No one knows yet who’ll fill Terry McAuliffe’s shoes at the DNC, but whoever it is, he or she is going to have deal with the party’s primary calendar. It won’t be fun.
Michigan has making noises for years about moving its primary up to compete with Iowa and New Hampshire, while the District of Columbia held a “nonbinding” primary a week before Iowa’s caucuses this year. Now, Pennsylvania is making its move.
The late spring date for Pennsylvania’s presidential primary effectively eliminates the fifth-biggest electoral state from the nominating process, Gov. Rendell said yesterday in announcing the formation of a task force to study the timing of the primary and other election issues.
Rendell, reviving a proposal that has cropped up often over the years but has failed to gain any traction, said he would like to move the state’s presidential primary from late April to late January or early February.
“Pennsylvanians are deprived of their rightful place in the selection of a nominee because of the lateness of the primary,” Rendell said at a news conference.
Rendell’s task force will also deal with related campaign and election issues — early voting, absentee ballot deadlines, etc. — but the primary date is the one that’s going to cause some heartburn.
I think I understand Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s argument. They believe their historic role in the process leads to uniquely well-informed voters who are best able to weigh the strengths of the candidates. More recently, as Dem support in rural areas has slipped badly, Iowa and New Hampshire, neither of which have major urban areas, say they can help identify Dem presidential candidates who can connect with voters the party needs to reach most.
Whether one buys these arguments or not (I’m rather skeptical of both), the competition for these early voting slots has been simmering and will soon reach a boil. Iowa and New Hampshire have held control — some would call it a monopoly — of the process for decades and other states want a shot.
Pennsylvania’s argument is as good as any.
Twenty-six other states have primaries before Pennsylvania’s is held.
Pollster and political science professor G. Terry Madonna agrees that Pennsylvania should play a bigger role in the primaries. He said the state has not had an impact on the selection of the nominees since 1988, when the Super Tuesday voting bloc started.
“We’re one of three key states in the general election, and we have no voice in the primary process,” he said.
Now is also the ideal time to consider calendar changes. When a presidential campaign is pending, candidates who want support in Iowa and New Hampshire are anxious to fight to keep their role as the first two. (Lieberman joked during a candidate’s forum in January, “I swear to God to fight to the death to protect the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire Democratic primary.” I think he was kidding.)
At this point, the election is far away, we hardly have a hint of likely candidates, and there’s no better time to have an honest discussion about the nominating process.