I know I'm supposed to be writing a breathless article about whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is thinking about jumping in the Republican presidential primary today, but since so many other fine commentators are addressing this burning issue, I thought I'd skip it. The man keeps saying "No," and the media keep hearing "Maybe," so I'm just going to leave it at that for now.
Instead I'd like to talk about the back-room struggling within the Republican Party this week which is a lot more interesting and will likely be a lot more germane to the race -- the question of who goes first (or, more to the point, who goes fifth) in the Republican primary calendar.
The Republican National Committee has valiantly tried to lay down the law for the Republican primary season. Their plan will (one way or another) be somewhat of a radical change for the party. The RNC envisions a three-phase schedule -- early states, a free-for-all, and then wrapping things up in dignified fashion.
The first phase will consist of the "traditional" first-voting states. This used to just be Iowa (first caucus) and New Hampshire (first primary), but has expanded to include South Carolina and Nevada in recent times. This was a change for the better, since it allows the voices of a state in the South and a state in the West, both of which have very different demographics from Iowa and New Hampshire. The RNC's plan gives these four states the months of January and February to vote in, without the distraction of other states muscling their way in.
The first two phases are actually where the radical change will happen. For both the first-voting states and any states which wish to hold primaries or caucuses in March, the selection of delegates to the national convention will be on some form of proportional apportionment, rather than the traditional Republican "winner takes all" scheme. This is borrowing a page from the Democrats, it bears noting. The new RNC requirement for proportionality is rather vague, and leaves it up to each state to determine how to dole out the delegates (based on voting in the whole state, or district by district, for instance). But it will certainly shake up the contest from the way Republicans have nominated their candidates in the past. Previously, the Republican field has been narrowed very quickly, due to the winner-take-all nature of piling up delegates. John McCain essentially had a lock on the Republican nomination by the beginning of March four years ago, while Hillary Clinton didn't concede the race until July on the Democratic side. Republicans watched the Clinton/Obama race take over the headlines for months, while news about McCain dropped off the public's radar. This time around, they're planning for a more drawn-out contest, which could both make for a more exciting race and give whoever emerges as the nominee a lot more seasoning for the general election campaign. That's the thinking, at any rate.
But, being conservative in nature, the Republican Party doesn't want to let things remain undecided for too long, so the third phase of their plan will revert to the old winner-take-all rules. Any state which schedules its primary for April or later will award its delegates as a bloc, in other words. Even if the primary race goes on this long, one candidate or the other should be able to wrap it up without drawing the whole thing out until midsummer, as Hillary and Barack did last time around.
That's the master plan. On paper, at any rate. Four states get two months to schedule their votes, and then a period of voting happens which allows proportional apportionment of delegates, and then things wrap up with the traditional winner-take-all system. The problem is, the Republican National Committee cannot really literally "lay down the law." They are not in charge of any statehouse, they are a national political party. The politicians in each state are actually in charge of setting their state's schedule, and they are under no legal compulsion to follow the RNC's rules.
This has already led to intense jockeying for position among states which want to vote earlier than the RNC proposes. Florida, Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona have been making noises about jumping to the front of the line -- or, more accurately, jumping to fifth place in line. The RNC has leverage to make sure this does not happen, but it may turn out to be an empty bluff. Any state which holds their primary or caucus before March 6 (this year's "Super Tuesday") will be penalized at the national convention to the tune of half their delegates. The RNC may not make any laws, but it is the entity which runs the convention. Meaning it can set whatever rules it wishes for seating delegates.
The states may decide to call the RNC's bluff, though. States which vote earlier than allowed will challenge the RNC to seat all their delegates, or else face a backlash among the party's voters in that state. This played out on the Democratic side last time around, with Florida and Michigan jumping the gun -- which led to a huge and ugly fight among the Clinton supporters and Obama supporters when it came time to set the convention rules. If the margin of victory is close enough that the denied half of any state's delegates could swing the race, this could become a monumental headache for the party later on -- which is exactly what states like Florida are counting on (Florida is reportedly now even considering announcing their primary date as early as January, although this could be a bluff on their part).
This is a wonky subject, to be sure. The reason it is important now is that the states have until this Saturday to report to the RNC what their primary or caucus dates will be. So look for a lot of backroom dealing in the next few days.
Florida seems the most inclined not to back down, at this point. Florida has a strong case to make for being fifth (at least, as far as Florida Republicans are concerned). Florida's demographics are closer to the national makeup than any of the first four states, and they have a lot of very committed voters. In other words, Florida would like to be the true bellwether state in the race. In the primaries, Florida could be the tiebreaker between Perry and Romney, if they split the first four states (a scenario which seems more and more likely as time goes on). Plus, in the general election, Florida may indeed be the swing state that decides the presidential race. With a whopping number of Electoral College votes, it could be the center battleground in the 2012 race -- much more so that any of the other states vying for fifth place (again, in Floridian eyes).
This is their gamble. They are defying the RNC to cut their convention delegates in half, in essence saying: "You wouldn't dare do so, because you don't want to risk annoying Florida Republicans in the general election, where they could be crucial to defeating Barack Obama."
This shoving match for fifth place in the line is becoming all but inevitable, in every presidential election cycle (in both parties, to be fair). Until someone comes up with a truly national scheme to set primary calendars -- one that is adopted by all states -- it looks like we're going to have this high-stakes bluffing match every single time. While this weekend's deadline is also an artificial construct of the RNC (meaning the argument could go on a long time after this Saturday), it's going to be an interesting end to the week for election-watchers.
More interesting than hearing Chris Christie say "No" in yet another amusing way, at the very least.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 ...
First on CNN: Florida will likely hold Jan. primary, threatening ...
RNC adopts new 2012 presidential primary schedule - Washington ...
RNC Adopts New 2012 Presidential Primary Schedule - Free Republic
You always write the most interesting articles, Chris. You're the best writer on this board, IMO. Keep 'em coming. When's the next polling assessment due out? You know I always love those.
I remember how disappointed I was that by the time the PA primary came around, The race had all but been decided and my guy was out of the running.
I understand the reasons for spreading out the vote, and I know how states control it and want the early primary because of the money it brings to the state, but I would rather see a set schedule with 5 or 6 voting days and an even distribution of states/delegates per day.
Assign each state to a block and set a schedule where each block votes on the same day. Then every primary election cycle rotate the order of the blocks so no state is either always first or always last.
This would be the fairest thing to ALL the people that vote in primaries but the big party machines and the state politicians would lose power so they would never agree to something as fair as that.
Having said that I do hope GA gets an early primary vote this year. Of course whomever wins the Republican primary GA will be solidly behind in the General thank gawd.
Go Dawgs!!
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're agreeing with none other than fellow Georgian Jimmy Carter. I wrote about this back in 2006:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/take-jimmy-carters-advice_b_25878.html?
Rotating regional primaries. The best idea for primary schedule reform I've ever heard. Of course, as DoubleYellowLines notes, the idea makes far too much sense to ever actually be implemented. I mean, that article is five years old, and here we are talking about it again.
Sigh.
-CW
But yes, it will never see the light of day. Like any plan that takes power from the Political elites and returns it to the people (flat tax etc) it makes sense but will never pass.
Focusing on a few small, insignificant states makes no sense whatsoever. It reduces interest and concern in the vast majority of the nation, the rest of us who are not being targeted.
The amount of money and time and energy that we waste to produce our illusion of a real election is shameful. The idea that our votes matter is a lie.
And Florida has proven that they are too dumb and/or old to be able to vote, period. I should know - I was born there.
Jus Sayin...
The Republicans were smart enough to vote correctly.
Jus Sayin.....