tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post2601509594484605896..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: With RNC Considering Tougher Penalties, Will Rogue States Call Their Bluff?Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-82921625306346961752011-08-04T09:18:37.690-04:002011-08-04T09:18:37.690-04:00This is an excellent additional point. Neither Bre...This is an excellent additional point. Neither Brewer nor Brian Kemp in Georgia are necessarily directly influenced by elites within the state parties that would be affected by this proposed rules change. That said, I think it is probably foolish to think that they are not getting input from those types of people. But still...<br /><br />As far as additional penalties that would actually tamp down on the type of attention these states are seeking, something similar to the Democrats' penalties might do the trick. In addition to the 50% penalty on states, the DNC penalizes any candidate who campaigns in a state defying the national party rules. Said candidate would receive no delegates from that state at the convention. The rules (Rule 20.C.1.b) are not clear on this, but the delegates that would have gone to that candidate are presumably left unpledged heading into the convention. <br /><br />It is a shame that we cannot observe whether that type of penalty is effective in 2012. It did keep the Democratic candidates out of Florida and Michigan in 2008. I suspect the RNC will strongly consider adopting a similar rule for 2016. Overall the key is that states want attention from the candidates and media and stripping delegates in no way (or at best in a limited way) affects that pursuit. Curbing attention is the key and penalizing candidates is the only way to seemingly address that.<br /><br />Great point, MP. Thanks.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-82847351948194902452011-08-04T06:15:13.300-04:002011-08-04T06:15:13.300-04:00I guess the relevant question is "Who is maki...I guess the relevant question is "Who is making the decisions in each state, and what are their incentives?" In the case of Jan Brewer in Arizona, why would she care about VIP guest passes and seating locations? Her reason for setting an early date is so that she personally can play kingmaker.<br /><br />She would presumably love to be in the same situation as Charlie Crist in January 2008 (as would every other governor in the country). Crist's endorsement of McCain was seen as crucial in Florida, and in the overall nominating process, and the fact that Florida had a 50% delegate penalty was irrelevant, because Florida was more important for generating momentum for McCain going forward than it was for its delegates.<br /><br />Thus, I would think that the only penalties that would really influence Brewer would be penalties that actually cause the candidates and the media to pay less attention to Arizona than they would if its primary was set at a later date. But is there anything that can do that other than a 100% delegate penalty?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.com