Romney Accused of Swaying Primaries [Update]

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has established a list of rules that requires certain states to hold their primaries/caucus’ before any others. Within those 5 ‘first in the nation’ states, there are state laws that require they hold their primaries/caucus’ so many days before or after a similar poll. As an example, New Hampshire’s law is that it cannot hold an election within seven days of a similar one.

With Florida changing its primary to January 31, 2012, upsetting the status quo, it has allegedly forced the early states to move their dates up in order to remain those ‘first in the nation’ states. While Iowa has set a tentative date for its caucus for January 3, 2012, there is no word yet as to when New Hampshire is going to reset theirs, currently on the calendar for February 14, 2012, if at all.

In the process of all these calendar reshuffles, one candidate has been blamed for it all.

On Fox News Sunday, October 9, 2011, with Chris Wallace, Rick Santorum blamed Mitt Romney for buying his way with Florida and having them move their primary up to January. And what was once a considered thought, but only in passing, has now become a forethought.

If the primaries are held earlier, it hinders those candidates who are doing their campaigning on the ground. Those candidates who do not possess the same financing as the likes of Romney and Perry will suffer from lack of being able to establish more grassroots and funding in order to make themselves visible and therefore viable as candidates before these new early dates.

Now we have four candidates, Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum confirming their boycott of the October 18, 2012 debate, with Cain considering it, because the Nevada primary date was moved to January 14, 2012. And once again, Mitt Romney, who will not be boycotting the debate, is being blamed.

Romney’s Tinkering in Nevada May Lead to a December Primary
– October 13, 2011

New Hampshire’s secretary of state, William M. Gardner, has issued a warning that the state’s primary could be as early as December 6 or 13 if Nevada Republicans do not move back their January 14 caucus date by at least three days.

By state law, New Hampshire’s primary must be held at least seven days before a “similar” contest. Similar could allow a caucus, but that was to allow Iowa to hold its caucuses first, but not Nevada before New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney is considered the front-runner as of now and if the dates for the primary/caucus were earlier, Romney’s chances to win would be better. This is why Romney used his powerful political connections in Nevada (a state with a large Mormon population) to move up the Nevada Caucus ahead of New Hampshire.

The theory is that Romney would then have [a] win in New Hampshire and Nevada, two of the four first elections, and that would give him the momentum to win the nomination.

Secretary of state William M. Gardner has fallen into Romney’s trap with his threat to move the New Hampshire primary up to December, thus leaving less than two months before the first election (assuming Iowa then doesn’t move again).

2012 New Hampshire Primary

If this is true, these tactics do not make Romney look any better to the large grassroots movement. On the contrary, it gives more than a mere allusion that Mitt Romney is ignoring the grassroots people by pulling a stunt most people would find appalling if done by someone on the other side of the isle. It also makes, at least this writer believe, that in swaying the primaries to his favor, Mitt Romney fears his standing amongst the people or else he would not be trying to secure his less than secured 2012 GOP nomination by swaying the primary states to move their dates.

October 16, 2011 6:45pm ET
A link forwarded by an ‘Objective’ subscriber based upon this entry: Report: Marco Rubio’s top aide pushed to move Florida primary up to benefit Romney.



One thought on “Romney Accused of Swaying Primaries [Update]

  1. A rational comment left to the ‘Rubio’ article:

    So why push up the Florida primary?

    Mr. Joe on October 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM

    To give 50% of their delegates to the GOP to use in selecting the annointed nominee. When the GOP uses the 50% taken from the jumpers, they are not obligated to vote the way the State primary voters intended. Let’s say Cain wins 60% of Florida. Under winner takes all, he would have gotten all 31 delegates.

    By jumping ahead, FL not only loses 15 delegates (assuming the Gov is the odd wildcard), it also becomes proportional. Cain now only has 60% of the 15 or 9 delegates. The other 6 delegates gets split by the other 1 or 2 runnerups.

    Now at the convention, let’s say it was a very close primary season, Perry leads by 6 over Cain and by 12 over Romney. The GOP takes their 15 and gives it to Mitt to put him over the top. Repeat that formulation with Nevada and any other States that get penalized (IIRC NH and MI, maybe another couple States).

    By ensuring as many States as possible jump ahead and get penalized, the GOP ensures that it holds the trump card to coronate their preferred choice if the race is close enough.

    AH_C on October 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM

    Posted by Kyouri | October 17, 2011, 11:05 AM

Recent Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

%d bloggers like this: