New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status takes a hit

March 13, 2006

The drive to revise the Dems’ presidential nominating process is nearing completion and the big loser, at this point, appears to be New Hampshire. Iowa will still be the first caucus state, and New Hampshire will still have the first primary, but the twist is what will happen in between.

The Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday dealt a blow to New Hampshire Democrats hoping to keep their coveted place in the presidential nominating schedule, agreeing by voice vote to a plan that would place one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14, 2008, and the New Hampshire primary eight days later.

The proposal, which grew from recommendations by a commission studying how to make the nominating process more diverse both racially and geographically, would also add one or two primaries after the New Hampshire contest but before Feb. 5 — the date after which any state is free to schedule a vote.

Many Dems have wanted to include more states, with more ethnic and geographic diversity, for years. These proposed changes would probably invite a western state to caucus before the New Hampshire primary, and possibly a southern state immediately before or after it.

New Hampshire, however, may have a curveball or two in mind. New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has said if another state holds a contest between the Iowa and New Hampshire events, the Granite State will simply move its primary date up in order to remain first. And if it does, the state may set up a showdown with the DNC, which could refuse to seat New Hampshire delegates at the 2008 national convention.

What’s more, New Hampshire leaders may have some subtle threats in mind for the presidential candidates themselves: If you compete in the other state’s caucus, you’ll lose support/endorsements here. And no one wants to lose New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has enjoyed its exalted status for a very long time. It’s not going to give it up without a fight. Stay tuned.

Howard Dean (and millions of Democrats) to New Hampshire: DROP DEAD!

  • I have no particular vested interest in NH’s status as first, but am I the only one who absolutely hates the rush to further frontload the process?

    It seems to me that what might have been a golden opportunity to really take a new look at the entire process and maybe shake it up to the advantage of the entire democratic party has turned into a big playground fistfight. Not good for anyone.

  • I have to agree with Diane about not frontloading the process. We need to restrict only very small states (population and delegate count wise) to go first, then let the delegate count build up over time.

    Still, the process is very unfair to California, which after all is a very large state with a huge population. Of course, they do need to be a little less flakey if they want to have a bigger impact on the presidential nomination 😉

  • By not frontloading, though, it keeps the Democratic infighting going on longer, leaving Republicans little work to do other than quote other Democrats about the shortcomings of their candidates.

    The sooner it’s over, the sooner people can rally behind one candidate.

    The current process is more than unfair to California, but to all of the states where the national candidates are foregone conclusions. Talk about votes not mattering. This is one place to start getting poeple excited about voting. If they see that their vote is irrelevant in the Primary, what’s to motivate them to vote in November?

  • Having been in Iowa in 1980, I think it would be a great idea to have a way to let other states be first.

    I think the DNC and RNC should hold a lottery where they pick a single state to be the first cacus and another state to hold the first primary. All states that wanted to be first could enter and the states would be picked at random. You could have the lottery a few years in advance so that everyone would know that Montana (or whatever state won) will be first in 2012.

    Why should the people of Iowa and New Hampshire have more power than the other 48 states combined in picking a nominee?

    If I were the DNC, I would refuse to sit the New Hampshire and Iowa delegates if they violated the rules.

  • I agree that additional frontlaoding is dilutive, but can see the benefit of being more inclusive racially – Iowa and NH do not capture the diversity of the Demographic Party tends to lean on in the twelveth hour to swing a victory in tight presidential campaigns. Maybe a better understanding of how warm potential voters are to the candidates can facilitate a better targeted stratedgy for the ultimate goal winning the White House.

    Over the last two elections Iowa and NH have only provided good showings.

    • Comments are closed.