Will Utah play a more prominent role in 2016 presidential primary?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • topofutpatriot Logan, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    The Utah Legislature can do what ever it chooses and Mr. Bramble can continue his fallacy idea of online elections. This decision of who goes first in the Presidential elections rests with the political parties.

    If Utah wants to have more influence in selecting the Republican Party candidate the Utah Republican Party would just need to have a Presidential Preference Caucus early in the primary season. The state could have its primary whenever the legislature chooses, however the delegate allocation to determine who is nominated at the National Convention is strictly in the purview of the political parties.

    My hope is that the Utah GOP will change its rules to include a presidential preference ballot to it's existing caucus and make it early in the process as possible without getting penalized as possible.

    Then Mr. Bramble and the legislature could have their "Beauty" contest if they choose to but the actual allocation of delegates to the national convention will be done by caucus. Utah would then have actual influence in the presidential election because of caucuses not primary elections.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 31, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    Here -- let me save you a lot of time and any speculations,
    I will predict who Utah will vote for in all future Presidential Primaries for the next 50 years....

    The person with the R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, ...

    About the most un-diverse, myopic, and disconnected with the rest of the Nation imaginable.

  • JD Las Vegas, NV
    March 30, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    It is embarrassing to even think about Utah's status in presidential elections. The last election, nearly every state saw a race that had Obama and Romney within a few percentage points of each other. Yet in Utah, the percentages were a joke, with Romney getting a higher percentage than in any other state by a large margin. It looks like Utah can't think for itself and everyone votes the same, as if the dominant religion of Utah demanded the voting bias. So back to the question of the article, will Utah play a role? NO, absolutely not, why would they. You can already give the electoral votes to the Republican party, it's a given. But luckily the other thing that is a given, is that if Hilary decides to run, it will be a landslide victory for our nation and for the Clintons. Yet once again, Utah will look foolish with some ridiculous percentage that is not a reflection of how the "real" world functions outside the sheltered borders of Utah. CLINTON 2016

  • bullet56 Olympia, WA
    March 30, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    Sheldon Adelson the Jewish Casino owning Billionaire from Las Vegas has more influence with his reported 93 million dollars of donations to the GOP. Then Utah will have to ask the Koch brothers what they want before voting anyway. GOP politics is ruled from the few above, not the masses below. Making the state the first to the elective process will not help.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 30, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Those who believe such fables also believe Jon Huntsman was a viable presidential candidate.
    Quaint and provincial, but not realistic.
    This move may perhaps open a national discussion regarding the folly of our primary process and the nonsense that a state can pass a law mandating that they are first. It might even help expose the folly of NH and IA.
    But this move will not bring the first primary to Utah.

  • XelaDave Salem, UT
    March 30, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    I would say Utah's role as a GOP ATM is perfect. It is a wonderful redistributive model of wealth whereby the Utah GOP facilitates candidates in contested congressional elections in several other states and helps pays for presidential politics in the 10 or so states that matter each presidential election cycle. Utah should be proud of its contributions and perhaps even find ways to send more cash to our needy friends across America

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    March 30, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Why not dhow a better way in education, health care, good jobs, etc. instead of being the first vote?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    March 30, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    In a word no. And won't anytime soon. IMVHO UT. is out of touch with the rest of the nation. Understands Math accurately explained why.

  • concretebo Sandy, UT
    March 30, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    Really , What's the point ? Utah is a Red state , total waste of time and conversation...
    Like two neighbors talking about the weather " looks like it might rain.."
    "Yup". Why not pass a bill and give Utah's electoral votes to the next GOP Candidate.
    That would be more realistic . The things we humans think up .

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    March 30, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    Understands Math understands.
    As long as Utah gives 60%-plus of its popular vote to the Republican candidate and as long as the Electoral College system is in place Utah will continue to be in the same position it is in now -- useful for raising money but that is all. Why should either candidate waste time and money coming to Utah other than to raise money? It does no good for the Democrat to campaign and the Republican doesn't need to.

    March 30, 2014 12:32 a.m.

    NO. Not in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 - maybe in 2032 but I am thinking…Nope.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    March 29, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    Utah voters will continue to play the role of adoring whomever the Republican Party serves up...

    Utah voters are used to that role and fulfill it rather well.

    Utah voters will continue to give the Republican Party their money and their vote...

    And continue to wonder why they are not taken seriously by Evangelical Christian Conservatives who could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon...

    If those Evangelical Christian Conservative voters had voted for Romney, instead of staying home in droves...

    Utah's favorite son would have been elected POTUS.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    March 29, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    Will Utah play a more prominent role in 2016 presidential primary? No. Not really.

    I could argue that Utah is demographically unrepresentative of the nation: that it represents little diversity in race (a fault shared by New Hampshire and Iowa), and possibly the greatest degree of religious uniformity in the nation.

    However, what really eliminates Utah's chances as a primary decider is its lack of political diversity. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the two major parties are virtually tied in party registration and party identification. Utah is virtually a one-party state.

    Let me put it this way: if you were one of the two major parties, you'd want your candidates to be chosen to be representative of your party as a whole, to maximize support from your party when the general election comes along, correct?

    Can anyone honestly believe that the Utah Republicans or the Utah Democrats are anything close to representative of the national parties?

    (Full disclosure: I am a former resident of Utah, and participated in party caucuses when I lived there.)