Changing The Primary Calendar? Forget It

Nevada Will Never Precede New Hampshire, No Matter What Democrats Want

(The Politico)  By The Politico's Roger Simon

---

Iowa, then Nevada, then New Hampshire. That's how the Democratic Party thinks the 2008 presidential campaign will begin and what the Democratic National Committee has commanded.

Message to the Democrats: Forget about it. Not gonna happen. The DNC's effort to rearrange the 2008 nominating calendar is effectively dead. Nevada will never go ahead of New Hampshire — not if New Hampshire has anything to say about it. And it does.

"It is not acceptable for Nevada to go before New Hampshire," Gov. John Lynch told me in a phone interview on Tuesday.

He added that "it is possible that we will see additional movement" by other states trying to muscle ahead of New Hampshire. But that won't be allowed either.

One person and one person alone has the authority to set the date of the New Hampshire primary: William M. Gardner, New Hampshire's secretary of state — or, as he is called in political circles, God.

Gardner will not allow Nevada to go first, no matter whether Nevada calls its contest a caucus, a primary or a ring-toss.

That is where the DNC miscalculated. I talked to a DNC source, who asked not to be identified, who said the DNC assumed that because Nevada was going to be a caucus, and since New Hampshire has always allowed the Iowa caucus to go first, New Hampshire would extend the same courtesy to Nevada.

It won't. New Hampshire law says its primary "shall be seven or more days ahead of any other state that has a similar election."

Yes, New Hampshire does allow Iowa to go eight days before it with a caucus, but that's because Iowa began its caucus before the New Hampshire law was written and New Hampshire "grandfathered" Iowa into the scheme of things.

But New Hampshire will not let Nevada or any other caucus or primary enjoy the same privilege.

In the DNC's alternate universe, the 2008 Democratic calendar (the Republicans are still deciding what to do) would begin with Iowa on Jan. 14, followed by Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 27.

But Gardner will move up the date of the New Hampshire primary to make sure it precedes Nevada's contest.

And some in New Hampshire don't care who Gardner hurts while doing it.

[consciousnes]

Tired is an understatement. What does it matter who does what first. Does New Hampshire think that they can control the way the country votes if they go first? It seems to me that it is a mighty small state to be telling the nation what to do.

[ov442]

This is just one more example of political grandstanding and the old "im better than you" separation of people in this country. Why in Gods name do they even give these id10ts a choice? just set the law in place federally and go in order by ratification of the constitution and then by entry into the Nation as states. Last state goes last. Which would be Hawaii i beleive, and ya know it kinda follows the time zones. Im really tired of hearing political machinations such as "if you dont do what i want, i'll do something to penalize you, cuz i have power!" when NOTHING they do has any reason for it except personal gratifications. Im sure half the population of any state involved in primaries could really give a cr@p what date they go, or who goes first.

[kaliveotin]

We need a nation primary plan which begins with the smallest states in the nation, say 13 of them, and then progresses to the largest states voting last. Five states together elect more than one fourth of all delegates, one fourth of the states choose three-fifths of all delegates.
The 13 smallest states ( a number equal to the original colonies ) elect less than 10% of all delegates. Lets start with them, then gradually advance to incrimentally larger states. Good Idea????? What do you think?

[feelfree1]

Re: "Changing The Primary Calendar? Forget It"

How about scrapping the primaries, and having only publicly funded independent candidates run on their own merrits?