As Republicans look for ways to curtail the lengthy primary battle and limit collateral damage during the process, some new ideas are being floated aimed at giving the eventual nominee an advantage. Among other things, the party is considering new “super” primary days featuring different regions of the country as well as an earlier convention.

Report from The Daily Beast:

The national Republican Party is considering a number of major changes to its presidential nominating process to avoid a repeat of the debacles of 2012, according to several party officials.

Most significantly, the party is considering holding a “Midwestern primary” featuring Great Lakes states such as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin that would come immediately after the votes in the traditional early primary states. Also being weighed and thought likely to be approved when the Republican National Committee meets in early 2014 is a plan to shorten the primary season considerably by holding the party’s convention in July, almost as soon as the last primary ballots are cast.

The move toward a “Midwestern Super Tuesday” after the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida appears aimed in part at wresting control of the nominating process from social conservatives in the South in an effort to produce a nominee more likely to carry the election in November. Nearly all the “Rust Belt” states have fallen into Democratic hands in recent elections, and GOP officials believe that showering them with more resources throughout the primary process—and ensuring that an eventual nominee is broadly popular there—could flip the Midwest into the Republican column in November.

“The idea here is to try to recapture an area of the country that Republicans have simply not been able to carry,” said one GOP insider familiar with the plans.

According to GOP insiders, national party chairman Reince Priebus favors the regional primary system, but how much power he will have when the Republican National Committee convenes in January is in question. Primaries are determined by individual states, and a national chairman is limited to penalizing those state parties that go against the plan, either by limiting the number of delegates they can bring to the convention or by rendering the votes there “beauty contests” that have no bearing on determining the ultimate winner.

This would be the biggest primary process shakeup in years should any of it get enacted. Republicans are fearing a replay of 2012 but maybe they’re recreating a replay of 2008 when Hillary Clinton was easily the presumed Democrat nominee. In this case, most of these changes are being considered to give the GOP nominee a step ahead of the Clinton political machine since, once again, Hillary is the presumed democratic nominee in 2016.


  1. My main concern is that the Republicans take the presidency. Any Republican would be better then any of the Democrats.. Tea Party concerns are legit but there can be a problem with stubbornness. There is to much infighting for our own good. We have turned over the hands of the government to the left by behaving this way. I am a Tea Party, Independent Republican. We are going to have to beat the Dems at their own game.

  2. looks like an obvious ploy to eliminate the tea party from its ranks once and for all.
    that will not work out as smoothly, and the gop will further disintegrate for another lost election.

    bad news for our country.

  3. I agree. But being a tea party conservative, I will not vote for any candidate, who does not agree with our principles of smaller government, drastically cuts in spending, a flat or fair tax, abolishing the IRS and the Federal reserve. We do not need another big government candidate. My only choice would be a Rand Paul, Ted Cruz,or the like.

  4. Though I agree with Betty Lewis the one thing I like about the idea in the article is… I live in the midwest and am tired of not having a say – I’m tired of voting in primaries and having only one choice for Repub. In ’08 and ’12 the finalists were NOT my choice!

    • Seems to me this serves the GOP better than letting New Hampshire and South Carolina pick the nominee. New Hampshire rarely matters in the electoral vote count and South Carolina is reliably red anyway.

      Let the states which swing elections pick the nominee. That must be the angle they’re seeking.

      Next question, will GOP work to impose a closed primary on all these states or not?

      • The upside of the current system is that it’s a “trial by fire,” in which the eventual candidate hones his/her campaigning skills. If we had candidates who state their positions and stand by them.

        Nobody else has the integrity of Ron Paul. He had the same stands on the issues throughout. If he had been younger, and not run before, he would have won. But as it was, he looked a lot like another Harold Stassen (who became a joke for running for decades).

        To put in my 2¢ about your question, I don’t know why ANY party in ANY state would invite the opposition to vote in their (open) primary. That’s insane.

        • goethe,
          exactly; gop allowing dems to vote may help vet out the tea party, but will not help a real rep contender in the long run; that’s just plain stupid.

          honest ron paul had 2 strikes against him, an outsider and a stutterer (his message being true, but delivering it took effort).
          rand paul on the other hand is both an insider and an accomplished debater (see what he did to clinton on the benghazi hearings).

  5. If the GOP wants to win the WH, they better stop forcing themselves on the people and start listening to what the ‘people’ want in a candidate. So far, they have done a dreadful job in promoting the what the ‘people’ want to have done; they are only interested in preserving their own agenda and keeping their paychecks & perks. They are no better than the democrats! Sick of not having my voice heard. Sick of GOP not standing up for the founding principals. Folks complain about the Tea Party, but at least they LISTEN to their constituents.I am considering joining them!

    • elisa,
      true; gop leaders are working for themselves only.

      tea party needs to put the gop rhinos to pasture, or our country will be lost forever.

  6. Thank-You! Absolute change for making gov. Smaller, back to local control. In my state of Wyoming liberal (too liberal to ve called RINOS) have destroyed our education system and ignored the voters say in education, just horrible. Cindy Hill was elected Supt. Of Public Education andcut much of federal funds and was stripped of duties as the legislatures say she wants too much local control.bad, bad, sad….

  7. To tell you where i stand before i sit – I am a Dem turned GOP during LBJ, turned independent in the 80’s, turned Libertarian in 00’s and added Tea Party in 2009. Staunch believer than Personal Liberties are each their own and no one else’s business. Oh, also a 30 retired USN/R.

    From various threads-this domain – I’m curious – no Clinton, no Bush, no RINO, no TeaParty, from a different thread Cruz and Rubio (Latino) are out and yet a different thread a black conservative is way too soon.

    So what candidate is really out there??

    I actually really like to see Carson or West and Paul or Rand or vice-versa

    • Sam: Where did you see “no Tea Party”? I don’t remember anyone saying that.

      The GOP is doing its best to “cleanse” the party of TP influence, but I don’t remember anyone on here saying that.

      I wrote elsewhere that when the Dems stomped down the anti-war movement in the 70s, it lost its energy. I had said that if the GOP crushes the Tea Party, it too, will lose.

      I found another example. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most “progressive” presidents we’ve ever had. Taft started out a progressive, but became progressively corporate. That led to the split, and the GOP stomped out the progressives–who went to the Democrats, and eventually led to FDR.

      After the 2010 surge of the Tea Party, the group deserved a shot at the presidency. And after two straight losses with moderate candidates (McCain wanted Lieberman as his vice president, for cryin’ out loud), the TP deserves a shot. But they’d do best to pick Rand Paul, who is not so doctrinaire.

      • Goethe
        You are so right. GOP has not any desire
        to work with ir lisyen to, the voting public, they kniw it all. I have been very active in the GOP for 50 plus years. After this past session of Wyomings legislature session I could not get my name off their rolls fast enough. Am now
        Proud to be a member of the Constitution

        • Betty: We have been talking about the need for a third party. In fact, in Michigan, one of our Republican legislators is openly calling for it.

          In what way is the Constitution Party different from the Libertarian Party, and do you think the two might work together to create a viable heir to the GOP?

  8. We really need a Party that combines the Tea Party and Libertarian Party. The Constitution Party is too focused on Christianity ( ). Be neutral on Personal Liberties – the Declaration says “Natures Creator” written by mostly Deists, that’s all we need – no religion just personal spirituality. Matter of fact the 1st Amend. says no law concerning religion – BUT if the military or Gov wants to practice a democratic agreed upon religious ceremony they are free to do so.

    All it would take is Koch Industries (specifically David Koch – a Libertarian who supports the Tea Party Through FreedomWorks and worth 38 Gigabucks) to fund a Party that takes out the RINO’s.and far left and far right.

    • Sam:

      “BUT if the military or Gov wants to practice a democratic[ally] agreed upon religious ceremony, they are free to do so.”

      So, what you’re saying is that a majority of those present at any event can override the Constitution? Seems to me, that is the very essence of “establishment” of religion.

      AND the whole point of that clause of the First Amendment was to protect the MINORITY from the will of the majority.

      And that is the problem. The majority has such hegemony that they are deaf and dumb to the fact that some do not believe as they do, and do not even comprehend the tyranny they impose.

      • Goethe
        Google constitution Party and read what t represent. That is what I am registered as since our state of Wyoming went to extremely liberal and is growing rapidly!

        • Betty: Item seven is to avoid foreign entanglements. What do we do about being in everybody else’s business already? Would they call everybody home?

          • Why not? we can not take any quality f care of this country so why do we think we can tend to others business? Enough is enough already.thanks!

      • Well Goethe – i guess that is one of the biggest differences between a Liberal and open minded Conservatives – a Liberal wants to control Personal Liberties per their interpretation and minority vs majority (democratic rules). As the 1st Amendment applies to Political Parties as well as Religion – substitute Parties with Religion and apply your logic. No one forces a minority or minorities to participate, attend, view a display, or assemble with the majority. the minority can separately do their own thing. The only forced hegemony (i had to look it up), tyranny, or intolerance is in the mind of a minority Liberal or a Liberal trying to control.

        RE: your and Betty’s conversation – I don’t think we should be in any country that: 1) we don’t have American company business interests – and/or 2) we haven’t been asked to be there for protection from aggression. And i’m sure there is disagreement around that.

        • Sam: I don’t believe in “open minded conservatives.” Any more than “open minded liberals.” Once you label yourself, you give up the right to claim to be “open minded.”

          I just don’t like the idea of government or military organizations telling everyone they must parrot what “we” believe–which means if you DON’T believe what they do, you can be CONSPICUOUSLY non-compliant, but it also means you don’t deserve to be called part of “we the people.”

          It’s perfectly OK to recite (drone) what you believe in church. That’s where people believe as you do. It’s not a public forum with people who don’t.

          P.S. I didn’t use “hegemony” to put on airs. It is just a word like xenophobia or synergy that expresses an idea more precisely than more common words. Also, of course, the ominous connotation is quite fortuitous.

      • Goethe – it is your right to consider me close minded. “We the People” of the U.S.A. are exactly that – citizens of the U.S.A. and have the full meaning of the Declaration / Constitution / Bill of Rights and especially the 1st Amendment behind us.

        No Gov. or Mil. organization can TELL a member an order or to “parrot” what a group believes. Nor can they violate laws or for mil the UCMJ. It also means a lone dissenter may-be CONSPICUOUS, it can be a rough road.

        If i decide to gather peacefully in a public place, no matter the venue, Gov or Mil has no right to prevent that. Except UCMJ MAY HAVE a Inst saying no, but i can take it to JAG.

        again the one may not disrupt the many any more than the many may disrupt the one.

        My degree came out of Dept of Science (EE), not Dept of Arts – so i couldn’t write a article for several years after leaving school and still would not be caught without spell checker and an online dictionary. OohRah

        • Sam: No, actually, while I often disagree with you (and sometimes just for the fun of it–in the way I mercilously torment poor Nate), I think you are one of the most willing to consider what others have to say–while most people only look for things to pick at.

          BUT–it is NOT true that conservatives are virtuous and liberals are not–and it’s REALLY–REALLY not true that conservatives are more open-minded.

          It’s a case of trying to have things both ways. As I noted, Dirksen (or it might have been Goldwater) said that you can’t argue with a liberal, because you can’t get him to stand with one position.

          The whole essence of conservatism is dedication, responsibility, steadfastness. Liberals are criticized for being wishy-washy, because like Hamlet, they want to conside any possible feelings they might hurt, before taking any action at all.

          To claim that conservatives are more open-minded is not just ridiculous, it insults the intelligence of the reader–as well as is character assassination of conservatives.

        • Now then, back to the point, there are places I the country where the majority is Jewish, Muslim, or non-religious. Try to be open-minded enough to envision yourself going to ALL KINDS of public meeting–court, city government, school, etc. Military meetings are even more important, since the military IS use of force to enforce norms.

          Now, honestly imagine if EVERY gathering you go to cannot begin until everyone is EXPECTED to vow subservience to Allah or to Yeaweh–every single time? Can you really say you would not feel like a second-class citizen? Like someone whose beliefs and ideals are disrespected and ridiculed?

          If it were a secular area, would you feel right about every public meeting beginning with a recitation that there is NO God? Yes, you could refuse to say it, but that dousn’t make it right.


          • Goethe – been out of pocket for a scosche – I give in, your basic Liberal or Conservative is intolerant. I was thinking more on the level of you and me. Fairly open to personal liberties and people should be able to do their own thing. Truly 1st Amendment , “Shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . freedom of speech . . . right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . “. That’s not to say we don’t get on our own soapboxes now and then and have very strong opinions that we voiced (at least i did and still do).

            Back in the day at sea “turn to” was 24/7 for time to eat and sleep and a few hours a day for those not on watch to play pinochle, play with themselves or whatever. On the appropriate day there were services held for the monotheistic religions (not too many Muslims onboard in the 50’s / 60’s & 70’s). and if someone wanted an hour to read their “gig” it was provided. When tied to the pier, i grant you that timing of work and liberty was centered around Christian timing but if we had duty weekend you practiced your religion onboard.

            no political correctness bs just an occasional “fall in” (assembly) to remind you there is the right way, wrong way, Navy way – and we own your ass, so follow the UCMJ or you’ll think you’d been crucified!

            The Denver City and County building is lighted every year with Holiday (Christmas) lights and a big fight to see if the Libs can prevent the Manger scene and Santa’s sleigh. CO (especially Denver) has gone so far left they might get it done. But frankly i think all religions should be able to put up their display on that public property, as long as it isn’t anti American or against the law. if it is anti american and doesn’t violate our laws, go somewhere private and do your thing or change the law.

            I also don’t give a rat’s . . . if a speaker has to acknowledge something or someone prior to a talk or an assembly as long as it was an open and unforced assembly. it is an idea though, maybe if i ever speak again i’ll give thanks to St. Germain to see how many i can freak out.


        • Obviously: How exactly, do you propose that the GOP Should not “hand the nomination to Hillary”?? Are you unaware that Hillary is a Democrat?

          • goethe,
            you never mistyped?

            unlike you and obama, i’m imperfect.

            how clever of you to question my lack of awareness that hillary is a democrat; and pretend not to comprehend its meaning — corrected for you, and only you, here it is:

            “unless the gop wants to hand the win to hillary (if she wins the dems nomination as most predict)”.

            does this satisfy your pedantic query?

            • Oblivious: as I have said several times before, I only pick on typos when the accidental comment is funny.

              Of course, your sense of self-importance is funny by itself. All the more funny when you do personal attacks all the time, and yet, you’re so very, very thin-skinned.

              Your comment here sounds like it came from a pimply faced middle schooler–hurt by being dissed by her BFF. Like, omigod!

  9. unless the gop wants to hand the nomination to hillary (if she wins the dems as most predict), they need to back rand paul 100%; any other rep candidate will not do, for rand paul has proven himself to be able not to just defeat her in a debate, but make her look like an incompetent tool.

    watch this 6 min video, where rand paul factually destroys hillary’s ability to hold any office, while hillary comes back only with weak generalizations and tries to pass the blame on underlings.

    ‘Rand Paul Destroys Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi Gate’

Comments are closed.