RNC likely to keep 2012 primary calendar rules intact for 2016

[Mr. Morden]

Nothing is official until the summer convention in Tampa, but at the RNC state chairman's meeting this week, the party provisionally rejected efforts to make further changes to the primary calendar rules for 2016, thus largely keeping the 2012 calendar rules intact for now:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75368.html

So we could very easily end up with a 2016 primary calendar that (at least on the Republican side) operates under very similar rules to the 2012 calendar, including the same dates on which states are allowed to vote without sanctions, the same rules on proportionality, and the same carve-out for IA, NH, SC, and NV.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I think in retrospect the long primary did not hurt Romney and may have helped him- he is doing fine in polls and consolidating the GOP vote. This may not be a bad move

[argentarius]

I think in retrospect the long primary did not hurt Romney and may have helped him- he is doing fine in polls and consolidating the GOP vote. This may not be a bad move

If the field wasn't so weak no one would have it wrapped up before Texas, New York, New Jersey and California.

[Averroës Nix]

In my opinion, it's too early to assess how the primary campaign has affected Romney's chances. My guess is that it's done nothing to harm his standing among Republicans, though it's probably hurt him a bit among independents (but not to the extent that some Democrats had been crowing about until recently).

It's also difficult to predict how these rules will operate on a different electoral landscape with a field of candidates that (probably) differs significantly from what we saw in 2012. Leaving the rules as they are does guarantee that political actors will know them better and find it easier to manipulate them. And in my opinion, a little pro-establishment bias is a good thing for the GOP.