Republicans Could Hold 2016 Convention as Early as June, Don't Want Primary Voting to Start Until February

Don't want nominating contests hugging up on the holidays

Reason

The 2016 presidential primary season may be expected to start even earlier than the last two, but the Republican party approved a plan today that would see the first primary now earlier than February 1, 2016 and a convention as early as June.

From RealClearPolitics:

The Republican National Committee on Friday passed sweeping rule changes designed to tighten its control over the GOP presidential nominating process and provide the party's 2016 standard-bearer a leg up in the general election.

The new rules will increase the penalties against states that hold their primary or caucus date before the period designated by the RNC and will move the Republican convention from the late summer to early summer, allowing the eventual nominee more time to spend general election funds.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida will be the only states allowed to hold their nominating contests in February, with penalties for violating the rules stiffer than they were the last time around, when a number of states tried to schedule their primaries earlier than the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. States that hold their contests between March 1 and March 14, 2016, will be required to award delegates proportionally, in an apparent attempt to prevent any one candidate from gaining too much momentum at the start of the March contests.

A specific date and host city for the 2016 convention wasn't selected at this RNC meeting.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at [e-mail] and tweet us at @reason247.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

The GOP already knows whose turn it is. I don't know why they go through the motions of primaries anyway.

[Hyperion]

They know that it's Hillarys turn. Maybe next time there will be someone in the GOP who is so Gawd awful that it can be their turn.

[jester]

I don't think Hillary can do it this time. Folks have moved on.

[Hugh Akston]

Leave the people their...traditions.

[Hyperion]

Republicans Could Hold 2016 Convention as Early as June, Don't Want Primary Voting to Start Until February anyone with last name of Paul winning the nomination.

FIFY

[Almanian (yeah, I said it)]

YOU REASONOIDS LUV THE SOCONS WELL SOME OF YOU DO. SOCONS, SOCONS, SOCONS!!!!1

/Botard

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It is interesting how you try to caricature me here but some shred of integrity surfaces making you feel the need to put the qualifier 'some' in there. Hilarious.

[Marshall Gill]

It was a caricature?

[Tony]

But we didn't get Mitt (come on, the most electable of the bunch) until the primary voters had cycled through nearly the entire roster of dumbfuck clowns first. Does this increase the likelihood of them nominating a teabagging loon?

[Calidissident]

Romney was the electable moderate right up until he won the nomination. Then he became an extremist radical teabagging government-hater who wanted to enslave women. Just like McCain in 08.

[Tony]

Well it is kind of hard to distance the party's leader from the party's platform.

[jester]

For the willfully ignorant yes. You know better, because, it would be impossible to engage in debate at this blog and come away with that assertion. I applaud your attempts in dissuading potential voters from this bias but hey you are just one guy like the rest of us.

[Tony]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I would never, ever treat the likes of Mitt Romney with the drooling lizard brain hatred of Obama's detractors. Mitt was destroyed by his party and its insanity. If he had been allowed to be sane, it might have presented a real choice.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Cherry overpower sturgeon know comeuppance annelid.

Parentage?

[Tony]

You're annoying everyone else more than you are me. At least I know why you're a Randroid. Does your teacher know you're on the internet during remedial chem class?

[jester]

I know you don't think of Mitt Romney that way and I am applauding you for explaining that to the retarded Left. The retarded Right is another story but I'm not sure that they have your ear nor many of us posting here.
I don't see Reason.com as another red state site, although I'll admit that certain partisans comment here frequently. You comment here and you're not red state or free mind, free market libertarian, for example.
Obviously, you visit this site to open your mind. Good choice. I think you'll catch on some day.

[Francisco d Anconia]

You, my friend, are new (no offense). Comment here for a few years and then ask yourself if there is hope for Tony.

[Piltdown man]

Mitt represents, in your mind, the SWPL mentality, you cannot hate him the way you hate the "socons" because he is a lot like you. People are tribal, not rational, and to you he is still part of the SWPL tribe. If he only agreed to pay a little more in taxes, you would love him.

[Tony]

I just think he's a genuinely nice guy--a widespread phenomenon among Mormons, something I find baffling considering they don't take caffeine. I also feel confident that he isn't exactly an ideological teabagger. My problem with Mitt has little to do with Mitt--it's that he's attached to the Republican party, which has turned into an anti-intellectual death cult.

[Piltdown man]

It's not the positions, it's the people. Blacks(a majority of them) agree with Republicans on abortion, homosexual marriage, and immigration. I doubt you would describe them as anything but "nice guys."

[Death Rock and Skull]

Tony is hardly a "guy", buddy.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Vain quack larch fatigue raccoon wa-wa pedal fumigate.

[Cytotoxic]

come on, the most electable of the bunch

Yeah the guy with sky-high negatives from the very beginning of the primaries was obviously the most electable.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"The looks. The hair. And then the family. He adores his wife as she does him. Who has it that good?"

[anon]

But it was his turn!

[Francisco d Anconia]

Galoot ruthless frown conservatory wattle zebra trailer park.

[SIV]

snoconz

[MSimon]

Mittneycare.

[Jgalt1975]

Everywhere I see this reported, people are talking the impact of the primary schedule. I'm more interested in the timing of the convention. I went all the way back to 1960 and neither major party held their convention before mid July at the earliest and more commonly they were held in August. Heck, the recent trend (2008-2012) has been to move them to the very last week of August or the beginning of September. There must be some strategic rationale behind the timing if the RNC is setting that early, but I can't figure it out.

[The Last American Hero]

Don't hurt yourself trying. They are the Party of Stupid.

[SIV]

They need the extra time to train the base how to eat the shit sandwich the nominee will be

[Tony]

Less time for the crazy fucknuts to call the eventual nominee a communist.

[Lord Peter Wimsey]

Jesus Christ are you really that stupid? Who does this? No one calls Romney, McCain a communist. People simply point out that a party that claims to be in favor of free markets and shrinking the size and intrusiveness of govt. should probably not make a lifelong fucking career of hindering free markets and and increasing the size of govt.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Yes, the so-con beliefs of some are annoying as shit. These are the same beliefs (minus Jew hatred) espoused by the black churches who turned out Obama.

I cannot tell if you are really that big of an idiot or if this is some elaborate joke by an obese 16 year old dumb ass taking a break from World of Warcraft.

[Lord Peter Wimsey]

Should have been "(plus Jew hatred)"

[MSimon]

Let the internecine warfare die down pre-election?

[Robert]

Isn't it ridiculous to have the nomination decided many mos. before it's conferred? And remember, no presidential matching funds are available until gen'l election season, i.e. until the nomination is conferred.

Remember when the NH primary used to be in Mar.? And when nominations were contested right up into the convention?

[Nooge.]

They will nominate someone who is repulsive to their grassroots, independents, and libertarians. He or she will be a squishy big-government statist who will play the socons and warhawks for votes- you know, an establishment Republican. This person is almost certainly not going to win after the media portrays him as an antigovernment extremist, because some retards are more easily motivated than others.

FWIW, I do not think the Obama strategy will work for Hillary. She is so venal, corrupt, and demonstrably unlikeable that I really hope even leftards won't vote for her.

For what it'

[Zeb]

So can someone remind me why taxpayers fund the parties' nominating contests? If the parties make the rules about when primaries can be held and which delegates are legitimate, shouldn't they pay for it as well?

[Nooge.]

Because FYTY?

[Piltdown man]

It is obvious why they are trying to do this. In a drawn out contest, the boots-on-the-ground, traditional campaigning with a focus on turnout will work best. This is the pattern in Iowa and New Hampshire. In a large, quick contest, as in "super Tuesday" more emphasis will be put on "modern" campaigning, requiring lots of propaganda and money and giving less well known candidates less chance to get well known. Party elites know that the former benefits social conservatives, who are closer to the actual republican base, and the latter benefits neoconservatives, who control most of the money.(Libertarians, like Ron Paul, can get neither money nor the support of the base) Party elites, for those who were born yesterday, are neoconservatives.

[Lord Peter Wimsey]

^Yes. The GOP is not "controled" by so-cons or libertarians, whatever Tony or MSLSD might think. Warmongering, big government, statist a-holes hold the purse strings and call the shots.

And they get butthurt when their mediocre POS candidate doesn't get everyone to the right of Pelosi excited.

[RishJoMo]

Those dudes don t have a clue man.

http://www.AnonWork.tk