This revelation Ambinder caught hold of from an "RNC rules maven" is disturbing, to say the least:Republican rules for the first time give the members of the Republican National Committee, by a 2/3 vote, the option of adopting a mandatory 2012 state primary election calendar.
States whose legislatures, which may be controlled by Democrats, refuse to schedule a primary that complies with RNC rules face a draconian choice.
Either their party gives up its presidential primary and instead holds (and pays for) a presidential preference caucus -- or the state suffers a loss of 1/2 of its delegates to the 2012 Convention.
Many party leaders, who, for ideological or personal reasons, prefer a low-participation caucus rather than a higher-participation primary, see this Rule as a great opportunity to transform the party. (It would become more conservative.) I'd dismiss this if the particulars on the ground weren't so apt for those words. Think about it - the RNC chair race is dominated by southerners, and the New Hampshire Primary this time around resurrected a candidate, John McCain, that was widely unappealing to the southern base, at least before Palin entered the picture. I would not at all be surprised if the southern GOPers were blaming '08 on Granite State Republicans who they see as not representative of the hard-right national core.
And then there's the whole disenfranchising aspect of the plan, which just fits perfectly into what we've come to see from the national elephants.
I'm no expert on what Fergus worked out for 2012, and/or whether that negates any of this danger for our state that Ambinder's post implies. Those who are, please fill me in.
p.s. And didn't the NHGOP delegates have to endure losing half their voice this time around too, IIRC? |
