Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Republicans Moving to Overhaul 2016 Primary Process
Republican party officials are trying to streamline the nominating process for President in 2016 after critics said that the GOP Primary in 2012 was chaotic and damaging to their campaign for the White House. Closed-door meetings have taken place between RNC members and chairman, Reince Priebus, to hash out the details for a plan that would condense the nominating calendar. One change being discussed is holding less debates and having more control over how the debates are run. Another possible change is having an earlier convention date (many within the party believe that the 2012 primary dragged on too long). The Republicans are trying to modify their tactics in hopes of winning the next Presidential election, where they have lost two in a row.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder what the true reason is for the select few Republican Officials trying to enact a new "branch if laws". It would be interesting to see an article from their point of view. I do not understand why some need to be penalized during the election process. Subcommittee member James Smack said that there will be an equal representation throughout the party. I think this is as fair as it can possibly be so that a compromise can be met. However, one member called it the"death penalty" so obviously, even in the party, there are very different views. There must have been something glaringly obvious with the previous way it was done for people to take actions like this.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to me why the Republicans would want to shorten their primary election season. As we discussed in class, it is not good for a party when candidates are critical of one another during competitive primary elections. Although this could help the Republicans, I don’t think that the length of an election season is the factor that will win or loose an election for the Republicans
ReplyDeleteThis plan overall sounds like a good idea to me. Shortening the primary election season will help because the candidates won't be forced to come out as super conservative in order to please the radical voters. Doing this could create an election with more honest candidates. Maybe the democrats hould even look in to doing this.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a smart move for the Republican party. They realized that they might have to appeal to moderates and that fewer debates would allow the final candidate to not stick his foot in his mouth and take a position that he might not want to defend in the election.
ReplyDeleteI think that changing the primary election process will help Republicans in the long run but will probably not make or break the results of the next presidential election. Candidates in both parties have to contend with the challenge of being more politically extreme during the primaries and more moderate during the general election, and I think these reforms may help with that.
ReplyDeleteLike Yarrow and Katie, I think this could potentially help the Republican party by ending the primary sooner so that there is more time to work on the general election. I like how this plan would allow for "underfunded, insurgent candidates" more of a chance to campaign and score some wins. The whole plan would definitely end up changing a lot for the primary election, but it would be interesting to see if it had any effect on the general election, which would be difficult.
ReplyDeleteI think this is good for the Republican Party. By ending primaries earlier and having the party convention earlier in the summer, it'll give the candidate more time to focus on winning support for the general election. However with that being said, (it was either mentioned in the article or in the comments- I don't remember) the only way that this will help the GOP candidate in the presidential election is if he can manage to vwin support of moderates while also being able to appear to the hardcore conservatives.
ReplyDeleteAs Casey said, I really like how this plan allows underfunded candidates more of a chance, thus attempting to level the playing field. It will be interesting to see whether this plan actually benefits results in the general election, but that is a risk the Republican Party will have to take.
ReplyDeleteI think this is part of the bigger effort of the republican party, after the aftermath of the shutdown, when they started to realize that this extremism was detrimental to them. The idea to shorten primary season in which candidates are the most extreme, seems like a good idea for republicans.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a smart move to end the primary election season sooner than the current late August date. Shortening the primary election season would give the elected primary candidate more time to be recognized and accepted as that party's candidate. I also like the part of the plan that levels the playing field for the underfunded candidates as Lydia and Casey mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteBy shortening the primary period Republicans are also shortening the time that members of their own party attack each other. This can be beneficial to the party as it could reduce conflict. However, it also increases the amount of time for their chosen candidate to slip up.
ReplyDeleteThis plan seems sensible after learning from the past mistakes of Romney's campaign back in 2012, and it definitely has the advantage of giving more time to focus on the general election when the time comes. This seems similar in some ways to the Democrat situation before the election of Obama, when the party was searching for a more effective campaign approach. Their skillful strategy turned out to be revolutionary, maybe this new approach will work for Republicans too.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very sensible idea for the Republican Party, last year Mitt Romney was hurt due to the long Republican primary's. The Republican had a long hard fought primaries that were much more prolonged than the Democrats. This idea can only help the Republicans in 2016.
ReplyDeleteAfter the past election year I sincerely hope that the Republicans take onto consideration who they tried to elect last year and to try not to make the same mistakes. With this overhaul I believe that they will be able to greatly shorten the time it will take so that they can four more on the general election where they might be able to gain many more votes in the next election year. Although next time I hope they consider who the person that they are trying to get elected to the most powerful position in the United States actually is like.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a smart move for the Republicans. Although the last section of the article bothered me a little bit. The Republican Party, moving its convention date up so that their candidate can use party money earlier, is showing a trend that both candidates are moving away from using government money. This just means that the money involved in elections will just increase- which I don't see as necessarily a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a shortened running period would be very beneficial to the American voter. If the candidates time to campaign becomes much more limited, they will be forced to condense their material and focus on the main points of their candidacy.
ReplyDeleteI think that a more condensed, and potentially more efficient, campaign process would be greatly beneficial to everyone. The shorter process would allow the politicians to spend more time doing their jobs in congress and in their home states. The voter would also benefit as less money would be spent in campaign finance. fewer debates would allow for candidates to remain more moderate in their views, which will greatly benefit them in the presidential race, and it would greatly benefit the republican party in particular.
ReplyDelete