A weekend that will help shape the ’08 race

July 21, 2006

This has been bubbling just below the surface for a while — or above, if you live in certain states — but the [tag]Democratic[/tag] [tag]presidential[/tag] [tag]primary[/tag] [tag]calendar[/tag] for [tag]2008[/tag] is about to get a major shake-up. How [tag]New Hampshire[/tag] responds to said shake-up might lead to very awkward intra-party fights.

Tomorrow, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to choose among South Carolina, Alabama, Nevada, and Arizona for a January [tag]primary[/tag] or caucus in 2008. As it’s likely to play out, either Nevada or Arizona will go between Iowa and New Hampshire, while Alabama or South Carolina will go immediately after New Hampshire.

Any of the choices would improve the [tag]diversity[/tag] among primary voters, which is a principal Democratic goal.

Iowa’s white population is 95 percent, New Hampshire’s is 96.2 percent, according to the latest Census numbers.

“I was surprised by how deeply Hispanics and blacks feel they are not part of the process,” said Harold Ickes, a veteran Democratic activist and member of the rules committee. “I think it’s a done deal.”

Hispanics comprise more than 20 percent of the population in Nevada and Arizona. In Alabama and South Carolina, blacks make up nearly 30 percent, based on the latest Census numbers.

Needless to say, New Hampshire is really unhappy about the change. Considering how far they’re willing to go to preserve the existing calendar, this can, and almost certainly will, get ugly.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch told members of a national Democrats panel that his state will “act decisively to uphold our law and defend our primary tradition.” He issued his warning in a letter to the panel on Thursday, some 48 hours before the Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws panel meets.

“Placing another state’s caucus or primary between Iowa and New Hampshire, or placing another state within a week following New Hampshire, could put New Hampshire and the DNC on a collision course, resulting in chaos for the nominating process,” Lynch wrote.

Why “chaos”? Because New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, in accordance with state law, 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 [tag]first[/tag].

The DNC, of course, will forbid New Hampshire from doing so, but given what state officials are saying right now, that may not matter. And if this goes down the seemingly inevitable road, New Hampshire may set up a showdown with the DNC, which could refuse to seat New Hampshire delegates at the 2008 national convention.

All the while, state party leaders have some subtle threats in mind for the presidential candidates themselves: if there’s a state between Iowa and New Hampshire, and you try to compete in it, you’ll lose support/endorsements in the Granite State. And no one wants to lose New Hampshire.

It’s likely to get pretty tense. Stay tuned.

Somebody needs to slap New Hampshire down, hard.

Might I point out, New Hampshire voted for McCain in 2000. Clearly, their endorsement does not lead to a nomination.

  • Of course, New Hampsire does have a point. Since the Democrats control the Senate, House, and the Presidency, why change anything?

    😐

  • The Hamps in their Shire are up in arms at your misspelling doubtful.

    I, on the other hand, am quite amused at comment #2.

  • And no one wants to lose New Hampshire.

    Only because of its prominant position as the first primary. Which then drives fundraising and media “buzz”. If that distinction is diluted (I believe the new state primary technically would be a caucus), then the importance of winning New Hampshire is likewise diluted.

  • “And no one wants to lose New Hampshire.”

    Do we want to look at the statistics on that?

    “Fact is, that from 1952 through 2000, the winner of the New Hampshire primary failed to win the final presidential nomination 9 times.” – ‘New Hampshire Primary Mainly About Publicity’ – Robert Longley

  • As someone who doesn’t live in New Hampshire, I do feel very much disenfranchised from the fact that the primary is always decided well before the time my state holds its primary. By that point, the contest has already been decided and our vote is simply going through the motions to confirm what the party has already decided on. Why is this? Why must the primary be held this way? Maybe this worked well when the country was founded when news and information didn’t travel as fast, and states mattered more than the nation as a whole, but we are a much smaller country now. Shouldn’t everyone have equal say? Shouldn’t my vote matter just as much as some New Hampshire Democrat’s?

  • NH progressives proving they are the party of the people. . . at least, the white New England people. . .

  • Re: comment #2, Indeed! Somebody should make our friends in NH read the memo that there may be one or two itty bitty items on the national agenda that might just a tiny bit more significant than salving their stately ego.

    Hopefully when they see that their local tourist industry won’t be negatively impacted by the change they’ll calm down a bit.

  • Some of us are still lobbying for DC as a good early Democratic primary choice to balance the very white, very rural states that currently lead (while maintaining the “retail politics” possibilities, for those who care about that). DC is, after all, more Democratic than any state.

    And of course we’d like to use the increased publicity to draw attention to DC’s lack of voting representation in Congress as well.

  • Sigh. I live in NH, and I wish the party leaders would cut this sh*t out. It’s embarrassing.

  • Is anyone aware of an argument–any argument at all–for why NH, as opposed to some other state, should have the first-in-the-nation status? Because I’m sure not.

  • “Is anyone aware of an argument–any argument at all–for why NH, as opposed to some other state, should have the first-in-the-nation status? Because I’m sure not.” – SCott E.

    For the candidate? Experience in the kind of retail politics needed to get the support of party activists to carry you through the nomination to win the election.

    For America? Supposedly, a close examination and vetting of candidates by policitically active and astute party activists. How they let Boy George II through, I can’t explain.

  • Rian Mueller echos the way I have felt about the primaries for decades.

    Why should we have any staggered primaries? Why should the voters in one state have the opportunity to in effect decide the choices available to voters in another state? As it stands now voters in Iowa and New Hampshire can knock half the candidates off the ballot before the next set of states have their primaries.

    -New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner is watching closely to determine whether the Democrats’ actions comply with state law requiring that the primary be scheduled a week or more before any “similar election.”-

    HUH. Why does New Hampshire have this right to basically effect the scheduling of any other states elections? Are voters in Iowa or New Hampshire smarter than voters elsewhere? I have heard that voters in New Hampshire “like the personal retail feeling to their primaries”. Well I would love that as well in my state but by the time it gets here there are no primaries, just the anointing of who ever earlier states chose. Likewise the idea “Iowa and New Hampshire take their roles as first in the country seriously.” As you can tell many of us would take it just as seriously if we had the same choice to make. As far as the idea that it was necessary at one time because it took so long to get from place to place, please remember that most of todays primary system has only been in place since WW2 as a way to limit the power of the old “smoke filled room” crowd.

    Perhaps each state should have such a law requiring it to be first. That would play all sorts of games with the Supreme Court.

  • Rian, So why doesn’t your state hold its primary first? If every state held its primary first, we could cut out all the complaining.

    Just what we need, yet another early caucus…because they’re so straightforward and representative of what voters think.

    The main problem with the primary system obviously is not which state goes first (one has to), or whether it represents other states than itself (no state does). The problem that really matters is that the big money buys the nomination in almost every case, whether it’s early money or late money.

    Glad to see Democrats turning their backs on the essential problem, in order to pick at some small issue until it bleeds.

  • The main problem with the primary system obviously is not which state goes first (one has to)…

    Why does one have to? First, it’s possible to have multiple primaries, or even all primaries, on the same day. Second, even if primaries are to be held on separate days, there’s no reason the same state needs to be first every election year.

  • Lance,

    Right, those two reasons are supposed to be reasons for why *NH* specifically should have the first primary. But notice they’re nothing of the sort. At best, the retail politics concern is a reason for why *some* state with lots of small-town, Main Street, USAs should be first. And the second reason, the vetting thing, well, that’s just a reason for why there should be a state that goes first at all.

    In neither case are these reasons for why NH should be first, as opposed to some small-to-medium-sized state that better reflects the spectrum of voters the Dems are courting.

  • SCott E., if you don’t accept that Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s experience in doing this for years qualifies them for being first, then you don’t buy any on it.

    And neither do I 😉

    But you asked for the reasons, and those are the ones I’ve heard.

    I think the order should be small states followed by medium states followed by large states that can still swing the nomination. No state so be so late in the process that it is likely to mean nothing in the end. And I think that states that voted Democratic in the General Election should get a boost ahead of those that voted for the Republicant’s.

    “Glad to see Democrats turning their backs on the essential problem, in order to pick at some small issue until it bleeds. – smintheus

    If you believe that the current primary process is giving America BAD Democratic candidates, then I’d say it’s a pretty important issue.

  • Well, there are two major parties, and I know the GOP has a certain amount of influence up there. Are they lobbying for either arrangement?

    I’m from California, and for a long time we had a June primary, so I understand the frustration when everything has been virtually decided by the time you get to the polls. Even so, I doubt that this is a really BIG issue for very many people. Every state has had problems getting racial and ethnic minorities to the polls, and it’s pretty far-fetched to say that they’re sitting on their hands because of the early — and often irrelevant — NH primary. This seems like a trivial issue over which to risk a family fight at a time when party unity could be crucial to the outcome.

  • Maybe they should just schedule 2 or 3 other primaries on the same date as New Hampshire…if they move, the DNC moves the other primaries. I can understand the Hampshire-ites wants to hang on to their tradition, but it is in no way reflective of the realities of politics today. It’s time to let go people.

  • As an Iowan, this starts hitting kind of close to home, so let me defend against Rian and others who have suggested, essentially, a unified national primary. Two words: Carter. Clinton. The only two Democrats elected President since I’ve been old enough to vote almost surely would have lost a national primary. Both were underestimated at first but were able to build momentum through lower-cost, retail-heavy politics in well-educated, very politically active states.

    Now, having said that, I think Iowa and NH probably have to learn to play better with others. I once drew up a plan with a seies of contests on the first Tues of every month Feb-June. The first set were 4 small states (including Iowa and NH) but also one in the South and one in the West. Each group was diverse, and each month the total number of states/delegates grew larger so no one could lock until at least May. Seemed more fair.

    But I actually liked the plan (which I think CB linked to some time ago) from David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register. It was essentially the opposite of the “Let DC go first, its most Democratic” approach. Instead, Yepsen proposed that both parties set the order of the presidential nominating contests to start with the closest state in the last presidential election and work backwards. That makes a lot of sense: where your candidate most needs to be able to win is the closest states, not the bluest (or reddest). So let those states be the initial test. His idea was not fully formed, however, and did not address spacing of contests. Still, I thought it had potential.

    Bottom line: count me among those who likes starting with a limited number of smaller states and opposes a national primary.

  • I think the system we now have is not good for the people because of the lack of diversity. Would the Dems have really gone for Kerry if more of us would have had our say? After all, even in ’04, many of us were anti-war. If a real anti war candidate, such as Clark or Dean had the backing of the party, we might be in a much different situation now. By the time NH voted it was pretty much over. People bought the “Dean Scream” the press posited as proof Dean was crazy. No one in the so called Democratic leadership even helped him answer the charges. As a California voter, my opinion was unimportant. In some ways, the fix was in and we were stuck with Kerry.

  • I don’t know where in California you are from Jim. But I know in the Northern California political circles I ran in (before moving, ill advisedly, to DC) that having a June primary was very much a big deal.

    The editorials and the letters to the editor and the word on the street was always: “We are 10% of the U.S. population and 7th largest economy in the world (etc.) and we basically have no roll in choosing the presidential candidates to run the nation.” Actually, I believe that cry was from both sides of the aisle.

    Having tiny states that are predominately White and demand a different kind of politics than the will win in a National election set the course for the remainder of the election season seems pretty silly.

  • The staggered primaries I believe serve two purposes:

    1. They allow the participation of candidates who are not heavily funded ahead of time. The Senate right now is a millionaires club. With the Bush family and the Clinton family (and the Kennedys), we’re seeing a lot of ruling dynasties. It’s good to have a forum where people like Kucinich and Sharpton can express views that may not make them electable, but at least get expressed every four years in a national dialogue.

    2. That national dialogue occurs, in part, because of the staggered primaries. Just as the Triple Crown ratchets up excitement about horse racing, a long primary season is more likely to engage people in politics and lead to their familiarizing themselves with the candidates, than would occur if we all voted on the same day.

    • Comments are closed.