Changing The Primary Calendar? Forget It

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

(The Politico) 
"I believe we should hold the New Hampshire primary the day after the Iowa caucus or on the Tuesday of the week before the Iowa caucus," New Hampshire State Rep. Jim Splaine, a Democrat from Portsmouth and author of the state's election law, told me in a phone interview. "We must protect the traditions of New Hampshire."

That would not please Iowa, which has its own laws and traditions and will always try to move its caucus to be eight days ahead of New Hampshire. New Hampshire has no problem with that, but some in Iowa now fear that in trying to fend off Nevada, New Hampshire will set a date so early that Iowa will be unable to get ahead of it.

Gordon Fischer, former head of the Iowa Democratic Party, is very worried about that possibility. "I don't like Nevada being in there, either," he said. "Everyone in Iowa politics is aware of Secretary Gardner's power. Once you break the historic link between New Hampshire and Iowa, you are asking for trouble, and trouble is what we are going to get."

The DNC was not trying to slap New Hampshire in the face with the new calendar, which it nonetheless did. It was trying to add states with minorities into the early mix, and 20 percent of Nevada's population is Hispanic.

"Which is fine," Fischer said, "but they should have added it after New Hampshire."

You might be wondering how Gardner can make sure his state is first. Can't other states just move ahead of New Hampshire after Gardner sets the date? Theoretically, yes, but not really.

Gardner just out-waits everybody. In 1995, he waited until Dec. 20 to announce the date of the 1996 New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire has got its primary down to a science and can move very quickly after Gardner sets the date. It is unlikely that any other state can wait as long, especially states planning to hold caucuses, which are more cumbersome to move than primaries.

A number of states, including California, Florida, Kansas and Nebraska, are preparing to move their primaries earlier in the calendar to attract the candidates and media attention that Iowa and New Hampshire get. But except for Nevada, nobody has dared take on New Hampshire. Not yet, anyway.

The DNC has established punishments for the states and candidates who violate its calendar, but they are toothless: The Democratic convention can change the rules any way it sees fit, but it is not likely to punish the nominee of the party or states that it needs to carry in the general election.

Besides, if by some miracle Nevada did move ahead of New Hampshire, the Democratic Party of New Hampshire could demand that candidates pledge not to campaign in Nevada and the candidates would probably have to comply.

Nevada is a wonderful state with wonderful people, and the candidates don't want to insult the voters there (or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was influential in getting Nevada moved up.) But no candidate can risk losing the Granite State.

When it comes to presidential politics, nobody messes with New Hampshire.

[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?