RNC’s plan for 2016: Fewer debates, later primaries, and a convention in June

posted at 6:51 pm on December 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

The rules committee that’s considering these changes does apparently contain some grassroots conservatives, but I … can’t shake the feeling that the new arrangement is designed to benefit establishment candidates more so than tea-party ones.

The good news: Fewer debates with later primaries is good for everyone’s sanity. The bad news: There’s no easier blog traffic than a lazy debate-night open thread. The big A’s loss is America’s gain, my friends.

Priebus and other top party figures have made no secret of their desire to scale back the number of debates, which offered little-known candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain a chance to shine but forced Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee, to publicly stake out a number of conservative positions that came back to haunt him in the general election

The first four early-voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — would continue to hold their contests in February.

To prevent other states from jumping the order and compelling the first four to move their dates even earlier as they did in 2012, any state that attempts to hold its nominating contest before March 1 would have their number of delegates to the convention slashed to just nine people or, in the case of smaller states, one-third of their delegation — whichever number is smaller…

Any state holding a primary or caucus during the first two weeks of March must award its delegates proportionally, rather than winner-take-all.

The measure is designed to prevent a candidate from catching fire in the early states and then riding a burst of momentum to winner-take-all victories in expensive, delegate-rich states such as Florida or Texas. The early March window would give underfunded, insurgent candidates a chance to prove their mettle.

A few reactions in no particular order. One: Moving the convention up seems all to the good for the reasons CNN specifies in the piece — namely, it’ll allow the nominee to start spending money on the general election months earlier than Romney was able to. (In an age where the parties’ war chests for presidential elections are essentially bottomless, there’s no fear of running out by starting the general election campaign too early.) It might also subtly discourage long primary campaigns, though. If there’s a frontrunner a la Romney and an underdog who’s hanging in there a la Santorum in, say, mid-March, how many fencesitters will tilt towards the former in the name of wrapping things up long before the convention so as to give the party time to heal and unify before the big pageant?

Two: Having fewer debates is, as noted, designed to reduce the risk of “electable” centrists being nudged into pandering to righty audiences by taking more conservative positions than they’d normally take. It’s also designed to limit the opportunities of less well-funded but debate-savvy grassroots contenders like Ted Cruz to take big chunks out of Chris Christie’s or Jeb Bush’s lead by dazzling the audience. But the trade-off for having fewer debates, I assume, is making sure that each debate counts more. That means grassroots righties will demand one or more debates moderated by other grassroots righties, be it conservative talk radio hosts, online activists, or leaders of tea-party groups. Seems to me the risk of a Christie or Bush being maneuvered into right-wing positions is greater at one or two debates like that than at six or eight moderated by CNN and NBC. If anything, the usual pressure on a moderator not to affect the outcome of a debate will be reversed in a case like that, with tea partiers wanting the moderator to call out Christie on gun control or Marco Rubio on immigration.

Three: Evidently the RNC is preparing harsh new rules to penalize a state if it defies the primary schedule and tries to move up its election. Florida typically does that, moving from March to February, which in turn forces Iowa and New Hampshire to move from February to January to retain their pride of place. Supposedly the RNC’s going to take away 90 percent of Florida’s delegates this time if they try that again. They also might dock delegates from any candidate who participates in a debate that’s not formally sanctioned by the RNC. Show of hands: Anyone think Reince Priebus and his team have the stones to declare Florida’s results effectively null and void just before a general election where that state might (again) decide the presidency? Anyone think they’re going to take away a third of, say, Ted Cruz’s delegates if he decides to participate in a debate sponsored by FreedomWorks? They’re paper tigers.

Four: The rules about early states awarding their delegates proportionally also look to me like a way to put the brakes on conservative upstarts more so than establishment faves. The centrists, as always, will likely be the best-funded candidates in the race; that means they can run a longer campaign, and the longer the campaign runs, the more chances they have for their money advantage to make the difference. The way for a tea-party insurgent to win would be to take Iowa, do surprisingly well in New Hampshire, and then rack up a boatload of delegates in the next few contests to create the impression of irresistible momentum. They can win a quick rout but a long slog would be tough. A winner-take-all system early on makes a quick rout easier. A proportional system makes it harder.

Bottom line: Come mid-2016, we’ll be desperately trying to talk ourselves into believing that Jeb Bush is the rock-ribbed conservative America’s been waiting for. Exit question: What if moving the convention up inspires the candidates to start campaigning even earlier than usual? Typically they don’t jump in and start traveling until a year before Iowa, but Rand Paul’s been hinting about running for a year already at least and Hillary will be eager to move quickly to clear the field of any lefty challengers. Could a blogger be so lucky as to have Campaign 2016 start a week or two after the midterms? Cross those fingers.


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

My vote is up for grabs, but… you have to earn it. I’ve voted for the lesser of two evils for the last time during my lifetime.

It’s better to let things rot to the point that the other 52% realize there must be a better way. And if the don’t, it’s survival of the fittest and I don’t have a problem with that.

Hog Wild on December 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

…debates…forced Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee, to publicly stake out a number of conservative positions that came back to haunt him in the general election

Only a bunch of leftist zealots like those at CNN could come up with a crazy conclusion like that.

Romney obviously lost because he was not consistently conservative enough in the minds of his base.

itsnotaboutme on December 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I don’t think the GOP fully understands how many conservatives who always, always believed it was our duty to vote for whatever GOP candidate came along have finally given ourselves permission not to vote for a squish after TWO disastrous squish cycles. I woke up the morning after election day in 2012 and said, “That’s it. I will never, ever again invest my time, concern, energy, money, or vote in a presidential candidate I have serious reservations about.” And it was a relief to tell myself that, and I haven’t changed my mind one bit.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who won’t put strict Constitutionalists on the high court.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who has waffled EVER on the 2nd Amendment meaning “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who isn’t FULLY invested in obliterating obamacare.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn’t support closing the borders — completely — before even having a discussion about immigration.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who will not dismantle the welfare state.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who has ever uttered any agreement of any kind with the marxist economic scam that is “global warming.”

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn’t make a major part of his platform be cleaning out the marxist swamps we call the DOJ, the IRS, the EPA, and Homeland Security, even if it means firing every single employee there and starting over again. Better yet, promise me you’ll fully eliminate the EPA and Homeland.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who plans to spend more money than the government takes in — and I want every single American paying taxes. Every. Single. One.

So I imagine I will not be voting for the GOP candidate in 2016, or most likely any time soon after that. They can continue down their path of democrat-lite leading to extinction without me. And it is a relief.

Rational Thought on December 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If a conservative doesn’t make the ticket I simply won’t vote for the GOPe pick. I didn’t last time and even easier to do it again. At least this time around I can vote 3rd party unlike OK.

AH_C on December 11, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Evidently the RNC is preparing harsh new rules to penalize a state if it defies the primary schedule and tries to move up its election. Florida typically does that, moving from March to February, which in turn forces Iowa and New Hampshire to move from February to January to retain their pride of place.

The primary system is STUPID!

The Constitution was designed to make things fair for all states.

Yet the supposedly constitution-friendly party allows the same few states to dominate presidential selection every four years.

A fair solution would be extremely easy to come up with.
For example, why not let states have primaries in alphabetical order, then four years later, take the five who went first last time & put them last, & so on.

itsnotaboutme on December 11, 2013 at 9:09 PM

For example, why not let states have primaries in alphabetical order, then four years later, take the five who went first last time & put them last, & so on.

itsnotaboutme on December 11, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Why not have elimination primaries. Effectively every state votes the same day like on election. two or three of the winners there go to a runoff. Then it will be fair. Right?

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I don’t think the GOP fully understands how many conservatives who always, always believed it was our duty to vote for whatever GOP candidate came along have finally given ourselves permission not to vote for a squish after TWO disastrous squish cycles. I

Doesn’t the poll data show the tea party are the most loyal of GOP voters?

libfreeordie on December 11, 2013 at 9:15 PM

I will not vote for Christie.

INC on December 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM

They know that, and they don’t care. What they care about is that you don’t have the opportunity to vote for someone of whom they don’t approve. Just as with Romney: do you think the GOPe was heartbroken that Romney lost the election? As soon as Mitt wrapped up the nomination, the mission was accomplished.

ddrintn on December 11, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Bottom line: Come mid-2016, we’ll be desperately trying to talk ourselves into believing that Jeb Bush is the rock-ribbed conservative America’s been waiting for.

And if it’s Jeb or Christie we’ll have a claque in here telling us how we’re commies and personality cultists for not believing they’re rock-ribbed conservatives. Like clockwork.

ddrintn on December 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Bottom line: Come mid-2016, we’ll be desperately trying to talk ourselves into believing that Jeb Bush is the rock-ribbed conservative America’s been waiting for.

New GOP slogan…Yea for Monarchy!

Maybe we can exhume all the founding fathers bodies and have them hanged, drawn and quartered. Considering all the grandchildren and cousins King Bush I has walking around the GOP can just keep nominating Bush family members for the rest of the 21st century.

And this is why I would be tempted to join a new party opposed to the GOP, and this has nothing to do with my views of immigration, gay marriage, space aliens, wars in the Middle East, economic policy…nothing like this, but because of the GOP’s lack of imagination. I am not going to support Bush III or Bush XXX…and they are carbon copies of the original!

William Eaton on December 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Doesn’t the poll data show the tea party are the most loyal of GOP voters?
libfreeordie on December 11, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Did I just hear a lisping troll?

AH_C on December 11, 2013 at 9:24 PM

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Congrats to the Spartans!!..:):)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

My nose holding vote for Romney was my last for the GOP. If i vote for the Republican nominee in 2016, it will be because they understand that the only way to save the nation is to revert back to the Constitution.

The GOP is an embarrassment and indistinguishable from the statist Dems when you look at the trajectory of this nation for the past 60 years. Without Reagan, the Republican party would have zero Presidents that shrank government. If the establishment had its way, they would have choose the zero instead of the Gipper.

I

alecj on December 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Maybe if Bush III is nominated he can choose Dick Cheney again to pick the VP, and then pick himself again. Let’s see I guess they can get old gang back together again…Powell, Rumsfeld, Sununu…By that time Iraq should be sufficiently messed up we can invade it again for the third time and “impose” a constitution based on Islam on the Iraqi people again. Petraeus can led the invasion and tell us all how intelligent he is by using the “softy-softy” approach again to touch the hearts of all Muslims everywhere.

Oh I forget we can get a ObamaCare drug expansion! Who is not down for that?

William Eaton on December 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

If you want to change the makeup of the RNC, you have to become a precinct committeeman. Of the 400,000 or so slots across America, still, on average, in every state, half are vacant. Conservatives could turn the Republican Party apparatus into a full-strength, solidly conservative get out the vote machine if they filled up all the vacant precinct committeeman slots:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/03/Conservatives-Take-Back-the-GOP

The real ball game of politics is played monthly at local Republican Party committee meetings.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.

Cold Warrior on December 11, 2013 at 9:47 PM

But they’ll still have liberal moderate moderators, right? Promise me that won’t change.

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Why can’t I proofread? Is it really that hard?

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Congrats to the Spartans!!..:):)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

…they were fun to watch!

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Why can’t I proofread? Is it really that hard?

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM

LoLz..I have same problem..:)

PS..Hopefully Fox will get one of the debates..:)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Doesn’t the poll………?

libfreeorgan on December 11, 2013 at 9:15 PM

…you always spell “pole” wrong…little dancer!

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 10:14 PM

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Looks like MSU fans were smart..:)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Cold Warrior on December 11, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Thanks..Keep up the good work..:)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Nope. Nah. Not going to happen. Not voting for any hand picked rino, ever, never again. Those that do deserve all the pain it will bring.

Kissmygrits on December 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM

How’s about a position that states that GOP won’t participate in debates moderated by big lefties??

COgirl on December 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM

PS..Hopefully Fox will get one of the debates..:)

Dire Straits on December 11, 2013 at 10:14 PM

I doubt it, the Republicans don’t care about their base.

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM

The big A’s loss is America’s gain, my friends.

The terrorists have won.

Good Lt on December 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM

Republicans need to stop having liberals help choose their candidates.

We need to avoid senators with no actual executive experience: did McCain and Obama teach us nothing?

virgo on December 12, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Let’s gamble, New Jersey!

That was some voice-over!

Sherman1864 on December 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM

If there’s a frontrunner a la Romney and an underdog who’s hanging in there a la Santorum in, say, mid-March, how many fencesitters will tilt towards the former in the name of wrapping things up long before the convention so as to give the party time to heal and unify before the big pageant?

The problem was that in 2012 the underdog won Iowa – the GOP’s dirty tricks made it so that the actual result came 2 weeks too late. It was a bottom-feeder tactic and, what with the Chris Christie love fest over a month ago, it seems like we’ll be seeing the same nonsense take place AGAIN!!!

Having fewer debates is, as noted, designed to reduce the risk of “electable” centrists being nudged into pandering to righty audiences by taking more conservative positions than they’d normally take. It’s also designed to limit the opportunities of less well-funded but debate-savvy grassroots contenders like Ted Cruz to take big chunks out of Chris Christie’s or Jeb Bush’s lead by dazzling the audience.

I really don’t care who takes a chunk out of who if they aren’t going to seriously pursue the most important issue currently and that’s the economy and the debt. The candidate I hoped would be serious about it, Rand Paul, just doesn’t seem to be serious about it, like how he’d go to Detroit not to assess and announce the more important issue of their bankruptcy but rather a voter outreach program that isn’t important as important to the nation. What are you doing, Rand?!?

Evidently the RNC is preparing harsh new rules to penalize a state if it defies the primary schedule and tries to move up its election. Florida typically does that, moving from March to February, which in turn forces Iowa and New Hampshire to move from February to January to retain their pride of place. Supposedly the RNC’s going to take away 90 percent of Florida’s delegates this time if they try that again.

I agree with Florida being an early state, along with Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Florida states that if the nominee is serious about winning the national election itself, then that candidate should be able to win or do well in a large media state. The RNC should accept Florida as an early state and surely not punish them by taking away 90 percent of Florida’s delegates.

They also might dock delegates from any candidate who participates in a debate that’s not formally sanctioned by the RNC. Show of hands: Anyone think Reince Priebus and his team have the stones to declare Florida’s results effectively null and void just before a general election where that state might (again) decide the presidency? Anyone think they’re going to take away a third of, say, Ted Cruz’s delegates if he decides to participate in a debate sponsored by FreedomWorks? They’re paper tigers.

Yeah well, beyond being a paper tiger, this move just kills freedom of speech and the campaigning process all together. Seriously, wtf?!

The rules about early states awarding their delegates proportionally also look to me like a way to put the brakes on conservative upstarts more so than establishment faves. The centrists, as always, will likely be the best-funded candidates in the race; that means they can run a longer campaign, and the longer the campaign runs, the more chances they have for their money advantage to make the difference.

Thanks to you, AllahP. Stop talking up Tubby until he does something of value. There’s nothing special about him, yet reading this website sometimes makes him seem like he’s the greatest thing since the Metric System.

What if moving the convention up inspires the candidates to start campaigning even earlier than usual?

So many of the beloved centrists are puff jobs that aren’t going to hold their own for too long. Make the primaries earlier and their lame resume`s will destruct sooner. Even some actual right wing favorites aren’t going to make it. Hopefully the candidate we get will actually be the real deal this time. An early primary can prove that. The candidates need to be challenged and if they aren’t, then the candidate will not beat the opposition like they need to.

The Nerve on December 12, 2013 at 4:20 AM

Get rid of open primaries. Problem solved.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 12, 2013 at 7:45 AM

Come mid-2016, we’ll be desperately trying to talk ourselves into believing that Jeb Bush is the rock-ribbed conservative America’s been waiting for divert SMOD to end it all.

Fixed. Because if Jeb Bush is the nominee, I’d rather the planet killer arrive sooner than later.

Physics Geek on December 12, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Debates should be a maximum of 4… The problems with the debates is that they are full of zingers and buzzwords and are meant for massive consumption an spin by the media and the political junkies… The most qualified candidate in 2012 lost because of his debate performance and that was Rick Perry…

mnjg on December 12, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Establishment republicans……Progressive power-grabbing Democrats….

What’s the difference?

PappyD61 on December 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I don’t think the GOP fully understands how many conservatives who always, always believed it was our duty to vote for whatever GOP candidate came along have finally given ourselves permission not to vote for a squish after TWO disastrous squish cycles. I woke up the morning after election day in 2012 and said, “That’s it. I will never, ever again invest my time, concern, energy, money, or vote in a presidential candidate I have serious reservations about.” And it was a relief to tell myself that, and I haven’t changed my mind one bit.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who won’t put strict Constitutionalists on the high court.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who has waffled EVER on the 2nd Amendment meaning “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who isn’t FULLY invested in obliterating obamacare.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn’t support closing the borders — completely — before even having a discussion about immigration.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who will not dismantle the welfare state.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who has ever uttered any agreement of any kind with the marxist economic scam that is “global warming.”

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn’t make a major part of his platform be cleaning out the marxist swamps we call the DOJ, the IRS, the EPA, and Homeland Security, even if it means firing every single employee there and starting over again. Better yet, promise me you’ll fully eliminate the EPA and Homeland.

I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate who plans to spend more money than the government takes in — and I want every single American paying taxes. Every. Single. One.

So I imagine I will not be voting for the GOP candidate in 2016, or most likely any time soon after that. They can continue down their path of democrat-lite leading to extinction without me. And it is a relief.

Rational Thought on December 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Exactly my thoughts. You nailed it. If there’s little difference between the GOP nominee and the Dem, why vote GOP?

Free Indeed on December 12, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I am becoming increasingly resigned to the fact I will not be voting GOP for President in 2016. A Christie, a Bush, or a Ryan won’t cut it.

If that means Hillary or someone worse gets into the White House, so be it.

We like to say low-info voters need to sustain the beatings and pain of progressive policies to learn their lesson…well, apparently, so does the GOP when it comes to running (and governing) as Democrat Lite.

DRayRaven on December 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Great idea to let Iowa go first again! They did such a great job last time, when they didn’t even declare the correct winner of their caucus for more than a week, after the New Hampshire primary had already taken place!

J.S.K. on December 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I still contend that Palin, DeMint, & Co. will have a solid conservative candidate ready for the primary debates. They will pressure anyone who wants to throw his/her hat in the ring to stay out of it–maybe with the promise of some kind of position in their candidate’s White House.

The debates will be between the conservative/TEAParty candidate and the GOPe. Without 6-8 conservatives splitting the vote and allowing another lame candidate GOPe in, the conservative candidate will win the nomination easily

davidk on December 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM

I certainly hope so.

dominigan on December 12, 2013 at 9:53 AM

but forced Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee, to publicly stake out a number of conservative positions that came back to haunt him in the general election

Yeah, lying about your “conservative positions” and not being able to explain them past the bulleted talking points tend to do that.

dominigan on December 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM

the democrats started running the minute W. was elected so why wouldn’t the GOP follow suit? The establishment will try everything they can to rig the game for Jeb of Fatboy lets hope the voters frustrate those efforts. Is there any mention of the caucuses going away? Iowa is a joke and makes a hash of it every 4 years.

bannor on December 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Just say ‘No’….cut the ‘puppet strings’!

easyt65 on December 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM

When and where is the Tea Party Convention?

It’s time.

eyesky on December 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Come mid-2016, we’ll be desperately trying to talk ourselves into believing that Jeb Bush is the rock-ribbed conservative America’s been waiting for Hillary won’t be that bad of a two-term president after all.

I assume that was what you intended to write.

Myron Falwell on December 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM

When and where is the Tea Party Convention?

It’s time.

eyesky on December 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM

An irreversible schism from the GOPe would be welcome. Sooner rather than later.

We need an actual second party.

Myron Falwell on December 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Rational Thought on December 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Free Indeed on December 12, 2013 at 9:29 AM

So the litmus tests begin early this time.

Of course your candidates have to fulfill exactly what you want, or you won’t vote for them…hence, the dems will win again.

The press knows this, so they will highlight “conservative problems” in each candidate, and they, like the past, will manipulate guys like you to not vote for whomever.

It has been so easy for them, and weak minds make it easier.

Glad you have your “tests” already written, I am sure you will add to it as the journalists point out our candidates failings…

Meanwhile, the dems, why they get it…get the dems in power, and they have control, pretty simple idea, huh?

right2bright on December 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I would go for primaries in Feb to May 2015; the convention in Aug.2015, yes 2015!!!, and the creation not only of a ticket but a complete shadow govt working openly with the GOP in Congress to not only criticize the incumbent liars but to develop well thought out and detailed policies in every area of major interest. Turn a platform into a budget passed by the House. Send the shadow Sec State on visits overseas. Have the candidate meet constantly with governors and state legislators, soliciting their inputs. This will require money but it will force the Media to cover these ongoing events, providing free air time.

xkaydet65 on December 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Happy Nomad is right, I think, about that being more of a state law issue than an RNC one, but open primaries just make no sense to me.

Flange on December 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM

You want to be an “open primary” state, that is your right. You don’t have a right to be one of the first primaries in the nation.

1) Primaries should go in order of the state that voted Republican by the largest percentage to the smallest percentage. No more allowing leftists to choose the candidate.

2) Primaries should be closed. If they are not, they should be moved to the last primaries in the nation to not allow leftists to decide the candidate.

3) The will of the people must be respected. No more backroom party politics actively sabotaging the candidate because they aren’t preferred by the establishment. The voters make up the party.

4) A party platform must be followed. If you do not want the platform, don’t try and lead the party.

njrob on December 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Anything that keeps us from having 7 clowns on the stage plugging their books or auditioning for a TV/Radio gig.

kcewa on December 11, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Yes please. No more Obama’s, Biden’s, Edwards’s, Clinton’s, etc. We’ve had enough of their garbage.

That’s what you meant, right?

njrob on December 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM

right2bright on December 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM

In the last 3 nominations, the Democrats have nominated radical socialists while in the last 2 nominations, the Republicans have nominated guys to the left of John F Kennedy.

Why is that?

njrob on December 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM

That means that Christie will have to win the primaries by January and everybody will have to shut up and get behind him by December.

Can’t wait.

Axeman on December 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

The RNC better see how Chubs is polling in the south before going all in on this guy. They better start taking pictures of him eating a shrimp po-boy instead of standing in front of a sign that reads “New Jersey.”

NoPain on December 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2