GOP hopefuls bypass Nevada

In a year with half a dozen challengers still in contention, Nevada’s “first in the West” GOP presidential caucuses were supposed to draw glad-handing candidates and their media retinues to the Silver State throughout the late fall and early winter. But Ron Paul and Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney won’t be touring Sparks or Henderson this week — or anytime soon, from all appearances.

Instead, they’re currently shaking hands at coffee shops and pizza joints in towns as small as Clarinda — population 5,301 — in the Hawkeye state of Iowa, while Nevada media invitations go unanswered. What happened?

Nevada’s GOP caucuses initially had been set for Feb. 18, but a scramble for earlier dates was launched when Florida announced it would seek more attention by holding a Jan. 31 primary, jumping ahead of four other states.

Mr. Romney — the former Massachusetts governor favored to win Nevada’s GOP caucuses this year, as he did in 2008 — reportedly had pressed state Republicans to also move their caucuses into January, in hopes he could maintain momentum coming out of his old neighboring state of New Hampshire.

So, in early October, local Republicans set Jan. 14 for their event — “a firm date for a caucus that will greatly improve Nevada’s standing and relevance in terms of national politics,” according to state GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian.

But it didn’t work out that way. The January date touched off a wave of controversy, including a threat by New Hampshire to move that state’s traditional first-in-the-nation primary back to December, and pledges from most GOP candidates to boycott the Nevada caucuses. Under pressure from the Republican National Committee — which spoke of stripping convention delegates from early states — Nevada Republicans relented, pushing their caucuses back to Feb. 4.

“With this decision Nevada will receive the attention it deserves,” Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who helped broker the change, said at the time. “And the national spotlight will focus clearly on the devastating effects that President Obama’s economic policies have had on the Silver State.”

All true, if by “the attention it deserves” Mr. Priebus meant “just about none,” and if by focusing the spotlight on Mr. Obama’s economic policies Mr. Priebus meant “a media frenzy attacking any Republican who dares challenge Mitt Romney.”

In fact, The Washington Post predicts the 2012 presidential election will come down to whether Barack Obama can hold nine swing states he carried in 2008 — including Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and yes, Nevada.

Although Iowa voters seldom choose the GOP winner, their early caucuses can serve to thin the pack. New Hampshire then scores about 50-50 in choosing the party’s standard-bearer, and a contender who sweeps South Carolina and Florida could have the nomination in hand by Groundhog Day.

But the calendar is not the only reason GOP candidates have been thin on the ground here. Nevada’s large Mormon population and laissez-faire traditions helped explain the one-two finish of Mr. Romney and Rep. Paul here four years ago. To the extent that a similar 2012 result is seen as a done deal, other challengers apparently have decided their time is better spent wolfing hot dogs in Concord and Cedar Rapids.

Nevada deserves better — and not just because it’s a critical battleground state. Our profound economic suffering makes Nevada the perfect place for GOP candidates to explain how their policies would spark job growth and a housing recovery. If the GOP candidates avoid Nevada, they risk conceding the state to President Obama. A Review-Journal poll shows the president leading all GOP contenders in Nevada.

Our loss could be their loss, too.