politically homeless.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Funny, I remember you from my old days at the confluence…back when I was a Democrat before the Obama debacle drove me from the party.

theblackcommenter on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

You think Jeb will be powerful Allah?

Flapjackmaka on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Rand seems ok..but his father is a anti-semetic blame america first douchebag.. as are his followers..there, I said it.

Intrepid767 on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Not sure what the answer is, but I do think we need a shorter nomination process. And 27 debates is way too many.

Jack_Burton on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

If a non libertarian party springs up, I will be jumping ship away from the Republican Party, and will likely never return.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM

The primary season that dragged on endlessly, including the caucuses, and 23 debates was part of the reason that we lost the election. Our candidates savaged one another over the course of that primary season… to the delight of the democrats. Much of the work of the democrats was accomplished by our own candidates in that brutal primary season.

And by Democrats who jumped in and supported McCant in 2000, Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012, knowing full well those candidates had no shot at majority support within the rank-and-file but did so to sabotage the process anyway.

If you can’t figure that simple concept out, then you don’t deserve to win a single election for the rest of your life.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM

If a non libertarian conservative party springs up, I will be jumping ship away from the Republican Party, and will likely never return.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM

No, I will not entertain libertarians. They are worse than liberals with their cognitive dissonance.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I agree that the primary season should be shorter and that we need far fewer debates. How short and how many debates is an issue that needs debate and resolution.

One of the reasons why I changed my affiliation from non-partisan to Republican in 2008 was so that I could participate in the Republican primary in 2012. It was all for naught as Mittens had already been declared the presumptive nominee by the time my state’s primary came around.

eaglescout_1998 on March 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Ron Paul almost took the Washington caucus back in 2008. It was frikin’ chaos in that hall. Pretty much soured me on the caucus system when such an obvious minority got so far by simply mobilizing their army at the precinct level.

Says good things about their enthusiasm and organizational skills and bad things about the caucus system.

WitchDoctor on March 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Rand seems ok..but his father is a anti-semetic blame america first douchebag.. as are his followers..there, I said it.

Intrepid767 on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

And the Republican Party is nothing more than a bunch of mentally incapacitated losers who are no different from the Socialists.

There… I said it.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

The primary season that dragged on endlessly, including the caucuses, and 23 debates was part of the reason that we lost the election. Our candidates savaged one another over the course of that primary season… to the delight of the democrats. Much of the work of the democrats was accomplished by our own candidates in that brutal primary season.
thatsafactjack on March 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Romney was the nastiest and most disgusting of the lot. He was rewarded for it. Then he did exactly what everyone said he would do. Lose, and lose by not fighting the progressives he adores.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Romney was the nastiest and most disgusting of the lot. He was rewarded for it. Then he did exactly what everyone said he would do. Lose, and lose by not fighting the progressives he adores.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 7:24 PM

And the worst part? Mitt’s toadies blamed no one but conservatives when he lost. In spite of many of us sacrificing our time and energy in trying to drag his sorry butt over the finish line, the epitome of futility.

The GOP Establishment thinks this is nothing more than a little game, that we will always come back to them like Rihanna comes back to Chris Brown following his latest beatdown of her.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 7:28 PM

“[The] key to [a] stronger party is more open primaries.”

WTF? I don’t know about primaries vs. caucuses but holding open primaries is the way for the other side to affect your selection. I know, I voted Hillary the Dem primaries of 2008.

Odysseus on March 18, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Reince Priebus and the GOPe seem intent on starting a civil war between the Establishment and everyone else (conservatives, libertarians and the Tea Party). This may be the beginning of the end of the GOP, which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

I never thought I would say this but I miss the “good old days” when Michael Steele was RNC chair. If Priebus had any honor, he would have either resigned or bought a hari kari knife immediately after the 2012 election.

bw222 on March 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Between Christie and Rubio, I’ll be hard pressed to name a conservative. Jindal is a wee bit better but he’s got all the charisma of a speed bump.

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Jindal is a brilliant man and has been a great governor, but every time he gets in the national spotlight he self-destructs (State of the Union rebuttal, jumping on Romney after the election, his CPAC address).

bw222 on March 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM

All states should have primaries – closed primaries at that.

The most republican states, like Texas, should go first in the primaries, the least republican last.

If Texas went first last time, no way Romney could have won.

Rebar on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

You could have saved that committee a LOT of time. Here is the answer, but of course it makes too much sense for the ruling elitists to embrace it.

OPEN Primaries? Jeeepers. These people need to just shut up and sit down.

Everything in that document is TOXIC for future GOP victories. It is very anti grass roots, anti conservative, and anti main street regular folks.

Regarding debates. Just stop having them more than 60 days before the first state vote anywhere. Then limit them to 2 a month until the end of March. Then STOP!!!!

I agree the main convention needs to move up because that 90 day “dark” period is what killed Romney and he didn’t even realize it. The main stream press and Obama were very busy painting him and defining him until he was just unacceptable as an option to the low information voter.

So once the votes are in to secure the nomination, just have the convention and get on with the general election.

karenhasfreedom on March 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Funny, I remember you from my old days at the confluence…back when I was a Democrat before the Obama debacle drove me from the party.

These days you can find me at The Crawdad Hole. It’s a friendly place for independent thinkers. Drop on by, the first drink is free.

myiq2xu on March 18, 2013 at 7:47 PM

All states should have primaries – closed primaries at that.

Rebar on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

The GOP establishment loves it when they get to count the votes in secret without a bunch of caucus goers present to make sure everything is above board. The problem is that a lot of their cheating in the caucuses in ’12 was documented on video and in other ways so we know they cheat and get caught in the caucuses, but they never get caught cheating during the primaries because who is there to catch them?

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM

A Primary-only system will only favor those with ton of money. The caucus system the RNC wants to eliminate is what allowed people like Cruz to be elected.

Not only that, but the RNC wants to move the election of candidates even earlier when it should be going back to how the election process was held before the mid 70′s when some candidates announced they were running well into March of the same year as the election. A shorter, much energetic election season, and closer to the actual main election is a much smarter approach.

ptcamn on March 18, 2013 at 7:55 PM

None of this makes sense outside of the context of the Rule 12 Putsch at the Convention last year.

If you’ll recall, Rule 12 gave enormous power to State Chairs and through them, to the National Committee.

It was designed to geld people like the Pauls, and Sarah Palin.

This is a mere continuation of the slow-running Establishment war against the Base.

We will need, apparently, a new Party.

victor82 on March 18, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I am all for grassroots organizing but the caucuses in my state this year were the WORST. IDEA. EVER.

I don’t know a single person, activist or no, who wants to endure that again. Give me a primary election every time.

alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Anyone else find Republican cooing about money in politics pretty ironic?

Rainsford on March 18, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I attended Nevada’s first caucus in 2008 – what a joke!!!

All the Ron Paulettes were stealth candidates as delegates — they refused to say anything substantive and refused to say who they supported in order to get elected by uninformed first time caucus goers.

I decalred for Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, in that order (NEVER McCain!!), and got as far as (first) state convention.

Paulettes got 40% of precinct caucuses, Sue Lowden gaveled Reno state convention closed, moved it to Las Vegas – 430 miles away – and restarted.

Back to secret ballot primaries, please!!!!

fred5678 on March 18, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Reince Priebus and the GOPe seem intent on starting a civil war between the Establishment and everyone else (conservatives, libertarians and the Tea Party). This may be the beginning of the end of the GOP, which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

I never thought I would say this but I miss the “good old days” when Michael Steele was RNC chair. If Priebus had any honor, he would have either resigned or bought a hari kari knife immediately after the 2012 election.

bw222 on March 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Let the bloodletting begin and the best faction win.. Maybe we do need to let it all burn.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Perhaps it is time for the State parties to get rid of the RNC.

ajacksonian on March 18, 2013 at 8:40 PM

RNC Sham 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg&feature=youtu.be

FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I recall all of that. HA had threads up and several of us were commenting and bringing over many Michelle Malkin’s info. A sham, indeed. And it appears to be getting worse.

bluefox on March 18, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Perhaps it is time for the State parties to get rid of the RNC.

ajacksonian on March 18, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Now that is cause for pause:-) I’m not sure if that would work, or how to go about it, but love the sound of it!!

bluefox on March 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM

But it may very well be Rand Paul that is the deep-pocketed one.

Regardless, one good thing is to reform the flawed GOP debate system that has spawned a slew of dubious “book tour” candidates. Halving (halfing?) the debates is a start. May three-quartering, and forget the egalitarian “8 candidate debates.” Feel free to get over the egalitarian pc illness and go ahead and use some criteria to limit the number of candidates in the debates. Fundraising and other critical campaign organization skills, the skills needed to win the general, are downplayed in the system that puts the debates front and center. And if they are hawking a book, don’t let them any where near the debate stage.

anotherJoe on March 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I don’t mind an all primary system so long as they are closed and carry a runoff provision. A primary without a runoff will get you Akin.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on March 18, 2013 at 9:51 PM

The GOP has become like a cow that doesn’t give milk and a chicken that doesn’t lay eggs.

VorDaj on March 18, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Keep in mind that what the RNC just put out is an autopsy report. Dr Frankenstein’s prescription for reviving the monster is to be more like the Democrats – to rebrand the GOP as the democratic mini-me party on illegal immigration, entitlements etc.

An autopsy indicates there has been a death. You can only revive something that has some life in it. To rebrand the R Party to a Dem lite or otherwise shouldn’t take too much, since in all practical sense it’s already there.

The only way the R Party can continue, is to remove the rotten parts, which are more than just the elected members of Congress.

bluefox on March 18, 2013 at 9:52 PM

What does the current GOP and an appendix have in common?

VorDaj on March 18, 2013 at 9:56 PM

There has to be a good way to get face time for everyone. Was going to say someone smart should be able to figure it out, but this is the GOP so never mind.

kim roy on March 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

The subject of having the Republican Debates with the left wing media came up before. I can’t recall, but someone said this decision was made by the RNC. Perhaps someone might remember if that’s correct or not.

bluefox on March 18, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I agree that caucuses need to go away..:)

Dire Straits on March 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM

What do all these brands – Plymouth, Eagle, Oldsmobile, Saturn and Mercury – have in common? They all went through major rebranding programs. What else do they have in common? They all no longer exist.

I worked for one of Chrysler’s agencies in the 1990s when they tried to re-brand Plymouth and Eagle. The psychographics for the Eagle Vision were unbelievable. The husband was an Ivy League grad and a corporate vice president. The wife got her degree from Northwestern and was president of the Junior League. The children were geniuses and the daughter was an 8-year old local concert pianist.

If you remember the Eagle Vision, it was a more upscale Dodge Intrepid. Just as Chrysler was targeting Lexus, Infiniti and BMW owners who wouldn’t be caught dead in an Eagle Vision, the GOP establishment wants to target people who will never vote Republican.

bw222 on March 18, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Is this enough to make a third party viable? I think so.

nobar on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I see no hope for a third party that is libertarian either primarily or alone. A new conservative party, complete with fiscal conservatives, libertarians and social conservatives is the only makeup that could displace the elites.

The nations’ corruption of basic moral values and waining support for traditional family values is why we’re in trouble in all areas.

Don L on March 19, 2013 at 12:53 AM

What does the current GOP and an appendix have in common?

VorDaj on March 18, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Small but painful (on the left side) and needs surgical removal immediately.

Don L on March 19, 2013 at 12:56 AM

The GOPe has betrayed conservatives. Y’all need to come over to the 3rd party. Conservative Party awaits you.

AH_C on March 19, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2