E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDES MOINES, Iowa—It’s finally official: The Iowa caucuses will be January 3rd at 8pm ET, the Iowa Republican Party announced tonight following a State Central Committee (SCC) conference call.
"On behalf of over 600,000 Iowa Republicans, I'm excited to announce the first step Iowans will have to replace Barack Obama and his failed presidency will be next January 3 at our First in the Nation Iowa Caucuses," IRP Chairman Matt Strawn said in a statement. "A January 3 date provides certainty to the voters, to our presidential candidates, and to the thousands of statewide volunteers who make the Caucus process a reflection of the very best of our representative democracy."
Typically Iowa waits to set the caucus date until the New Hampshire primary is set, but tonight, the committee voted unanimously to select the first available date in January for the caucus.
“We came to the conclusion that we definitely wanted to have a January start to the process,” State Central Committee member Wes Enos told NBC News. “Setting ourselves on the 3rd we feel protects the sanctity of our caucus and if NH is able to go in January will protect their primary as well because in order to jump the two early states, a state would have to move into December.”
Enos said the committee felt moving into the 2011 calendar year would “diminish the role” of Iowa in the election process and they wanted to stop “this game of leapfrog” by other states by setting the date as early in 2012 as possible.
Chairman Strawn blamed Florida and Nevada in his statement for causing this calendar chaos.
"I will do everything in my power on the RNC to hold Florida accountable for creating this mess, but the culpability for creating a compressed January calendar does not end there,” Strawn said. “The actions of early state newcomer Nevada have also exacerbated this problem and unnecessarily crowded the January calendar. Time remains for Nevada to respect the process, honor tradition and rectify the problem in a way that will restore order to the nomination calendar.”
Iowa's decision puts a kind of implicit pressure on New Hampshire to now act. The state has held out on declaring its primary date out of frustration toward the other states that usually follow New Hampshire for moving their contests up too early.
"That's not going to make me set the date any sooner," said New Hampshire Secretary of State Gardner. "I'm not going to set the date this week."
The game of primary musical chairs was prompted by Florida's decision to schedule its primary Jan. 31, by which they leapfrogged Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, which traditionally hold the first four nominating contests—in that order.
In reaction to Florida's move, South Carolina set its primary for Jan. 21, and Nevada to set its caucuses for Jan. 14.
Nevada's decision, in turn, angered New Hampshire officials, which worried that holding their state's first-in-the-nation primary between Iowa's then-tentative Jan. 3 date and Nevada's caucuses would sandwich New Hampshire in between, and essentially minimize the contest.
Unless Nevada pushes back its caucus, Gardner has threatened to schedule the Granite State's primary as early as Dec. 6. He said he's awaiting the outcome of a meeting in Nevada this weekend.
Candidates who share that worry—and who are trying hard to compete in New Hampshire—last week threatened to boycott Nevada's caucuses unless a satisfactory conclusion were reached. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman led the charge, going so far as to sit out a debate tomorrow night in Las Vegas in favor of holding a town hall in New Hampshire.
But the leading candidate in New Hampshire, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has signaled his intention to compete in both states. He opened his campaign headquarters Monday in Nevada, despite facing some minor pressure from New Hampshire supporters to join the Nevada boycott.
Updated at 10:05 p.m. NBC's Jo Ling Kent contributed from New Hampshire.
Leave a Comment:
What a game these states play. Since when can a law exist in a state that depends on what other states do? How ridiculous. Iowa and New Hampshire are small inconsequential states that get more attention than they deserve. They are dwarfed by New York, Florida, Texas and California and can't stand it so they have to throw fits like any 4 year old would do to get their way.
Hope the crazies spend all their money and take away all these minor states and then the big boys can start playing.
I dunno, Ana...it's not much sillier than all of the states trying to steal businesses from other states by offering them tax breaks and incentives. I wonder how much this insanity has contributed to the states' dinancial dilemma. Common sense says that they should at least all agree to stop that absurd pratice. As much as I prefer to keep DC out of the mix, a law prohibiting that would be appropriate. But of course, that would be anti-business. We can't dare do something that helps the citizens at the expense of businesses.
I think it is completely absurd that these primaries have gotten so far ahead of the general election. We now have ten months between the first primary and the general election. A lot can happen in that span of time that could effect who you want to vote for. The weight given to these relatively small states is also a little crazy. A poor showing in Iowa or NH can knock a prospective candidate out of the race before the larger states get a chance to have their say. This spread out primary process denies voters in later states the same choices as those who reside in the earlier ones. This is not the way democracy should work. All of the primaries should be scheduled close together so that all states have the same ability to influence the eventual nominee. As it is now, a small handful of states with a limited number of electoral votes are being allowed to narrow the field down to two or maybe three candidates before the rest of the nation even has a chance to speak. This is just wrong. Put all of the primaries in April at the earliest. Six months before the general election definitely gives the parties enough time to coalesce around their eventual nominee.
Do you even know where Iowa is?
I will be shocked if you do.
And as far as "Small and inconsequential" do you mean by population, land area, resources? You should be more specific.
Well, I don't know what you studied in school, but I had a geography class back in second grade. Everyone was required to know the States location on the map, the Capital for the State, the Governor's name, what type of industry existed in each State, farm products, the approximate State population, and the current party running the State. So I find it amazing that adults would not know where the State of Iowa is located.
Isn't it funny how politicians make the decision for holding the primary instead of letting the people in the State vote for the choice??? It's nothing more than immature, childish, one-up man-ship, not to mention the costly expense during hard economic times..
People and politicians don't care about the cost burden put on the tax payers.Look at how much we are spending in tax dollars on occupy wall street or the "non- campaign trip" Mr. Obama is on right now. It's good to know the Nazi party and the Comminist party is here to back the occupy wall street riots. It's really doing the left alot of good.
Hillary 20129( Hillary is coming)
I'm sure the people of those states would disagree with you. Careful, your hypocrisy is showing. Last I checked, they were still part of our Republic....Would it be more accurate to say if they dont live where you live, or agree with what you believe in, THEN they are inconsequential?
Anna alot of small incosequential states like Iowa are tired of sending thier tax dollars to liberal bankrupt states like, IL, CA, NY etc. Besides Iowa was also the state where the current idiot in chief got his start. Let us have our 15 minutes of fame....
Iowa sets it's Caucus date for Jan. 3rd. N.H. should set their date for Jan. 10th. The sooner this election is over next year, the better it'll be for all of us.
Yea, you know, I thought the same thing. I learned basic geography in 4th or 5th grade, and I know where all the states are. But I'm from Iowa. And the response I usually get is "Where is that?" I tell them its the state in the middle of the country with the side boob. It usually makes them go look at a map quickly.
Its true, and Iowa currently has a balanced budget. Fancy that.
Although, Obama got his political start in Illinois. Not Iowa.
Mandy,
Before throwing stones you better have your facts correct.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
Hate to quote Forrest Gump but if the shoe fits . .
wow Ana
A) I wasn't throwing anything
and
B) I'm not sure what taxes paid and taxes received has to do with anything in this conversation. Will you please explain why your data is even relevant?
SOLUTION:
The Parties set the calendar. Therefore, if any state moves their date, they forfeit their delegates at the convention.
The Parties have problems because the Parties ALLOW problems to go unchecked. Nip it in the bud.
I'm first . . . No I'm first . . . No I'm first . . . Whaaa . . . Whaaa . . . Whaaa . . .
The Iowa caucuses are commonly recognized as the first step in the U.S. presidential nomination process for both the Democratic and theRepublican Parties. They came to national attention in 1972 with a series of articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states choose their delegates for the national conventions. Democratic operative, Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of the George McGoverncampaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa. McGovern finished second to Edmund Muskie in the first early Iowa caucuses, but the momentum was sufficient for an ultimate Democratic nomination in 1972 for McGovern in Miami. Four years later, the Iowa Republican Party scheduled its party caucuses on the same date as the Democrats'.
In 1976, an uncommitted slate received the most support, followed by former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, who came in a distant second, but won the most votes of any actual candidate. With no dominant front runner at the time, Carter was able to use the publicity of his "win" to achieve victory in the New Hampshire primary, and then to win his party's nomination and eventually the Presidency. Since then, Presidential candidates have increased their focus on winning the Iowa caucus.
In 1980, Republicans began the tradition of holding a straw poll at their caucuses, giving the appearance of a primary election. George H. W. Bush campaigned extensively in Iowa, defeating Ronald Reagan, but ultimately failed to win the nomination.
While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting president or vice president, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time (see below).
When Iowa senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992, none of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President George H. W. Bush was unopposed on the Republican side.
While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not.Alaska and Hawaii generally have their caucuses before Iowa, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.
The caucuses are closely followed by the media and can be an important factor in determining who remains in the race and who drops out. However, the only non-incumbent candidates to win their party's caucus and go on to win the general election were George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. Neither Reagan nor Bill Clinton won prior to their first terms. No incumbent President has run opposed in his own party's caucus since Jimmy Carter in 1980.
In the months leading up to the 2004 caucus, predictions showed candidates Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean neck-and-neck for first place, with John Kerry and John Edwards far behind them. Negative campaign ads attacking each other by the two front runners soured the voters on them, and a last minute decision by Kerry to put all his remaining money in Iowa swung voters towards him. Gephardt's presidential hopes were dashed and Dean's badly battered, as Kerry went on to become the third non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire sinceEdmund Muskie in 1972 and Al Gore in 2000.
JRMJR2
Thanks for the background information on the Iowa caucuses. Very informative.
Sad to see that people will voted for any of these idiots. This is why we are becoming less of a power and more of a joke!
RE Dems
The Republican Primaries and Caucuses are fast approaching but the party seems to be in disarray. They want so bad to get the White House back but the problem I see is that they do not have an electable candidate. It is like they are conceding 2012 to the Democrats.
Well said. I would love to fire the current office holder, but I can't. The interest rate is near zero, and taxes are low for the rich, and what has that gotten us? Not much. Job growth is going no where. All the Republicans do is blame without a real plan. I voted for Reagan twice, and Daddy Bush. Now I am not so sure the current old line up is going to work.
Please don't cry on Nov 6th 2012.
This is getting so ridiculous. Who cares WHAT they think in Iowa? (And any place else for that matter). This process is all about hype, smoke and mirrors on both sides.
Considering that who wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, usually wins the election, its a pretty big deal to politicians. A poor outcome in those states usually means you are toast as far as running goes.
Oh Thank God! I can sleep tonight..
Im sure 2 and a half million people would be happy to hear they are inconsequential.
Since you may have been sleeping in civics, I'll crystallize for you.  Smaller states that would be traditionally unimportant because of their population can regain some of their importance by playing a bigger factor in the primaries, that is, the elections which determine who will be on the ballots for the almighty 2 parties, since god knows there could never be more than two.
Florida's record with presidential elections aside, without things like this to make smaller states more consequential, candidates will just pander to the morons in larger states, instead of having to spend time and resources pandering to the morons in smaller states.
The POTUS is the President of Iowa, too, not just the "relevant" states.
The primary date may not really matter this year, considering the candidates have already weeded themselves out pretty well. There is what, two maybe three serious candidates left? Far less than usual at this time.
#1.68 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:44 AM EDT
1. Capitalism damages nations due to International Finance, the economic dominance of Big Business, and a global conspiracy headed by a group of financiers who economically control, not just the U.S., but global commerce- and who are directly responsible for the current economic state.
No I do not disagree with the above statement NoJo. However, I would say that unregulated, unbridled, unfettered, lawless Capitalism is responsible for the corruption of the economic state. It is not a “free” market if capitalism and its safeguards (Glass-Steagal) are perverted to serve a small group of elites with the means to buy power and wield it to create a self-reinforcing, expanding system of wealth-siphoning instruments designed to concentrate wealth at the top,…..and keep it there, while insulating that wealth from recirculation and retrieval. Then capitalism becomes unnatural in a closed system.
Do a little research on the economic principles of the Nazis…..
Alright. The Nazis were avowed fascists, just like the modern republikan party. Fascism is defined as the merger of state and business. With fascism all moments not promoting and cultivating the interests of Big Business and the wealthy are deemed wasted. Sound familiar No Jo? “Corporations are people my friend.” – Willard Romney ®.
2. While private ownership of business is useful in encouraging creative competition and innovation, it must conform to national interests- it must be "productive" rather than "parasitical".
Industry in America no longer survives by “innovation”, or “creation”. Instead, industry operates by moving money around, M&A’s, and the offshoring of jobs once held by Americans. Just ask Dick Cheney. Call him at his Dubai office. This is what generates a lot of today’s business profits. Industries also operate by importing labor from overseas in the form of H1B Visa holders. Innovators, inventors and entrepreneurs like Henry Ford, or Andrew Carnegie would be aliens in this environment.
Current republikan business practices are for the privatization of business profit, and the socialization of business risk. The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, receives heavy annual subsidies from the U.S. government for drug R & D. A $787 Billion bank bailout was approved by George Bush’s pen just before he left office. Yet you people screamed like banshees when the car companies received a “loan”.
The OWS movement is all about the business/banking apparatus serving the people instead of wealthy and powerful interests. That’s why they’re there, and there’s the difference: OWS wants to empower people, not corporations.
And, 3, this quote- ". . .today's capitalistic system causes the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance. . ."
Doing “a little research on the Nazi Party and its principles” I came across the name of an American businessman who did business with Hitler’s regime. His name was Prescott Walker Bush, and if that surname sounds familiar it ought to. Grand Daddy Bush apparently liked the cut of Hitler’s jib enough to do business with him.
You know how much I like these little chats we have NoJo.
"I will do everything in my power on the RNC to hold Florida accountable for creating this mess, but the culpability for creating a compressed January calendar does not end there,”
===============
Why? You guys are the big Constitutionalist, correct? Where in the Constitution does it state that Iowa must be first or that any other State doesn't have the right to move it's Primary caledar etc.
Please provide links to the Founding Father's documents supporting this.
Thanks in advance.
you know truth too tell we do not really give a fly f who is first for the most part. We just do not enjoy being treated like we are nothing compared to (THE BIG STATES) you know Iowa is a lot more than farmers and corn fields. we contribute a great deal to the nation. And just because we are not new york or L.A. or chicago does not Mean we are beneath those that live in those city's
State Primaries have nothing to do with the US Constitution and there are no founder father documents to support this since Iowa was not a state at the time. State primaries are held by the states not the federal government.
No links provided since any tool can "google" it for them selfs.
Everyone wants to be the first state to be able to vote to get Mr. Obama and his administration of misfits out of office.
You're such a dufus. Name 5 things you don't have and link them directly to policies enacted via Executive Order and/or written by the Congress and signed into law by the Administration.
yeah like the G.O.P (Greed Over People) are much better lets see should we pick
the liar (sarah
the idiot the failed pizza guy (cain
the Texas racist (perry
the flip flopper (romney
the let them die if the don't have insurance guy (paul
or the guy that has only 3 people support in Iowa (huntsman
oh and let not forget the guy the is named after a sexual illness (santorum (look it up)
oh I did forget the lieing moron ( bachmann
TruthWillBeTold2u
The Obama administration has had remarkable success in the arena foreign policy. I couldn't believe seeing signs on the Arab street saying "Thank you President Obama" and "Yes we can!" after the dicator Mubarak succumbed to the Arab Spring protests. Who could have imagined a pro-American sentiment popping up in that part of the world? And Qaddafy is on the run...amazing. America's number one and number two enemies are dead...that is good news. To kick a guy out of office whose administration has had such success would be weird. Very weird.
You forgot hair boy (Trump the Idiot) who couldn't even win a fight with Rosie O'Donnell!
it must be due to the fact thinking about trump (shivers at the name) scares the hell out of Me I think it is the hair I live in fear it may eat new york. I could see the news article now "TRUMPS HAIR DEVOURS EASTERN QUEENS"
Hey tool, you do know sarah is not running, right?
And any one on your list would and will do a better job than the id10t we now have occupying the oval office.
So I guess we are going to see an avalanche, a tidal wave of jobs from these same laggards that are routinely voting no on everything up to now?
Speaking of which, where are the jobs? Where are the damn jobs? All hat and no cattle, just like their hero, Party Boy Bush.
This is the question Americans keep asking the divider in chief but the only bills he can come up with is a payback to the public unions. WHERE ARE THE PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? WHERE ARE THE DAMN PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS?
Who cares.
It duzn't matter if the "repubic-hairs" start they're primarys next week. The WILL NOT beat President Obama in 2012!