Priebus's 2016 primary reform fantasies

[Mr. Morden]

I already mentioned in this thread:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/reince-priebus-previews-rnc-autopsy-88949.html

that RNC chair Reince Priebus was urging the party to hold an earlier convention in 2016.  It's part of a report that Priebus just put out on what structural changes the party should make for 2016.  You can read it here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/17/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.html

In any case, moving the convention earlier is obviously doable.  What's not so doable are some of the more ambitious changes he wants, according to the summary he gave to CBS:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/reince-priebus-previews-rnc-autopsy-88949.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is pure fantasy.  How does Priebus suggest coaxing all those states to move their primaries around like that?  Does he think he can snap his fingers, and get a dozen states to move into that window?  The best the parties can realistically hope for is to nudge the start and end dates a bit earlier or later.  Given the increased penalties the RNC voted on at last year's convention, they have a good chance of getting the primaries to start a bit later next time.  Perhaps a few weeks later, in mid/late January, rather than the first week of January.  Doing anything more than that is a huge challenge, and creating a rotational regional primary is pretty much impossible without federal legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes.  That's the problem.  You can make all the noise you want about reducing the number of debates, but it's largely out of the party's hands.  The candidates themselves can do whatever they want.  How do you stop them from accepting invitations to appear on TV?

[King]

Why don't they just forgo democracy and appoint the nominee?

Or pass primary voter ID law requiring 4 forms of ID, including at least two platinum or higher credit cards to vote.

[Likely Voter]

If Priebus could go back in history and get everything he wanted to reshape 2012 primary/debate process he seems to think a stronger, better-funded Mitt Romney would have been the result. But maybe the result would have been an ill-prepared Rick Perry as the nominee.

They seem to want to make the primary process easier on the nominee, but a tough primary creates a stronger candidate. Romney was actually getting pretty good at it by the end. If he breezed through it, he would have probably been making "corporations are people" gaffes every day of the general and not just in private fundraisers with hidden cameras.

Also if the GOP goes back to the days of having 'coronation' primaries, then all the attention and news will focus on the more interesting Democratic primary

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the parties want to control their own primary calendars then all they have to do is fund their own primaries and stop depending on the government subsidizing their primary.  Indeed, that's the way it ought to be.

[RogueBeaver]

If the parties want to control their own primary calendars then all they have to do is fund their own primaries and stop depending on the government subsidizing their primary.  Indeed, that's the way it ought to be.

This.

[King]

Rather than go through all these unnecessary changes, the Republicans need to finally accept the truth:  2012 was never winnable.  Obama was never unpopular enough to lose at any point during the season.  There's a reason why nobody better than Romney ran.  The opening just was not there. 

In fact, it would not surprise me if Obama has never had a truly negative approval day during his Presidency.  Among likely voters he tanked for 2010 midterms and in 2011 polls, sure, but among adults he was always in the mid 40s with 20-30% disapproval among Democrats and Liberals, all people who would vote for him despite the disapproval, meaning he was always above 50% support in an election with adults.  Likely voters are a midterm thing, adults vote in Presidential elections.

I firmly believe that Obama's support amongst the 125 million Americans who voted on November 6th never dipped below 50% on any day in 2012.  He was always going to win.  If anything, the Election Day result was worst case scenario for Obama because his campaigned sputtered in October.

[Indy Texas]

There were indeed too many debates last year. But this is an example of the reality-television-ization of all aspects of our life. More debates = More likelihood someone will say/do something outrageous = More viewers = More money for the networks = More publicity for the candidates. It results in the networks and the candidates acting in ways that benefit themselves but harm the party in terms of preparing for the general election.

There should be a primary equivalent to the non-profit, non-governmental body that sponsors and schedules the general election presidential and vice presidential debates. Each party would follow a fixed schedule that might be something like this:
- one debate at the beginning of January before Iowa and NH
- one debate after the first three or four primaries but before Super Tuesday
If a party hasn't arrived at a presumptive nominee at this point, then
- one debate in late March, preferably before some major state has its contest

Maybe there could even be some sort of "all star" debate where the final two or three candidates from each party have a debate amongst themselves if it's a year where both parties have contested primaries. (i.e. in 2008 there would have been a Hillary vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee debate).  

[Mehmentum]

Most of, if not all, of Preibus' suggestions seem very solid.  The obvious flaw is that there is no guarentee that any of these will be implemented.

There is a recomendation that the GOP should include people who disagree with the party line on some issues, perfectly reasonable considering parties are supposed to be broad coalitions, yet look at CPAC, both McDonnell and Christie were excluded because of just that!

2014 should be interesting, if only because we'll get a good idea in what direction the GOP is headed.  Will we see more unelectable Republican candidates like Angle and Akin?  Will we see some of Preibus' suggestions being implemented? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There were indeed too many debates last year. But this is an example of the reality-television-ization of all aspects of our life. More debates = More likelihood someone will say/do something outrageous = More viewers = More money for the networks = More publicity for the candidates. It results in the networks and the candidates acting in ways that benefit themselves but harm the party in terms of preparing for the general election.

There should be a primary equivalent to the non-profit, non-governmental body that sponsors and schedules the general election presidential and vice presidential debates. Each party would follow a fixed schedule that might be something like this:
- one debate at the beginning of January before Iowa and NH
- one debate after the first three or four primaries but before Super Tuesday
If a party hasn't arrived at a presumptive nominee at this point, then
- one debate in late March, preferably before some major state has its contest

Maybe there could even be some sort of "all star" debate where the final two or three candidates from each party have a debate amongst themselves if it's a year where both parties have contested primaries. (i.e. in 2008 there would have been a Hillary vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee debate).  

While there were too many debates last cycle, this is way too few.  However, unless no one seriously challenges Hillary, there will be primary debates for both parties, which means there won't be as many debates per campaign.  Not even the monster that is cable news can digest forty or so primary debates.

[Mr. Morden]

However, unless no one seriously challenges Hillary, there will be primary debates for both parties, which means there won't be as many debates per campaign.  Not even the monster that is cable news can digest forty or so primary debates.

There were about 40 primary debates between the two parties in the 2008 cycle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

[King]

In a Citizens United world, the debates are democracy's best hope.

[Mr. Morden]

Why don't they just forgo democracy and appoint the nominee?

I've actually suggested that before.  Go back to deciding the nominee in smoke filled rooms, a la pre-1970s primary reforms.  Deciding nominees on the basis of primary elections is a failed experiment that we should rethink.  At the presidential level, it's driving away some of the potential talent, as potential candidates don't want to go through a two year campaign that requires them to pander to the base in the primaries, then turn around and appeal to swing voters in the general election.

In Congressional races, primaries have been especially destructive, in that it's created perverse incentives for members of Congress to hug the party base as tightly as possible, because most of them are more likely to lose in a primary election than a general election.

Plenty of democracies manage to hold elections without primaries, and get by just fine.

Anyway, if you're not going to do that, then you could always try IRV with no party nominees (though I don't think I'd want that at the presidential level):

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154660.0

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, unless no one seriously challenges Hillary, there will be primary debates for both parties, which means there won't be as many debates per campaign.  Not even the monster that is cable news can digest forty or so primary debates.

There were about 40 primary debates between the two parties in the 2008 cycle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

The debate season started sooner in 2008 and lasted longer.  Yeah, if that happens in 2016, there could be forty debates, but I doubt it will.  For one thing, Hillary is likely to wait as long as feasible to make her campaign official and few will want to offer Democratic debates without her being there.  I think she'll wait until the fall of 2015, with September most likely but October not impossible.  With no Democratic debates for "balanced" programming, there likely will be fewer debates in the summer of 2015 than the summers of either 2007 or 2011, which probably would suit the GOP frontrunners fine.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If the parties want to control their own primary calendars then all they have to do is fund their own primaries and stop depending on the government subsidizing their primary.  Indeed, that's the way it ought to be.

Michigan may move to a convention or caucus to get our nominee.  I like that because it doesn't waste taxpayer money on something that not all taxpayers care about, but I dislike that it tends to give more extreme candidates.

[Indy Texas]

Michigan may move to a convention or caucus to get our nominee.  I like that because it doesn't waste taxpayer money on something that not all taxpayers care about, but I dislike that it tends to give more extreme candidates.

What about those of us who care enough about politics to stop by the local library to vote in a primary but don't care enough to spend hours at a caucus or get selected to go to a nominating convention? (Ain't nobody got time for that.)

[Mr. Morden]

Priebus's report also recommends that states move away from caucuses and towards primaries.  Taken all together, the suggested reforms are seen as favoring establishment candidates:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-autopsy-may-rile-up-base-89010.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should be noted that the RNC already passed some primary reforms at last year's convention, and the new rules disallow non-binding caucuses.  That is, caucuses are still allowed, but they have to be binding in their allocation of delegates to presidential candidates.  So no more cases like last time, when, for example, the media declared Romney and Santorum the victors of the Iowa caucuses, but Paul ended up getting the most delegates months after the fact.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Prebius needs to take a hike because the grassroots views him with particular distain. To use the position to deliberately act against a candidate you and the establishment don't like, especially when he's telling the truth, is simply wrong.

DeMint for GOP Chair and Heritage Foundation President

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Michigan may move to a convention or caucus to get our nominee.  I like that because it doesn't waste taxpayer money on something that not all taxpayers care about, but I dislike that it tends to give more extreme candidates.

What about those of us who care enough about politics to stop by the local library to vote in a primary but don't care enough to spend hours at a caucus or get selected to go to a nominating convention? (Ain't nobody got time for that.)

You'll get your vote in the general election, or you can choose to go to a caucus.  Those of you who care enough to stop by the local library to vote in a primary are vastly outnumbered by those who don't care about primaries.  Why should their tax dollars be spent to pick an individual party's nominee?  Furthermore, why should those who actively choose not to be in a party have to subsidize something they do not want to be a part of?

[Indy Texas]

Michigan may move to a convention or caucus to get our nominee.  I like that because it doesn't waste taxpayer money on something that not all taxpayers care about, but I dislike that it tends to give more extreme candidates.

What about those of us who care enough about politics to stop by the local library to vote in a primary but don't care enough to spend hours at a caucus or get selected to go to a nominating convention? (Ain't nobody got time for that.)

You'll get your vote in the general election, or you can choose to go to a caucus.  Those of you who care enough to stop by the local library to vote in a primary are vastly outnumbered by those who don't care about primaries.  Why should their tax dollars be spent to pick an individual party's nominee?  Furthermore, why should those who actively choose not to be in a party have to subsidize something they do not want to be a part of?

Picking the party's nominee is half of the equation of picking who the elected official ultimately is. America is by default a two-party system, always has been and always will be. The ability to participate in selected the candidates of those two parties is, in practice, an extension of the franchise. The two major parties are public institutions in the sense that you can't exclude people from participating in them without excluding them from meaningfully impacting the rest of the electoral process. That's why SCOTUS made Southern states stop having segregated Democratic primaries (because if you couldn't vote in the Democratic primary, you essentially had no control over who your officials were). That's part of the impetus for the McGovern reforms in the 1970s.

Perhaps you'd like us to return to having the Hubert Humphreys of politics push pawns across a chessboard in a dark smoke-filled room.