Should Republicans avoid a gubernatorial primary?
The Forum is a feature from PostOnPolitics.com that encourages political strategists and former elected officials to debate and discuss timely events and issues for the state, Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast. Readers are encouraged to participate, but must submit their comments for approval. Click here to find out more.
With Democrat Alex Sink announcing her campaign for governor, the attention now moves to Republicans Bill McCollum and Charles Bronson. Both plan to announce their intentions next week.
Several Republican heavies have aligned behind McCollum, saying his name is well-known and respected among voters. They say the party should focus its money and energy on defeating Sink and not risk damaging each other.
One Republican, Vern Buchanan, has already stepped aside. Now it’s up to Bronson.
“That’s a great debate: Is it better to have primaries or not have primaries?” McCollum said Wednesday. “I don’t know any candidate for office, including me in the past, who’s ever wanted to have a primary if they didn’t have to have one.”
Bill McCollum meet Charles Bronson:
“To get some of issues of the state really talked about I just felt like there needs to be a discussion there. And a primary is the best way to get that discussion out,” Bronson said moments earlier.
“I don’t know that will happen unless we can get a real race going that’s meaningful in this thing. I’ll wait until I finish up all my phone calls.”
So what do you think?
Is it better for the Republican Party of Florida if these two Cabinet officers compete in a primary, keep their names in the news and debate the critical issues facing the state? Or is the GOP’s only chance of beating Sink hoarding their money until 2010?
Loading ...
Tags: 2010 campaign season, Bill McCollum, Charles Bronson, Republican primaries
The Forum
May 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Having this discussion about 16 months before the primary, and more than a year out before the end of qualifying makes it a bit more difficult to anticipate where the Republican party is going to be in regards to the 2010 elections. Do I think it could be fun to watch the Republican Party’s candidates tearing themselves up in a primary, while the Democrats gather together early in support of one strong candidate? Yes. Is it something I can actually imagine happening? No.
Today’s forum is tossing out two names, Bronson and McCollum. The commentators on this forum already know what they like and dislike about both of these gentlemen. If I was going to vote in the Republican Primary I already know who I would vote for, and why. But we aren’t normal. A primary is a great way to help build name recognition for a candidate. It can also get messy and weaken a candidates ability to regain momentum and win. Lately the Republican Party hasn’t been so keen on obeying their 11th amendment, at least not as well as they used to, and with out that primaries are a game of Russian Roulette.
Avoiding a messy primary will enable any candidate to do better in the general election. But the Republican Party is at crossroads. It is struggling to define its identity. I think a primary will help the Republican Party define itself and the direction it is headed, and make the party stronger. The Republican Party’s strength has always been its ability to get its voters on message and out to vote. To keep winning they will have get everyone back on the same page, but first they have to agree what page that should be. A primary can do that.
I think that if a candidate, or a party loyalist, is committed to seeing a stronger Republican Party, then they should support having several strong candidates face each other in a primary. Or, they pick a side earlier, and that is the direction that the RPOF will have to head for the next 4-8 years.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Quickly, class, why are there “primary” elections?
A. to give voters a chance to select from more than one candidate?
B. to make newspapers, broadcast stations and the postal services richer with more paid advertising?
C. to give anyone a chance to run for office with or without party anointment?
D. to cull the rich from the poor who can afford primary and general election campaign costs?
Well, two answers (B/D) are a wee bit sarcastic albeit having some truth. The other two are supposedly linchpins of our American democratic (as in democracy) process.
Yes, I support competition. Competition helps voters make a more informed choice; competition makes candidates more clearly define their particular principles and mores.
Yes, there should be competition in not only this race, but in all races and in both major parties…to have less is to replace the principle of having the “best” person with “better” person elected. I don’t want “better”. I want the “best” for my state…and if the seemingly “best” is a front-runner or anointed individual, let s/he withstand the competition.
Which leads me to ask what, exactly, was the “good policy” reason why we did away with run-off elections in Florida?