Republicans subtly audition for 2016 election

OXON HILL, Md. — OXON HILL, Md. Only months after President Barack Obama's re-election, an annual gathering of conservatives served as an audition for Republicans looking to court conservative activists and raise their profile ahead of what could be a crowded Republican presidential field in 2016.

It may seem early, but the die-hard activists who attended the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference are already picking their favorites for 2016.

And conservative activists have given Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul a narrow win in a unscientific but symbolic presidential preference poll.

Paul won with 25 percent of the vote, just ahead of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 23 percent.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was third with 8 percent.

The victory offers little more than bragging rights for Paul, who is popular with the younger generation of libertarian-minded conservatives who packed the conference in suburban Washington.

Nearly 3,000 people participated in the online poll, and more than half were younger than 26.

Several high-profile Republicans have injected their prescriptions for the future of the wayward Republican Party, which suffered major losses in last November's election.

After telling The Associated Press that a presidential run is "an option," first-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker thrilled activists Saturday by declaring: "In America, we believe in the people and not in the government."

Rubio drew thunderous applause by proclaiming that the Republican Party doesn't need any new ideas: "There is an idea. The idea is called America, and it still works," he said in a speech aimed squarely at middle-class voters.

Paul called for a new direction in Republican politics: "The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, perhaps the highest-profile establishment figure as the son and brother of presidents, pushed for a more tolerant party in a Friday night speech.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Legal Battles on Voting May Prove a Critical Issue in Election

In the last few weeks, nearly a dozen decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots and voter identification requirements have driven the rules in conflicting directions, some favoring Republicans demanding that voters show more identification to guard against fraud and others backing Democrats who want to make voting as easy as possible.

The most closely watched cases — in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — will see court arguments again this week, with the Ohio dispute possibly headed for a request for emergency review by the Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin, the home state of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the attorney general has just appealed to the State Supreme Court on an emergency basis to review two rulings barring its voter ID law. But even if all such cases are settled before Nov. 6 — there are others in Florida, Iowa and South Carolina — any truly tight race will most likely generate post-election litigation that could delay the final result.

“In any of these states there is the potential for disaster,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election.”

In the 2000 presidential election, a deadlock over ballot design and tallying in parts of Florida led the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, to stop a recount of ballots, which led to George W. Bush defeating Al Gore. Since then, both parties have focused on voting procedures.

The Obama campaign, for example, brought suit in Ohio over its reduction of early voting weekends used more by blacks than other groups.

Republicans have expressed concern over what they call voter integrity. They say they fear that registration drives by liberal and community groups have bloated voter rolls with the dead and the undocumented and have created loose monitoring of who votes and low public confidence in the system. They have instituted voter identification rules, cut back on early voting and sought to purge voter lists by comparing them with others, including those of the Department of Homeland Security.

Judicial Watch, a conservative organization aimed at reducing voter fraud, says it has found that voter rolls last year in 12 states seemed to contain an ineligible number of voting-age residents when compared with 2010 census data. It is suing both Indiana and Ohio for failing to clean up their rolls in keeping with their obligations under the National Voter Registration Act.

Democrats worry about what they call voter suppression. They say that voter fraud is largely a myth and that the goal of the Republican-led laws and lawsuits is to reduce voting by minorities, the poor and the young, who tend to vote more for Democrats.

At the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina on Thursday, Representative John Lewis of Georgia expressed his party’s view on voter-related Republican-led laws when he compared them to poll taxes and literacy tests used to prevent blacks from voting in an earlier era.

“Today, it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting,” he said. “They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote.”

Courts have taken a mixed view of the two sides’ claims. Voter ID laws have been both upheld as fair and struck down as discriminatory. In Pennsylvania, a state judge upheld the voter ID law, and the State Supreme Court will hear appeal arguments on Thursday.

Elsewhere recently, Democrats have won more than they have lost, but appeals are forthcoming. A federal court agreed with the Justice Department that Texas’ voter ID law was discriminatory and also struck down the state’s curtailment of voter registration; in Ohio, early voting has been restored and rules restricting voter registration drives have been struck down. The Ohio case is under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under expedited review. Texas will also appeal but not in time to affect this election. A Justice Department challenge to South Carolina’s voter ID law is in federal court.

In Florida, a federal court ruled last month that a year-old state law that reduced the number of early voting days to 8 from 12 could not be enforced in 5 of the 67 counties that are covered under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the court suggested that extending the hours of voting over the eight-day period in those five counties would satisfy the federal requirements. Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, was able to persuade election officials in four of the counties to extend their daily hours, but the supervisor of elections in Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys, refused, saying that the county would maintain an early voting period of 12 days.

One issue that is likely to lead to lawsuits after Election Day is that of provisional ballots. Under federal law, anyone whose identity or voting precinct is in doubt can ask for a provisional ballot at any polling station and then has a number of days to return with the required documentation to make that vote count.

Lizette Alvarez contributed reporting.

View the original article here

A Détente Before the Election

Does voter fraud sometimes happen in the United States? You bet.  But we are dealing with this relatively small problem in an irrational and partisan way.

In a 1996 primary in Dodge County, Ga., rival camps for county commissioner set up tables at opposite ends of the county courthouse and bid for voters’ absentee votes in what a county magistrate later called a “flea market” atmosphere.

Recently, officials in Cudahy, Calif., admitted intercepting absentee ballots and throwing out ballots not cast for incumbents. Every year we see convictions for absentee ballot fraud. Not a lot, but enough to know it’s a problem.

So you might think that Republicans, newly obsessed with voter fraud, would call for eliminating absentee ballots, or at least requiring that voters who use them show some need, like a medical condition. But Republicans don’t talk much about reining in absentee ballots. Eliminating them would inconvenience some voters and would likely cut back on voting by loyal Republican voters, especially elderly and military voters.

If only Republicans would apply that same logic to voter-identification laws. The only kind of fraud such ID laws prevent is impersonation: a person registered under a false name or claiming to be someone else on the voter rolls.

I have not found a single election over the last few decades in which impersonation fraud had the slightest chance of changing an election outcome — unlike absentee-ballot fraud, which changes election outcomes regularly. (Let’s face it: impersonation fraud is an exceedingly dumb way to try to steal an election.)

Pointing to a few isolated cases of impersonation fraud does not prove that a state identification requirement makes sense. As with restrictions on absentee ballots, we need to weigh the costs of imposing barriers on the right to vote against the benefits of fraud protection.

Consider Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law, now before the courts. The state conceded that it knew of no instances of impersonation fraud. A top election official did not know how the law worked and played down official estimates that more than 750,000 Pennsylvania voters lacked photo ID, and that an additional 500,000 appeared to have expired ID’s. The law gives dangerous discretion to local officials to decide which ID’s should be acceptable.

Pennsylvania is a symptom of a partisan system gone wild. Republicans say they want to get rid of fraud, but they want to get rid of only some kinds — using remedies that are likely to at least modestly depress Democratic turnout.

A series about the complexities of voters and voting.

While Republicans have been more to blame than Democrats, partisanship runs both ways. Democrats reflexively oppose efforts to deal with ineligible voters casting ballots, likely out of fear that the new requirements will make it harder for casual voters supporting Democrats to cast a ballot. They have adamantly opposed the efforts of Florida and other states where Republican election officials want to remove noncitizens from the voting rolls. Noncitizen voting is a real, if small, problem: a Congressional investigation found that some noncitizens voted in the close 1996 House race in California between Robert K. Dornan, a Republican, and Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, but not enough to affect the outcome. Unlike impersonation fraud, noncitizen voting cannot be dismissed as a Republican fantasy.

We need to move beyond these voting wars by creating a neutral body to run federal elections and to ensure that all eligible voters, and only eligible voters, can cast a vote that will be accurately counted on Election Day. The agency could start with a program to register all eligible voters and provide a free national voter ID card with an optional thumbprint to prove identity.

But we are very far from such a comprehensive solution. Congress took a baby step toward uniformity in 2002 when it created the Election Assistance Commission to advise states. But the commission was hobbled from the start by inadequate financing and opposition from some state officials. Today, three months before the election, all four of its seats are vacant.

Sadly, broader bipartisan compromise appears unlikely. Short of a grand solution, we need a moratorium on additional partisan changes to election rules that cannot be implemented before November without a significant risk of disenfranchisement. The courts should put Pennsylvania’s law on hold, and Florida should hold off on its plan to remove noncitizens until the off-season. Purging the rolls now risks removing many more eligible citizens than noncitizens.

Almost a dozen years after the Florida meltdown, partisan attempts at manipulation of election rules have become more entrenched and sophisticated. Things will have to get even worse before they get better.

Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of “The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown.”

View the original article here

Wisconsin voters keep Walker after recall election

PEWAUKEE, Wis. – The political themes in Wisconsin turned from divisive and contentious to healing and concensus after state voters decided to keep their embattled Republican governor, whose drive to end collective-bargaining rights for most state workers resulted in a caustic recall campaign.

By Darren Hauck, AP

In heavy voting, Gov. Scott Walker turned back the challenge from Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker had defeated Barrett in the 2010 election.

By Darren Hauck, AP

In heavy voting, Gov. Scott Walker turned back the challenge from Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker had defeated Barrett in the 2010 election.

In heavy voting, Gov. Scott Walker drew 53% of the vote to Democratic challenger Tom Barrett's 46% in Tuesday's recall election. The results were a virtual reprise of the 2010 election, when Walker defeated Barrett, Milwaukee's mayor, 52%-46%.

"Bringing our state together will take some time, but I hope to start right away," Walker said in a victory speech. "It is time to put our differences aside and figure out ways that we can move Wisconsin forward."

Barrett conceded in a telephone call to Walker. "Now we must look to the future," he said. "We are a state that has been deeply divided. And it is up to all of us, their side and our side, to listen to each other and to try to do what's right for everyone in this state."

The race was closely watched nationally for clues about fallout for other elected officials who cut workers' benefits to ease crunched budgets. There also could be implications in the presidential race between President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney in a state with 10 electoral votes that both would like to win.

By Tom Lynn, Getty Images

Tom Barrett speaks with members of the media after voting in Milwaukee on Tuesday.

Romney issued a statement saying Walker's victory "will echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin."

Walker "has shown that citizens and taxpayers can fight back — and prevail — against the runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses," Romney said. "Tonight voters said no to the tired, liberal ideas of yesterday, and yes to fiscal responsibility and a new direction."

Charles Lipson, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, said Walker's win is "a big deal" because "it squashes the Democrats in the most important by-election of the year."

The results also suggest "suggest that Republican and moderate Democratic governors can retain voter support even if they take on public-sector unions - and perhaps because they take on public-sector unions."

Lipson said Wisconsin's results spell "big trouble for unions," which have already lost power in private industry. He also believes some unions will blame Obama for the loss.

"The unions would rather keep Obama than deal with Romney, but the fizz has gone out of that champagne," he said.

Walker's win "suggests that Wisconsin's in play" in the presidential race, said Barry Burden, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist. "This is a state that's competitive."

Other analysts said Walker and the state's Republican Party will be strengthened after winning the rematch with Barrett.

"He's empowered and emboldened" after withstanding the Democrats' efforts to recall him, said Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

"He withstood as much heavy artillery as any governor could," said Brandon Scholz, a Republican lobbyist and strategist based in Madison. Other elected officials, he said, "will take that lesson and apply it in their state" with austerity proposals.

"People are going to realize the presidential race and U.S. Senate race and the Legislature are up for grabs," says Paul Maslin, a Madison-based Democratic pollster.

The recall election was the culmination of a bitter battle that began in February 2011, when Walker announced his plan to erase a $137 million budget shortfall in part by requiring state workers to give up collective-bargaining rights and pay more for health insurance and pension benefits.

Recalls of four Republican state senators also were on Tuesday's ballot. The results in those races could shift control of the Senate, which is now divided 16-16.

Walker's proposals triggered massive protests in the state Capitol in Madison and prompted 14 Democratic state senators to leave the state for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to prevent passage of Walker's legislation. He signed it into law in March 2011.

Before the vote, the state's sharp divide was evident in the Democratic stronghold of Madison. The house across from the governor's official residence displayed a "We Stand With Scott Walker" sign. The house two doors down: "Tom Barrett for Governor."

"Unfortunately, Wisconsin has become in some ways a microcosm of the partisan wars that have been raging nationally," said Dolan, the political scientist.

Regardless of the election outcome, she said, it will take time for the state to recover from the divisive debate and revive bipartisan spirit in the Legislature. "We really are at a place of sort of paralysis," Dolan said.

The amount of out-of-state money flowing to the campaigns here and the appearances of high-profile supporters of Walker and Barrett were evidence of the race's national overtones. More than $62 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. Much of the $30 million raised by Walker came from outside the state. Barrett has spent about $4 million; most of his donors live in Wisconsin.

Former president Bill Clinton campaigned with Barrett, and fellow Republican governors Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana appeared with Walker.

No Republican presidential candidate has won Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Obama defeated Republican John McCain here in 2008, 56%-42%.

Scholz, the Republican strategist, saw Walker's victory as "a significant blow" weakening the clout of the labor unions that provide campaign cash and infrastructure for Democratic presidential candidates.

Dolan cautioned against reading too many presidential implications into Wisconsin's political fight. "Will Obama's chance of winning Wisconsin be made harder if Walker wins? Sure, maybe a little," she said. "But what's going on here is so episodic and so idiosyncratic."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

South Carolina Primary Election Quotes (ContributorNetwork)

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina presidential preference primary in dramatic fashion. In the week leading to the election, the supposed front-runner was Mitt Romney. Then Gingrich surged ahead and won more than 40 percent of the vote in the Palmetto State. The New York Times reports Gingrich had 40 percent of the vote and 23 delegates.

Here's are quotes from the four major candidates on the night of the South Carolina primary.

* "We want to run not a Republican campaign, we want to run an American campaign because we are optimistic about the future because America has always been optimistic about the future. If we unleash the American people, we can rebuild the America that we love." -- Newt Gingrich, giving his victory speech in South Carolina. Politico reports his tone was much different than after the Iowa caucus. Gingrich graciously accepted the speeches of the other three candidates.

* "In recent weeks, the choice within our party has also come into stark focus. President Obama has no experience running a business and running a state. Our party can't be led to victory by someone who also has ever led a business and never run a state. Our campaign will be about the businesses I helped start, not the bills I tried to pass. Our president has divided the nation, engaged in class warfare, and attacked the free enterprise system that has made America the envy of the world. We cannot defeat that president with a candidate that has joined in that very assault on free enterprise." -- Mitt Romney in his concession speech, according to CBS News . He was attacking Gingrich's credentials for being president as well as Obama's work at the White House. Romney came in second in South Carolina after finishing first in New Hampshire.

* "Three states, three winners, what a great country. Let me assure you, we will go to Florida, and then to Arizona, and Colorado, and.... It's a wide open race!" -- Rick Santorum on his future plans, according to ABC News . Florida is the next primary election on Jan. 31. Santorum came in third in South Carolina after winning the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3.

* "This is the beginning of a long, hard job. We will continue to do this. There's no doubt about it. In the beginning, I thought it would just be promotion of a cause. Then it dawned on me, when you win elections and you win delegates, that's the way you promote a cause." -- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on his future plans for the GOP nominating process. Politico reports he finished fourth in South Carolina, the only one of the mainstream candidates who hasn't won a primary contest yet.

View the original article here

Presidential election: Mitt Romney top GOP fundraiser, but behind 2007 pace (The Christian Science Monitor)

Washington – So far, Mitt Romney is the champion Republican fundraiser of the 2012 presidential cycle. On Wednesday, he reported raising $18.25 million in the second quarter of 2011 – all of it for the primaries – with $12.6 million in cash on hand. That’s far more than any other GOP candidate in the field raised, of the numbers released to date.

“Voters are responding to Mitt Romney’s message that President Obama’s policies have failed and that we need new leadership in Washington,” Romney finance chair Spencer Zwick said in a statement. “Our fundraising for the second quarter represents the strong support Mitt Romney has across the country.”

Indeed, Romney’s second-quarter take solidifies his position as the early frontrunner for the GOP nomination. But he failed to match his second quarter fundraising total from his last presidential run in 2007, when he brought in $23.5 million. That figure included $2.5 million of personal funds. This time, he has yet to self-fund. So the real apples-to apples comparison is $18.25 million versus $21 million.

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

Why the decline? The down economy is certainly a factor, political analysts say. But there’s also still a sense that the field is unsettled. Texas Gov. Rick Perry still might jump in. And with so many other competitors, donors could be hanging back to see who develops momentum heading into early caucuses and primaries.

“There’s money on the sidelines,” says Ford O’Connell, chairman of the conservative Civic Forum PAC. “It’ s not necessarily for Governor Perry as much as it is for backing a winner who can go all the way.”

Mr. O’Connell also points out that an independent “Super PAC,” Restore Our Future, founded by former Romney political aides, raised $12 million in the first six months of 2011. The group, whose goal is to help Romney win the presidency, can raise unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals, but must report those donors to the Federal Election Commission.

Romney is also garnering attention for holding a $2,500-per-person fundraiser in London on Wednesday. American citizens and green-card holders are also eligible to donate.

Some presidential candidates have yet to put out their second quarter 2011 fundraising numbers, including: former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and President Obama. Congresswoman Bachmann has been a stellar fundraiser in the House, but she was a presidential candidate for less than three weeks of the quarter. Mr. Obama’s campaign predicts a second-quarter total of $60 million, to be shared with the Democratic National Committee. The reporting deadline for second quarter fundraising is July 15.

Here are the totals reported by other candidates:

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas: $4.5 million. Second only to Romney, Congressman Paul’s take reflects the depth of passion among his supporters.

Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota: $4.2 million. That figure is not outstanding for a candidate who started early and is thought to have top-tier potential, but it’s enough to keep going, analysts say.

Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah: $4.1 million. That total includes personal money he loaned the campaign. He joined the race only on June 21.

Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza: $2.5 million, including some “modest seed money” of his own, his campaign reports.

Newt Gingrich, former House speaker: $2 million. But he has only $225,000 in the bank, and debt of about $1 million, according to news reports.

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

View the original article here

Illinois governor signs election law favoring Democrats (Reuters)

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Illinois Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed into law on Friday a new congressional district map that could reverse gains Republicans made in the state in 2010 midterm elections.

Democrats were able to leverage their control of the General Assembly and a Democratic governor to approve a new election map for 2012 that analysts said could help Democrats win at least three more congressional seats in the state.

The effects of the law, which Republicans or third-party interest groups may challenge in court, would be to pit strong Republicans against each other, extend Chicago Democratic incumbent districts into suburban Republican districts, and incorporate new voter blocs into Republican strongholds.

Quinn denied that the redistricting was a partisan ploy by Democrats.

"This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities," Quinn said.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady differed.

"This bill is a crass, partisan political move to silence the voices of Illinoisans, who last November made it very clear that they wanted to fire Nancy Pelosi by electing a majority Republican Congressional Delegation from the home state of President Obama," Brady said.

The Illinois Republican Party's lawyers will review the maps to see if any state or federal laws have been broken, said Jonathan Blessing, a party spokesman.

In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans picked up 60 House seats nationally, knocking Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi from power and putting Republicans in charge of House committees. It was the biggest shift in power in the House since Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948.

But Democratic analysts believe Illinois and California, where Democrats are still in power at the state level, are their best chances to gain back seats in 2012 through redistricting.

Republicans in power in most of the Midwest and South are drawing maps in those states seeking to protect new Republican members of Congress elected in 2010.

In Illinois, Republicans picked up four seats in 2010 to hold an overall edge of 11 to 8 in the state's congressional delegation. They also kept control of the wealthy North Shore suburban Chicago district vacated by Republican Mark Kirk's successful Senate bid.

Illinois will lose one of its 19 congressional seats due to slow population growth relative to other states, according to the federal census.

Andy Shaw, President of the Better Government Association, said the Illinois map was partisan politics as usual.

"Most of Quinn's adult life was spent in opposition to this blatant political manipulation of the system," Shaw told Reuters. "His willingness to sign the bill without any changes is another indication that he has had to abandon many of his progressive principles to be able to deal with the political realities of Springfield (the state capital)," he said.

(Editing by Greg McCune)

View the original article here

Mark Amodei gets Republican nomination for Nevada special election (Daily Caller)

The Republican Party of Nevada on Saturday picked Mark Amodei to be their nominee in the special election in Congressional District 2.

In a vote by the Nevada GOP Central Committee, Amodei won on the first ballot with 221 votes. The other two candidates nominated by the Central Committee, Commander Kirk Lippold and Greg Brower, got 56 and 46 votes, respectively.

Until recently, Amodei served as the chairman of the Nevada GOP; his replacement will be elected in a later vote on Saturday. He is also a former Nevada state senator.

The choice is not necessarily final, however. A Nevada Supreme Court hearing later in June could overturn the lower court’s decision that gave the central committees of each party the power to choose a nominee, in which case the election would return to a free-for-all in which any candidate who wished could enter.

Brower has said he will drop out of the race now and not continue to campaign, pending a court decision, in the interest of uniting the party behind a single candidate. Lippold, who announced that he would run for the seat in 2012, before the vacancy was even announced, has said he will continue to run until the court makes a decision, and that he will still run for the seat in 2012.

A source involved in one of the campaigns explained that Lippold’s insistence that he would not drop out of the race if he was not nominated by the Central Committee lost him a number of votes over the past five days for “not being a good Republican” and helping the party coalesce behind a single candidate.

(Nevada judge rules in favor of Republicans on special election rules)

In a statement, Lippold called his performance in the Central Committee election a “victory.”

“As someone who has not spent years entrenched inside the political system in Nevada, I am extremely encouraged, and more energized than ever by the level of support I have received from people throughout the district,” Lippold said. “My message of conservative leadership and putting an end to business as usual politics has clearly resonated.”

Philip Stutts, a strategist for Lippold’s campaign, was even more blunt.

“This is the craziest election scenario. We went from planning a June 2012 primary, to a September 2011 primary, to a 26-day primary in which the frontrunner had already been elected by this body, and Greg Brower had spent 13 years building relationships with republican party insiders,” Stutts said.

“Mark Amodei has already been elected state body chairman,” he said, and given that scenario, they had not expected a win. The Central Committee vote, he said, was about figuring out, “could we even be competitive for second place. And we were, against a guy who’s been in politics for 13 years in the state. We’re excited, we’re encouraged, and we plan to run again.”

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Bristol Palin lost virginity during drunken moment

Olbermann tells NY Times writer to switch seats with him so he can be in camera shot at Yankee's game

Mark Amodei gets Republican nomination for Nevada special election

Redistricting could mean trouble for Michigan Dems

Major Garrett critical of 2012 Bachmann bid because 'she can't keep anybody on her staff'

View the original article here