Will Anyone Show At the Nevada Primary?

It’s a tactic that those of us who watched the primary calendar jumping of 2008 remember well.  Now that Nevada and Florida have thrown the nomination schedule into chaos, Republican presidential candidates are starting to fight back.

Of course, no one is going to punish Florida, who basically started the whole mess.  Florida has a lot of delegates to win, even if they do end up losing half their slate as a punishment for primarying early.  And as the site of the 2012 Republican National Convention, it’s pretty hard to thumb your nose at them this cycle.

So it’s Nevada taking the full brunt for going out of order, and now candidates are showing their solidarity for New Hampshire by telling the southern state that if they won’t play by the rules, no one will bother to show up there.

It began with former Governor Jon Huntsman, who blamed Nevada for moving up due to encouragement from front runner Mitt Romney.  Huntsman, who has already focused his entire campaign on New Hampshire, at the expense of every other state, has declared he will not be attending the October 18th Nevada debate. Instead, he’ll be holding a town hall in New Hampshire at the time.

Of course, that’s pretty easy for him to say.  With a poll rating of under 2 percent, there’s a very strong possibility he wasn’t going to be invited, anyway.

Now, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum have all said they will join in on a Nevada caucus boycott, unless the state moves back its event to let New Hampshire have the January 10th contest (Nevada would have to move their event back to the 17th at least in order to give New Hampshire their “state mandated” 7 day buffer).  Which would serve to their advantage anyway, since none of them have the finances to really compete in that state.

One candidate not going along with the plan?  Congressman Ron Paul.  “This talk of boycotts doesn’t serve the electoral process any more than the states’ jockeying for position and primacy,” Paul said in a statement. “New Hampshire deserves its rightful place as the first primary in the nation, but we will fight to preserve that place without depriving Nevada or Iowa voters of their say in the 2012 nomination process.”

Of course, this puts Romney in an awkward situation.  With a definite lead in Nevada, he doesn’t want to back out altogether, but he doesn’t want to alienate New Hampshire, either, both because of its position in the primary hierarchy and his huge lead in that state, too.  Hence, the ambivalent and noncommittal answer to the issue of a boycott.

Meanwhile, the New Hampshire GOP itself is urging the Secretary of State to simply hold the event on January 10th and stop the talk of a 2011 primary.  They believe the primary is different enough from a caucus to not violate state law about “similar events.”
Related Posts:

New Hampshire: See You In December?

Iowa Caucus Likely To Be Held January 3rd, 2012

Nevada’s New Caucus Date Likely To Move Calendar Again

Photo credit: Wikimedia commons


Dave C.
David C1 years ago

this seems rather old, 4 yrs plus, but sounded like it might be real since it is nevada primary time this coming Saturday.....4 days from now.

Frances C.
Frances C6 years ago

Oh sure there will be enough right wing nuts to make a good comedy show. And will spur us on to get President Obama re-elected in 2012. No more right wing Supreme Court Justices.

Pass the Jobs Bill!!!!

Sound Mind
Ronald E6 years ago

Truly a "who cares" situation

donald baumgartner

Hey Nevadians: Just write in "Don Baumgartner" in the primary!!

Sue P6 years ago

It's sad....there are qualified candidates to run and they don't get a chance to be heard...campaign reform is overdue!

John Hunstman is a very moderate Rep...and even worked under Pres. Obama. Additionally Fred Karger qualified for each debate and wasn't allowed to participate.

The American people are the ones who pay the price for an antiquated campaign system.

Debbie Brady
Debbie Brady6 years ago

I agree Phil P. but the only sure way to get wealthy donors and corporations out of the political arena is to hold publicly financed elections.
Then to politicans will be forced to work for the people who not only voted for them but also financed thier campaigns.

Phil P.
Phil P6 years ago

Back at you Rose.

My comment was non-demonination but you're absolutely right; Democrats, Republicans, Independents and fringes are all taking in and spending like there's no tomorrow. I really wonder what happens to all that unspent cash that goes to the "also ran" politicians. They ought to be made to donate to worthwhile charities after an intense audit. That way some good could come of the donations or a few more politicians can see the inside of a jail and get them off the street.

Rose L.
Rose L6 years ago

@ Phil P: "If people and corporations want to donate their extra money to something, donate to some charitable causes or medical research where it might actually do some good rather than giving it to politicians and their high paid staffs to live in expensive hotels while they run around the country trying to look important..."

How true! Democrats, Republicans & the sitting President all need to be included in that complaint. The so-called "left" complains about the rich, the powerful corporations, the Conservatives & the Tea Party movement. The so-called "right" complains about those living on entitlements, the powerful revenue-hungry Big Government, the Liberals & the Occupy Wallstreeters.

In Reality Land, the rich & powerful are not just the Right. Not just the Corporations. It is also the Left. The Bloated Big Brother. Believe it or not, President Obama received tons of Wall Street money to win the presidency! He also received tons of money from the Hollywood/Celebrity crowd.

It sucks BIG time that in order to become elected to Congress or the Presidency, lots of money is necessary. A regular "Joe" or "Sally" has a hard time competing against the wealthy.

It's not just Big Wall Street. It's also Big Brother. ALL of them are too big for their britches! Including the celebrities that run their mouth about politics!

Phil P.
Phil P6 years ago

Ho hum. If people and corporations want to donate their extra money to something, donate to some charitable causes or medical research where it might actually do some good rather than giving it to politicians and their high paid staffs to live in expensive hotels while they run around the country trying to look important, kissing babies, stealing their candy and making promises they never intended to keep or couldn't possibly implement.

The country really needs to get its election process under control. Spending a trillion dollars on an election is truly ludicrous.

Dan B.
Dan Brook6 years ago

The regressive Republican Party of No is obstructionist, mean-spirited, thuggish, religiously fanatical, scientifically ignorant, corrupt, hypocritical, xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, evolution and global warming denying, oily, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-choice, anti-education, union busting, Medicare and Social Security slashing, fiscally irresponsible, authoritarian, selfish, greedy, out-of-touch, lacking compassion, warmongering, and otherwise dangerous.

NEVER vote for Republicans.