The American Spectator : A Defense of Florida

Text Size

A Defense of Florida

By Larry Thornberry on 10.10.11 @ 6:08AM

A January 31 Florida primary will not spoil anyone's Christmas, though the RNC seems eager to spoil the GOP's chances next year.

TAMPA -- No one is keen on politicking over the Christmas holidays. I certainly don't want to mix political speeches with my Christmas carols, though a certain kind of eggnog might make some of the candidates go down better. But this year there may be more of this than in years past as at least five states have moved, or are likely to move, their presidential primaries or caucuses into January.

So far Florida is getting the biggest share of blame for this doleful outcome after a state panel appointed for the purpose decided Florida would move its primary forward to January 31. This has led the traditionally early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, all of which had planned to have their say in February, to leapfrog into January.

I'm trying not to be a homer here. But Florida gets the full rap for this mixing of campaigning and cranberry sauce only if one believes it is written on the heart of Man by the finger of God that the traditional four must go first.

Other than divine interest, and there's no evidence of this so far, no compelling reasons exist for these four small and untypical states to begin the business of choosing the next president. In conversations with Republican National Committee officials and both the Florida State Republican Committee Man and Committee Woman, I've been unable to unearth any reason for this sequence other than that, "This is how we decided it should be and it's a rule." Also it's asserted that this sequence is "a tradition."

As traditions go, this one is hardly venerable. New Hampshire has indeed had a long history of hitting in the presidential leadoff spot. But the Iowa caucuses have been around for many fewer cycles, and South Carolina and Nevada only for the last couple. So the argument from tradition is weak.

Another argument politically savvy types give for the small states going first, though not one I heard from RNC officials, is that a skilled retail campaigner with limited campaign cash can make his/her case face to face in the confined space of Iowa or New Hampshire. Forget TV ads. Packaging doesn't help here. Candidates have to convince voters standing right in front of them.

I saw this up close and personal in the late summer of 2007 when I went to New Hampshire to do some political writing (OK, I also caught a couple of Red Sox games, but I mostly went for the politics). In a week I was able to meet and talk with all the major Republican candidates (the Dems were elsewhere that week). One weekday I told Mike Huckabee the same joke at lunch that I'd told Tom Tancredo the night before at dinner. Not sure that I wasn't a New Hampshire voter, they both laughed.

There's something to this retail campaigning business. But how much? This year the Democrats know who will head their ticket, and it's unlikely there will be an underfunded Republican with a winning case who needs the less expensive platforms of Iowa and New Hampshire to get on the electoral map. And, with no disrespect intended to the fine folks in both states, Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly typical of the nation. There is a higher percentage of evangelicals in Iowa than elsewhere. New Hampshire is majority conservative with a strong libertarian streak. There are more independents in New Hampshire than either Republicans or Democrats. Both states are whiter than rice, and not just in the winter.

The arguments for Nevada or South Carolina as early birds are even weaker. Anyone who suggests that, "As Winnemucca goes, so goes the nation," risks being institutionalized.

Florida, on the other hand, is the United States writ small. Actually, not all that small, with almost 19 million souls calling Florida home. It's the fourth largest state, and the biggest swing state, there being little mystery about which column California, Texas, and New York will find themselves in after votes are counted in November 2012.

All the races, economic classes, and other important political demographics exist in Florida in roughly the proportions they exist in the nation. Florida is a proving ground with national significance. A conservative candidate who can win in Florida in January can win it all in November. And with 29 electoral votes, more than 10 percent of the total necessary to get to the White House, there's no way for a Republican to retire our socialist president without carrying Florida next year.

Not surprising then, Florida Republicans would like a say in deciding who will run for president. They'd rather not wait till the business is settled before they get to vote. Thus January 31.

Considering the importance of all this, we're entitled to wonder why national Republicans continue to say they will punish Florida Republicans if they don't set a primary date the nationals consider seemly. The threat is the RNC will strip Florida of half its convention delegates next August unless Florida slinks back down the line where national Republicans say it belongs. Keep writing those big contribution checks to candidates and to the party, but otherwise do what you're told, they say. RNC strategy appears to be to insult and annoy the most important state to the party's success next year.

This approach is particularly toxic this cycle as the Republican convention will be held in Tampa. What a great story this will be for the main(left)-stream media, "National Republicans Diss Host." In how many interviews will Democrats croon, "How can the Republican Party run the country? It can't even run its primaries." Wouldn't it be a better idea to try to put the focus on the conservative candidate coronated at the convention rather than on a pointless intra-mural squabble?

Barack Obama's favorability ratings remain in the tank. There's little hope of his policies and his administration showing themselves as anything but pluperfect failures between now and Election Day. This one appears to be the Republicans' to lose. But they appear to be working on it.

Republican candidates get well-deserved hands at political events when they speak out against pointless and damaging rules and regulations that impair our economy and diminish our lives. Perhaps it's time for national Republican officials to revisit some of their own.

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.10.11 @ 7:33AM

I think we're getting silly, now. Don't you? Having a Spitting Contest, to see who Primaries first?
I agree that it's STUPID to have something, THIS BIG, start in two States that are THAT SMALL. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that the Nomination NOT begin, with a buncha desperate Politicians promising the Moon, when it comes to FARM SUBSIDIES, that, in truth, should be Eliminated.
This process should start with 5 States. Or, maybe 10 States. The Northeast isn't that far from the Midwest. New York borders Vermont and Pennsylvania, which shares it's borders with Ohio, and West Virginia.
Georgia is surrounded by other States: Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama. These Pols wouldn't have to travel all over the place, and we would get a BETTER LOOK, from a BIGGER CROSS SECTION of the American People. Nothing against the Corn Cobb State, and the Pancake Syrup State, but, c'mon. Laying so much on the line, in these two One Horse Towns, is Idiotic, at best.
And having OPEN PRIMARIES, where the other Party gets to take part in nominating OUR CANDIDATE, is INSANE.

Herman| 10.10.11 @ 11:53PM

Oh, for the days when the campaigns started on
Labor Day of Election Year...
Get rid of primaries....Let all Republican elected
officials be delegates....Then let the convention
choose the nominee...

TrueBlue| 10.11.11 @ 4:35PM

Agreed. Open Primaries was the dumbest idea ever conceived. That's how we ended up with McCain, and it'll get us stuck with Romney this time around; he knows it too. These are the REPUBLICAN Primaries, they should be closed to all but registered Republicans.

Dai Alanye| 10.10.11 @ 8:39AM

Little states first, big states later. Stretch the process out as long as practicable.

These are simple sensible rules that allow voters to get a thorough look at contenders before the big electoral totals determine the final outcome. Cllumping elections together, particularly before the candidates have an opportunity to straighten out their messages, will lead to more confusion than we presently have.

And by the way, Down With Florida!

Mike Hawk| 10.10.11 @ 8:52AM

This race to be first and be the deciding primary or caucus is toxic. Last time around by the time the May and June primaries ariived in the larger staes it was over. Charlkie Crist, the uber-RINO, had thrown it to CApt. McQueeg and by early May in PA we were left with, McQueeg, Huckaphoney and Rube PAul. No choice and no impact. I left the Presidential ticket blank and voted the rest. It really pissed me off. The race to be first gave us a loser.
BTW, PA is a closed primary and that's how it should be. We don't need cross-over Liberals giving us our candidate.

John Navratil| 10.10.11 @ 9:09AM

As a thought experiment, let's try ordering the states from most to least delegates and running the primaries in that order. Once one candidate got the necessary votes he could quit spending money and save it for the general. It has its advantages even though it makes the primaries irrelevant for a large fraction of the voters.

While we are at it, let's do it a full year before the general election to give the opposition candidate maximum exposure before the "real" (general) election.

This is the Florida controversy in a nut-shell; which is not to say that what we currently have is much better.

We can certainly live with a couple of non-decisive early states for tradition, or for marketing purposes, but we really out to get to a single primary day. The alternative is that early voters really have a different choice than later voters. Looking into rated voting schemes wouldn't hurt either.

For those advocating closed primaries, I'd ask how many would register with a third party and whether stifling the possibility of a third-party is a good thing?

TrueBlue| 10.11.11 @ 4:38PM

As far as order I think it should be decided at random, pull state names out of a hat or something, every year. Make the order known in November of the year prior to the election.

Someone wants to run a third party, they just need to register as Independents. At the very least though registered Democrats shouldn't be able to vote in the Republican Primaries.

grant1863| 10.10.11 @ 9:26AM

Larry, Thanks for the column from a fellow Tampan. Excellent point about Florida being such a mix or perhaps you should spin it as "diversity"

Anommynous| 10.10.11 @ 10:30AM

I think Florida should be stripped of all its delegates, not just half. Thanks for cutting into my holiday time with my family again, you inconsiderate scoundrels.

Rod Brooker| 10.10.11 @ 11:18AM

Larry, you make perfect sense. Florida IS a demographic reflection of the United States. Make the Florida primary the first big test for the candidates. Florida is big enough to work 'em silly (Gators note) so we can see how the candidates fare under the stress of non-stop travel and speaking to diverse groups across the state.

At the same time, even fringe candidates with little money behind them would have the chance to throw all their dollars into the Florida primary and maybe create a more level playing field in terms of marketing their product. If the "little" candidates do well, their showing in Florida will enable them to raise more cash. If they crash and burn, along with some of their well-heeled opponents, the losers can make the rational choice to quit wasting their time and ours.

And for heaven's sake, let's try to move all the primaries much closer to the general election. Under the current trend of moving them ever earlier we're facing a full year of mud-slinging, lies, and innuendo. Wouldn't three months be enough?

Insurance Jupiter| 10.10.11 @ 11:18AM

"As Winnemucca goes, so goes the nation,"

Institutionalize me why don't ya?

Citizen Jerry| 10.10.11 @ 11:40AM

"Florida IS a demographic reflection of the United States?" Then why do they call it "God's waiting room?'

Joe D.| 10.10.11 @ 11:52AM

Please stop being egocentric. We would like the big states to stop running over us little states. Are you all that insecure that you need to make sure no one cares to come to our states. The tradition is fine. If it is not broken and it is not. Why push everything into January. They all should be moved back. However, Florida is one of the lightening rods that push this process.

Teflon93| 10.10.11 @ 12:00PM

Why not let Wyoming go first then? Why must it always be blue states we have no hope of winning?

Teflon93| 10.10.11 @ 11:59AM

The most rational way to establish the schedule is in terms of popular support for the GOP candidate in the last election cycle. Let the most loyal GOP states see the whole field and perform the first winnowing, no the least loyal.

Joe D.| 10.10.11 @ 12:09PM

Base on your theory, let Texas, Ohio, Penn, Cal. and NY go first and leave the scraps for the rest of the states. And by the way, those 4 states will not diminish in any way Florida's 29 electoral votes. That is almost as many as the other 4 combined.

Brubaker| 10.10.11 @ 12:20PM

"only if one believes it is written on the heart of Man by the finger of God that the traditional four must go first."

That argument seems to miss the point. The issue isn't really about who goes first, but when. Florida has now moved its primary to January 31st. What happens when some other state wants to go first? Will they move to mid-January?

What about the next state? They will have to move into December. If this preposterous oneupmanship continues, we'll end up with primaries for the next election cycle being conducted right after the general elections.

SCM| 10.10.11 @ 12:35PM

How about having a lottery every four years to decide the order of the primaries? Then no state would have an "advantage" in the process. Of course, this would need to be policed by the national GOP, which is unlikely. Six months before the election year, the GOP would hold their lottery amid great fanfare. It could be a great event!

Keophus| 10.10.11 @ 1:53PM

SCM has it right. The order should be changed for every election. It is not fair that NH and Iowa have as much permanent influence on this as they do. This is the only way to stop the manuevering every presidential election.

A.M. Mallett| 10.10.11 @ 1:55PM

There is absolutely no justification for moving Florida's primary up. Iowa and NH are fast becoming irrelevant. If Florida decided to hold it on the same day as South Carolina, they would get a much bigger bang for the buck.
It would be much preferred by myself to eliminate all voting until March at the earliest.

TrueBlue| 10.11.11 @ 4:43PM

Iowa I can sort of understand wanting to be up in front, they are actually a swing state, and if they don't get up in front they get overshadowed by the larger states. NH on the other hand is solidly Democrat, it is ALREADY irrelevant. There is no point in wasting time in a state the GOP will never win.

NHrepublican| 10.12.11 @ 9:44PM

NH is not solid democrat. The GOP controls 2/3 of the House and Senate in the state legislature. The GOP also controls all the seats on the Executive Council and both Congressional seats. Obama has been polling here in the low 40s for a while now and odds are he will lose NH.

Drunken Sailor| 10.10.11 @ 2:04PM

I'm sure just about each state could make a argument for being first in line. Doing it alphabetically makes about as much sense as the process we are using now. I think SCM has the best answer so far. Make it a damn lottery, or base it on the percentage of voters that voted Republican in the previous similar election.

Beej| 10.10.11 @ 3:31PM

Florida gets the full rap for this mixing of campaigning and cranberry sauce only if one believes it is written on the heart of Man by the finger of God that the traditional four must go first.

Thank you. About time someone pointed that out.

PolishKnight| 10.10.11 @ 4:30PM

If they don't clean this up and wind up giving us another moderate, they'll have another "tradition": Losing easily winnable elections to marxists because Republicans stayed home rather than vote for RINO's.

InLineFour| 10.10.11 @ 9:27PM

Unfortunately, the Blue Blood, country club RINOs probably don't care, so long as they get re-elected and hang onto their little corners of power and their Ruling Class pedigree.

EricL| 10.10.11 @ 10:02PM

The establishment Republican party wants the RINOs up front, hence the threats against FL. They know FL has experienced a resurgence in conservatism amongst Republicans; they're afraid their democrat-lite candidate won't fare well in the primary there. The republican party needs to have a separate designation for conservative republican and democrat republicans.

POST American| 10.11.11 @ 9:42AM

------Great 'CALM---place--n--see' OP!

Now, putting the Rockefeller/Gore provocateured
Wall Street FAKE OP
----and the former Federal Reserve officer,
Herman Cain aside for a moment

WHEN are we going to get our first
article examining the nature and legacy
of INTER-national USURY and its
ON RECORD source links to Bolshevism,
EUGENICS, Nazism, Mao ---and, you guessed
it! ---

----our current Globalist RED China sellout
/TREASON and EUGENICS OP.?

-----------------------WHEN?------------------------