GOP Elites Circle the Wagons

As I predicted the other day, Reince Priebus of the RNC has prepared a 97 page document that exonerates the RNC and GOP leadership of ... to be blunt, fucking up the election. Their ideas to fix what went wrong in 2008 and 2012 would utterly change the GOP primary system.  They seek to eliminate caucuses.  These changes would only benefit those candidates with very deep pockets.  Stuck at the very end of the report is a suggestion that would seek to reduce by half the number of urges halving the number of  primary debates in 2016.  Furthermore, the report urges the creation of regional primary clusters that would start after the  early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.


This would only benefit the candidate that had amassed a huge warchest, such as Mitt Romney and John McCain...both of whom ran incompetent campaigns against a beatable Socialist candidate.  Furthermore, this is a naked attempt to beat back any sort of insurgent candidacy. POLITICO is reporting that,

The recommendations are also a nod to the party’s donor class. Several donors bluntly told RNC Chair Reince Priebus at meetings right after the election that they wanted Iowa, with its more conservative base, to have less of a role in the process.

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.

A Rand Paul supporter was even more to the point, 

“Elimination of caucuses would mean nuclear war with the grassroots, social conservatives and [the] Ron Paul movement,” said this Republican.

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.”

How about me, I now believe that the GOP Leadership is beginning to run very scared.  They're starting to realize the the Tea Party movement is far broader than they thought it was.  That group seeks to toss them out on their collective asses.  After all, they've lost every single election since 2006.  2010, was a clear cut victory of the Tea Party as most of the candidates they supported were in fact elected.

That has been the only ray of sunshine in the GOP picture.  Instead of spending huge sums on candidates who are "moderates' or "Democrat Lite" that can't possibly win, the GOP should instead focus on candidates who are in fact conservatives.  Essentially, this is the party elites saying, "If we don't  select you get the hell out."  That will not do.

While I support the idea of regionalizing primaries, because it in my opinion would reduce the amounts candidates would have to spend bouncing from one side of the country to another...and would permit a less well funded candidate to concentrate on one region at a time. How ever, I  believe that instead of reducing the number of debates, that number should be tied to the regional primaries.

Iowa (Jan)

New Hampshire (1 week later)

Then New England (Feb)

Mid Atlantic (Late Feb: NY, PA, MD, DE, VA)

South (Early March:  NC, SC, GA, FL)

Upper South (Late March:  KY, TN, AL, MS , MO)

Mid West (Early April:  OH, MI, IN, IN)

Upper MidWest (Late April:  WI, MN, MT, ND, SD)

South West (early May:  TX, AR, OK, AZ, NM)

Central (Late May:  CO, WY, KS, NB, ID)

West (Early June:  CA, OR, UT, NV, WA, HI,  AK)

I'm sure I missed a few, but you get the picture.  That still gives the traditional early states their early time to shine...but would end the primaries by June and give us our convention by late June, and our nominee four solid months to campaign.  

What do you think?   Please comment.